Big Blue Wave's Comments
Why are you so obsessed with what goes on in the US? And why do you think this has any relevance to Canada?
George Tiller kills Canadian unborn children, for one thing. His clinic is one major destination for Canadians who want late-term abortions.
I speak about abortion in the context of many countries to expose the philosophy that underpins it. Feminist abortion activists think it's perfectly okay for the state to sanction the killing of baby the day before it is born. And it's not a theoretical objection, such late-term abortions actually do happen.
Just to put your wildly out of context quote back into context, let me quote from my op-ed rebuttal to your March 10 National Post piece. The Post said they'd print it, but I guess that means in their own sweet time, since it's been 10 days since I submitted it.
"Fortin pulled a couple of phrases from an unrelated essay I once wrote about women and fetuses, but she ignored the context. Other quotes from the same essay contradict Fortin’s thesis that I discount the importance of a fetus to a pregnant woman: “She has full authority and rights to consider her own personal fetus to be the most important and valuable thing in the world." and “A pregnant woman wants a good outcome for her baby far more than anybody else, so all we have to do is give her the means to make it happen.” That essay argued that it’s up to the pregnant woman to decide how she views her fetus, and that it’s society’s job to support her decision – whether that means providing access to legal safe abortion, or helping ensure a healthy pregnancy and baby.
It’s not the place of the law to decide the legal status or worth of the fetus, because that interferes with women’s privacy and freedom of conscience – and ultimately their right to life and bodily security. We need to protect pregnant women first – because when a pregnant woman is safe, so is her fetus."
I will quote again from your essay:
First, let me emphasize that the crucial exception to both of these reasons is the pregnant woman. She has full authority and rights to consider her own personal fetus to be the most important and valuable thing in the world. Or not. She can judge it however she likes, and then decide whether it should live or die. It's her call and hers alone. Of course, if she's happily pregnant and wants to share her joy, it's incumbent on her friends and family to celebrate her fetus, too. But that's about it. If you think that a particular fetus deserves to be born regardless of the pregnant woman's view, then your opinion is based on irrational and insupportable reasons.
http://choice-joyce.blogspot.com...-defeat-
us.html
In your words, if a person thinks that a fetus deserves to be born the day before term then his opinions are based on irrational and insupportable reasons.
How important do you consider fetuses to be if you think they should be aborted the day before delivery if the woman so chooses? I do think "fetuses are not that important" and "fetuses are none of our business" sums up nicely your attitude about the fetus. You make the "exception", but this "exception" only proves that I'm right: you only care about the fetus insofar as the woman cares about him, if at all. If the woman doesn't care and decides to abort a fetus in the third trimester for any or no reason at all, it's all the same to you.
Someone who shows that callous a disregard for the unborn is not going to care that a woman suffers the unjustice of losing her fetus. Why should you? You think it's only a subjective, individual opinion anyway.
And let me add: as a woman who is carrying a fetus, if you do not support my right to prosecute someone who kills my fetus without my permission (not that I would consent to that) then I wonder how really supportive you are of my view. I may be the only fetal advocate necessary, but I am completely unable to execute justice if someone should come along and kill my unborn child.
"In your words, if a person thinks that a fetus deserves to be born the day before term then his opinions are based on irrational and insupportable reasons."
That's pretty funny Suzanne. Of course you know I never said any such thing. You seem to have no clue WHAT I was saying, really. (I guess this ultimately comes back to the depressing truth I discovered years ago that anti-choice people are generally incapable of even understanding the pro-choice position, let alone refuting it.)
From my perspective, your bizarre and inexplicable focus on abortions the "day before term" appears to be some sort of macabre fantasy you enjoy having. I suppose it won't make any difference to tell you such abortions don't happen, since you want so desperately to believe otherwise. Anyway, this amusing red herring has absolutely nothing to do with my essay, it's just your own schizoid take on it. Interesting window into your mind though...
