![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
To whoever reformated the other section that i had put in (and others worked on) it looks great the way you bulleted it. I hadn't thought of doing it that way.Thanks makes it look much more professional....did i forget to mention the main suspect had been charged with killing the doctor killed in the US and it was taken out for reason or did i miss that fact...curious as ever...-- Marcie 12:42, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Well to whoever it was that asked the question, if you put a read through the talk page you will get an idea of the fact that it can be changed but it is very unlikely that it will.
When the law on abortion was thrown out by the Supreme Court of Canada they made it clear that it could be possible to write a law on abortion (and i think they made clear some things that couldn't be included). Then Justice Minister (later Prime Minister) Kim Campbell put forward a new law on abortion (which was really bad even as they go, she tried to get it the most restrictive possible i think). It passed in the House of Commons but it lost in the Senate by a tie vote. Legally a government could write a law on abortion and have it passed. Politically it would be suicide (even the same government didn't go for a second try after they saw what opinion was on the first new try).
I would say that a women's right to choose freely came somewhat later in Canada but that it is more complete and secure than in the US. There are currently discussion going on about what type of testing is ethical in making a choice for an abortion and should be allowed or made illegal (there was a Royal Commission on the topic of New Reproductive technologies, information ethics and that...i can find you the link if you want...i read it for university and it was interesting). Its clear gender is not considered OK, although its one that can be hard to enforce. Those would be the only sorts of laws that i think would be able to pass in Canada.
Finally the ruling was on a different basis than in the US and was based more on women's rights than on privacy (although it included privacy, but it was the right or women to have medical privacy....but it was only part). Even a total shakeup of the Supreme Court wouldn't allow a large change, such as may happen in the US...although from a case in the late 90's with planned parenthood in the US i understand the right of the women to choose was strengthened over the Roe decisions.
I know i'm likely wasting my time here folks...i thought i'd put something in, in case the person cared and would come back...maybe they are new and don't know about the talk page...the change didn't look much like the usual vandilism we have (for example it was a question of could this change which isn't rude or extreemly opiononated in my view) -- Marcie 18:25, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The article seems to be fairly NPOV to me. It outlines the status of abortion in Canada, the legal history, and accessibility, and notes the political controversies. Would anybody object if we removed the POV check notice? --[[User:Tony Sidaway| Tony Sidaway| Talk]] 05:03, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Duh! Now I look more closely the article already had a NPOV tag, but it was at the bottom. I moved it to the top where it should be and removed the POV check for now as superfluous. Does anybody still think we need either tag? --[[User:Tony Sidaway|
Tony Sidaway|
Talk]] 06:05, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Go ahead. --[[User:Tony Sidaway| Tony Sidaway| Talk]] 10:16, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Responses by [[User:Tony Sidaway| Tony Sidaway| Talk]] 00:24, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC) in italics. I apologise that I have to make my comments in instalments because my laptop is prone to cutting out without warning. Broadly I agree that there is much too much interpretation in the current wording, and my comments below are attempts to tease out the factual basis behind some of the POV so that we might perhaps decide what should go into the article. --[[User:Tony Sidaway| Tony Sidaway| Talk]] 00:40, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I think the holocaust survivor's status may possibly be relevant but only if this was raised at the time and was used to rally support for him. If it's true, we should say that people thought some people though it was a bit much for a government to such extraordinary steps in view of his status as a holocaust survivor. If not, I agree that it shouldn't be mentioned.
It doesn't say men, true. It says on the law in question: "The purpose of the section is to take the decision away from the woman and give it to a committee" (page 172). Probably some women would be on the committee, possibly all would be women, but obviously she isn't permitted to make her own decisions. I suggest that the word "men" should be replaced by "committees". --[[User:Tony Sidaway| Tony Sidaway| Talk]] 00:24, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The ruling comments at page 34: "The argument that women facing difficulties in obtaining abortions at home can simply travel elsewhere would not be especially troubling if those difficulties were not in large measure created by the procedural requirements of s. 251. The evidence established convincingly that it is the law itself which in many ways prevents access to local therapeutic abortion facilities." The cancer patient's travel requirement was generated not by the law but by scarcity of local facilities--an administrative matter, not a legal one. The wording of the section here is very poor I think and should be tightened up (including actual quotes) but the point was made in the ruling.