The point of my essay, which I shouldn't have to repeat, is that MY opinion about fetuses (which is not even shared in the article btw), is totally irrelevant. It's only the pregnant woman's opinion that counts. However, when you say that a person who attacks you and causes a miscarriage should be punished with a murder conviction (basically), you are imposing YOUR personal valuation of YOUR fetus onto society at large. Not that your wish wouldn't be totally understandable, but as I've said elsewhere, personal grief and vengeance must not drive law.
Of course, you are far from "completely unable" to execute justice as things stand now. Society already recognizes the value of fetuses to pregnant women, because prosecutors and courts can provide for harsher charges and penalties in such attacks on a case-by-case basis. Or if you prefer, you can fight for a law that specifically mandates harsher penalties for attacks on pregnant women. Those solutions respect the woman's own recognition of her fetus as valuable, while not imposing a law on society at large that separately gives all fetuses their own specific value. That just bypasses women totally - a nonsensical approach because of the unity of pregnant woman and fetus - and it compromises women's rights, because it's literally and absolutely impossible for both a woman and her fetus to enjoy rights separately from each other.
Suzanne, I think I see the problem you're having with my essay. Maybe you even almost get what I'm trying to say, although you're still misconstruing things. It's not ME who thinks that fetuses are "not that important" or "none of our business" - my point is that SOCIETY needs to adopt this general attitude, in order to respect the rights of pregnant women and best ensure the welfare of them and their fetuses. (In fact, our society already largely treats fetuses as "not that important" - I mean, isn't that exacly what the anti-choice movement is always complaining about?)
I think the problem you're having, is with my argument that the value of the fetus is subjective. This reminds me of an argument I once had with an anti-choice lawyer, who used lots of big academic words to sound weighty and erudite, but his "refutation" of my position amounted to triumphantly concluding that I was saying a fetus' value is subjective (gasp!!) As if subjectivity in itself was a major sin and logical error that instantly proved me wrong. He made no attempt to explain WHY adopting a subjective stance is inherently wrong.
Well, it's not wrong in this case, it's necessary. It's the only way to preserve women's rights and protect pregnant women and fetuses. Personal feelings about what a fetus is, and its moral value, must be relegated to the private realm, not the public one. You and others think that fetuses are human beings deserving of protection at any stage of development, but other people feel differently, and you have no right to impose your personal view on others by law. The opinion of a pregnant woman trumps all - but only in relation to her own personal fetus of course, no-one else's. If a pregnant woman considers her fetus to be a full human person and precious baby, then that's what it is. If another pregnant woman considers her fetus to be a loathsome parasite or a meaningless piece of tissue, then that's what it is. It's totally her call, and we should accept and respect her view and her decision to abort or carry to term. Of course, not even a pregnant woman needs to decide "what is the unborn" or assign any value to her fetus if she doesn't want to think about it. She can just have an abortion for whatever reason. Or she can consider her fetus to be a valuable human being with rights, but still make the responsible decision to abort it because she can't take care of it.
In other words, the core issue is not what the fetus "is" or what its value is - not even for pregnant women themselves ultimately. That's because women still need and have abortions, and their reasons are rarely political (e.g., not because "it's my right to choose"). The primary reason women have abortions is to enable them to be good mothers to their existing or future children. So most women who have abortions DO acknowledge the humanity of their fetus in some personal way, and understand the value it represents - their potential child.
I suppose it won't make any difference to tell you such abortions don't happen
Very late-term abortions do happen in Canada. I have a report from the Quebec College of Physicians showing that in 1998 there were two abortions at 36 weeks.
http://www.cmq.org/
DocumentLibra...apportcemmp.pdf
In 1999 there was an abortion at 35 weeks at the Calgary Foothills Hospital.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/...may/
990504.html
George Tiller says so himself in the video that he aborted the day before delivery.
But as you may know, these are not called "abortions".
The point of my essay, which I shouldn't have to repeat, is that MY opinion about fetuses (which is not even shared in the article btw), is totally irrelevant.
Joyce, when you say that "Fetuses are not that important" and "fetuses are none of our business", you are stating your opinion of fetuses. Whether you consider fetuses potential lives or full-fledged members of our species is not the point, as far as I'm concenred. Whatever your opinion is, you your opinion of fetuses is: "Fetuses are not that important" and "fetuses are none of our business". That's all I need to know. If you have a personal opinion of a thing, but in essence say "those things are not that important" and "those things are none of anyone's business", that's not having a very high opinion of that thing.
However, when you say that a person who attacks you and causes a miscarriage should be punished with a murder conviction (basically), you are imposing YOUR personal valuation of YOUR fetus onto society at large.
Actually, no. I am simply saying it's hers. As I said in my op-ed, whether the woman considers the fetus a potential life or a full-fledged member of the family, the fetus is hers and no one should be allowed to take away that fetus. I possess many things. The state does not need to know my personal opinion of my things to judge that taking them without my opinion is wrong. The state makes no value judgment about those things. It simply says: do not take them. It's the same with the fetus: you can think of the fetus whatever you like. But if someone else kills that fetus, there should be justice executed.
Society already recognizes the value of fetuses to pregnant women, because prosecutors and courts can provide for harsher charges and penalties in such attacks on a case-by-case basis.
No, they do not recognize the value of fetuses. The fetus is not considered something that the woman is in possession of. That is the problem. The fetus is considered a part of the woman-- as if an injury to the fetus is the same as an injury to the woman.
And that is the problem. That is what makes people mad about the lack of two criminal counts for killing a pregnant woman.
It should not be considered the same as an injury to the woman.
Or if you prefer, you can fight for a law
Sorry...answer got cut off...I have to repost the second part here...
Or if you prefer, you can fight for a law that specifically mandates harsher penalties for attacks on pregnant women. Those solutions respect the woman's own recognition of her fetus as valuable, while not imposing a law on society at large that separately gives all fetuses their own specific value.
So long as the fetus is not considered separate from the woman, there will be no justice. That is the dividing line in this issue. You want to perpetuate the legal fiction that the woman and the fetus are one, when the rest of society does not behave that way. You want women to address violence against the woman-- a worthy goal, but-- you do not want to address the injustice of losing a fetus.. As long as you do not understand that losing a fetus is in, and of itself, an injustice, regardless of the value placed on the fetus, you do not understand the issue and you will not address the injustice. Addressing the loss of a fetus is not bypassing the woman. It is addressing the woman. It is saying: you woman, have a fetus. Someone killed or injured that fetus against your will. You should have justice for what was taken from you.
If it's not counted as a crime separate from her own injury, the aggravating factor counts insofar as it deals with her injury-- NOT as the violation of a right to her unborn child.
because it's literally and absolutely impossible for both a woman and her fetus to enjoy rights separately from each other.
A woman has a right to her fetus. That is a right you do not want to recognize or enforce.
"Very late-term abortions do happen in Canada."
Sorry, I should have clarified of course that I was speaking of "elective" abortions, which never happen late in pregnancy. The very rare cases you mention will have involved serious fetal deformities incompatible with life. Since 98% of abortions happen in Canada by 16 weeks of pregnancy, and 99.7% by 20 weeks, the issue of late-term abortion is a non-issue, as is the non-issue of supposedly needing late-term abortion restrictions, since obviously both women and doctors behave responsibly without the need for any regulation. By the way, since third trimester abortions occur only in very desparate and compelling circumstances, any late-term abortion restriction would have to allow them anyway, so such a law would be completely useless, except as a political platform to enact more abortion restrictions. We see this in the UK, with repeated anti-abortion attempts to lower the gestational limit from 24 to 20 weeks, even though those same attempts have led to research and evidence to conclude that abortions after 24 weeks are rare and undertaken only for sound reasons, that fetuses cannot feel pain until about 27 or 28 weeks, and that the survival rate for fetuses born under 24 weeks is still very low and will never appreciably improve. Those findings don't even relate to the larger issue at stake - that it's a fundamental violation of women's rights to restrict abortion, just like it would be a violation of their rights to restrict childbirth.