I could be misreading the document, but it appears that the quote is from the majority opinion. It is appropriate to represent this as the ruling of the court. --[[User:Tony Sidaway| Tony Sidaway| Talk]] 00:31, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I agree that it sounds a bit vague. On this subject, or a relating subject, the ruling actually says: "The following statutory requirements contribute to the manifest unfairness of the administrative structure imposed by the Criminal Code: (1) the requirement that all therapeutic abortions must take place in an "accredited" or "approved" hospital as defined in s. 251(6); (2) the requirement that the committee come from the accredited or approved hospital in which the abortion is to be performed; (3) the provision that allows hospital boards to increase the number of members of a committee; (4) the requirement that all physicians who practise lawful therapeutic abortions be excluded from the committees." So it wasn't so much that pro-lifers actively tried to infiltrate the TACs (even if they did) as that the law required the TACs to be skewed against pro-abortion physicians, and permits the hospital board to manipulate TAC membership. --[[User:Tony Sidaway| Tony Sidaway| Talk]] 00:38, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
In Canadian law, the government is obliged to make it easy for a woman to have an abortion, at least in the sense of not putting unreasonable legislative barrier in her way. Where the legislative barrier means the woman has to travel a long way and spend a lot of money, such legislative barrier is unreasonable because this permits legislation to constrain her rights under the constitution. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|
Tony Sidaway|
Talk]] 01:37, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I think you may be applying US standards here. I think that the law in Canada probably does require freely available abortion. This is certainly the case in the UK. The idea that a right shouldn't be actively defended by a government seems to apply in the United States but not always elsewhere. --[[User:Tony Sidaway| Tony Sidaway| Talk]] 01:40, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
To summaries, I agree that the sections in question were too loose in their presentation of the ruling. However, it isn't enough to just lop it off. A lot of what was said is radically different from what a court of another country would have said, and I agree with Marcie that we should collaborate to rewrite rather than just throw away what is there. --[[User:Tony Sidaway| Tony Sidaway| Talk]] 01:42, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It's very hard replying to your comments because they are seperated. Re: holocaust survivor, I still don't believe it belongs here. I'm really sorry for the guy, but he was probably making a lot of money performing abortions, especially when it was illegal. To then turn around and say his treatment is unfair because he's a holocaust survivor, even if it was actually quoted anywhere is really wrong. It makes it look as if the pro-lifers, at the time, were just a bunch of heartless animals.
The legislative barrier to getting an abortion was removed when the law was repealed. To highlight that today, abortions are difficult to obtain is unfair. It makes it look as if abortions are difficult to obtain because there is a behind the scenes effort to quelch it, which is not true at all. I still think the Obstacle to access section, especially regarding the maritimes should be seriously reworked. How is health care in that area in general?
Just because what was said is radically different does not mean it deserves special mention here. "Abortion in Canada" is supposed to describe abortion in Canada. It's not a platform. If you put too much emphasis on the fact that what was done here is so radically different compared to elsewhere, then it seems that you have ulterior motives beside just describing the situation. I even question why we have a politics section. No party has adopted a position on the matter. Does it really matter if the right has more pro-life and the left more pro-choice? I think that until a party adopts a position on the matter, or there is some kind of movement to change or make new law regarding abortion, this section should stick to the basics. -- jag123 04:19, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Okay, in more conventional style. No, I don;t want to make a big deal out of his being a holocaust denier, but if it was seen as a big deal at the time by many people (I don't know that it was) then that fact should be mentioned as a facet of the public response to the case. I understand that there were quite large demonstrations in his support (there may have been equally large or even larger demonstrations against him, granted).
"To turn around and say his treatment is unfair." Well that is precisely what a NPOV article cannot say. But if significant numbers of people at the time had opinions for or against this then we should note the fact that they did.
"The legislative barrier to getting an abortion was removed when the law was repealed. To highlight that today, abortions are difficult to obtain is unfair." It is my understanding from reading the text of the article that it's talking about the situation pertaining at the time the law was thrown out by the Supreme Court of Canada.
You don't think we should have a politics section in the article? I say that if abortion is not a political issue in Canada we should have a politics section that says that all parties are agreed that the law as it stands should not be changed.
I certainly don't want this article to be a "platform", but the legal situation in Canada is radically different. In Canada more than in the USA, a woman's body is her property, with respect to abortion. That is what the ruling meant. That is what the article must say if it is to reflect the situation in Canada correctly.