"So long as the fetus is not considered separate from the woman, there will be no justice."
But that is exactly the problem. As soon as you separate a fetus from the woman, you create INJUSTICE. Because two beings occupying the same body cannot enjoy competing rights. All rights have to accrue to one or the other, and Canadian courts have rightly decided that only pregnant women can have rights. You can of course give fetuses rights, but that involves removing women's rights to an equal degree. I.e., if fetal rights and women's rights were "balanced," then each party would enjoy only half the rights that other people have. But since women already have established constitutional rights and full legal personhood, judges can't just arbitrarily take that away by recognizing fetal rights. Here's what can (and logically must) happen if fetuses are deeemed human beings with the right to life - Miscarriages must be treated as potential homicides, with miscarrying women interrogated and held at hospitals by police. Women must be regulated and controlled during pregnancy, ideally confined and supervised for 9 months to ensure they engage in no behaviours that might be harmful to the fetus. All women of child-bearing age must submit to monthly pregnancy tests. Women suspected of harming or aborting their fetus (e.g., by taking drugs or alcohol, smoking, falling down stairs, etc.) must be arrested and tried for assault or homicide/manslaughter, and
[my post got cut off at the end, continues here...]
...and if convicted, sentenced accordingly. In other words, pregnant women must be criminalized for behaviours that are NOT criminalized for any other person with rights, creating a separate and downgraded class of personhood for pregnant women (and maybe all women of child-bearing age - i.e., "pre-pregnant" women).
"A woman has a right to her fetus. That is a right you do not want to recognize or enforce." I've repeatedly recognized a woman's right to her fetus. She can do whatever she wants with it, it's hers. If it's destroyed against her will, it's an assault on her - an assault on her right to her fetus. The courts already recognize and enforce that through harsher penalties, and we can mandate them to do that if you like. But that's all that's needed, anything more, like recognizing the fetus as a separate person, goes too far because it gets into the problems described above. Those aren't just hypotheticals btw, some of those things have happened in countries like Romania, Tibet, Chile, and even the U.S., where a Utah woman was arrested for murder a couple years ago for disobeying a doctor's recommendation to have a caesarian section instead of a natural birth, and she suffered a stillbirth. These are the sorts of things that happen when you separate a woman from her fetus legally.
"Sorry, I should have clarified of course that I was speaking of "elective" abortions, which never happen late in pregnancy." I believe Margaret Somerville would tend to disagree with that statement. After all, she disagreed with Mme. LaRue when she attempted to make the same assertion. "Never" is a big word.
http://www.tvo.org/cfmx/tvoorg/
t...older=theagenda
Oh yeah, I remember that. Many months ago in a column, Somerville spun an anecdotal yarn about a couple women who had allegedly approached doctors about doing a very late-term abortion on an apparent casual whim. Just a few months later, Somerville had somehow morphed her tall tale into how the women HAD gotten late-term abortions on a whim. What utter and total BS!!
I challenge you to find me a single such case anywhere in Canada at any time, where a woman managed to get a "casual" abortion in the 3rd trimester. Because the crucial piece that's missing from Somerville's claim, is that even if a few women do request such abortions on very rare occasions (that's essentially an urban myth, though), no doctor would do them! Doctors need a supportive team and entire infrastructure behind them to do late-term abortions, and that would be lacking except under the most compelling circumstances.
Although there's no abortion law in Canada, doctors do adhere to the CMA recommendation of no abortions on request after 20 weeks. Even then, so-called "elective" abortions after 16 weeks are rare and generally done because of desperate circumstances in the woman's life.
Commenting by HaloScan