The situation in the USA is very different, but that is a different country. US concepts must not be permitted to influence the situation in Canada. --[[User:Tony Sidaway| Tony Sidaway| Talk]] 04:40, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
He was a holocaust survivor, not denier :) My problem with that is it's entirely possible that he had lots of support from the population, and that someone mentionned that he was a holocaust survivor. However, most people probably supported him because they believed what he was doing shouldn't be illegal. If someone throws in the holocaust survivor part, his support won't change but it doesn't mean that's it because of that. I'm sure the medias played on this a lot, but that doesn't really change the public's view or their support. Unless it can be clearly shown that the fact he was a holocaust survivor rallied much more support, then please leave it out. I agree with you on the politics section. I didn't mean to say there shouldn't be one, I just think what's in it now is not relevant. You can say that abortion in Canada is not considered an important issue in the Canadian population, that most of Canada favors abortion being legal, and that no party adopts any position on the matter.
"In Canada more than in the USA, a woman's body is her property" I agree 100% with you on that, but that's exactly why the article doesn't need to point that out. When I read the Morgentaler decision, I got the impression that the court avoided discussing many controversial issues, which in my opinion, was wise because it limits the amount of "things" that someone could argue later. That's why they made such a big deal about the access. Not because it was a big social concern, but because that was probably the easiest way to throw the law out. Even when it came to security of the persons right. It was something along the lines of, Is this woman being forced to do something against her will? Yes. Then that's unconstitutional. Case closed. They didn't have to really consider whether a fetus has a right to life or anything of that sort. So to turn around now and assume that because the law was repealed, then that must mean that a fetus has no right to life, or that the access was a tremendous social concern and injustice is totally wrong. It was just the easiest way to junk the law. That's why I have a problem with the article, because it makes a bunch of assumptions based on the decision, which I find to be purely on technical grounds, not moral or ethical. I also assume that most people who visit the page believe that a woman's body is her own property and that they don't have a problem with abortion. And since these weren't really the reason or factors in the decision, to mention them seems to cater mostly to the US pro-lifers, almost in a "hey, look at us, we're more liberal/morally superior than you" way. Prior to reading the decision, I didn't really have a problem with the article. Everything seemed to make sense. After reading the decision though, I noticed that the article takes a lot of liberties and that what was represented on the page was not necessarily what happened in the decision. That's why I can't honestly say it's neutral. --
jag123 05:34, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I think we're very close to agreeing, but I don't understand why, if it's true that a woman now enjoys substantial bodily autonomy in Canada, "that's exactly why the article doesn't need to point that out." Why omit something that is the most significant finding of the court?
"They didn't have to really consider whether a fetus has a right to life or anything of that sort. So to turn around now and assume that because the law was repealed, then that must mean that a fetus has no right to life, or that the access was a tremendous social concern and injustice is totally wrong." Well the ruling did say that access was an injustice, as I have shown. You seem to want to sweep that under the table, but it is precisely what the court said. Access was essential. Beetz, Estey, Dickson, Lamer and Wilson in the majority decision agreed that the woman's right to security of person was violated by the section. Wilson said that access to a safe medical procedure was a woman's right under the charter. Beetz (with Estey) too, though he was less of a "woman's right to choose" advocate. Dickson (with Lamer) focused solely on section 7, the "security of person" section of the Charter, stating "State interference with bodily integrity and serious state-imposed psychological stress, at least in the criminal law context, constitutes a breach of security of the person. Section 251 clearly interferes with a woman's physical and bodily integrity. Forcing a woman, by threat of criminal sanction, to carry a foetus to term unless she meets certain criteria unrelated to her own priorities and aspirations, is a profound interference with a woman's body and thus an infringement of security of the person," an interference which he found did not comport with the principles of fundamental justice. Thus timely access to a safe medical procedure featured prominently in the majority decision.
"McIntyre and La Forest dissented, deciding the the law did not violate the Charter.
You're right about the right to life of the fetus, I think. This was left to the legislature by the majority of the judges. --[[User:Tony Sidaway| Tony Sidaway| Talk]] 06:24, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Re: your first paragraph, I guess I lost my original point, because that does make sense. As for access, I agree that the courts found it unjust, but not because the access was limited, only because the law prevented access. This is going to be a sticky point with me because health care in general is not nationally accessible. This stems from a personal experience. However, what really bothers me is that such a big fuss is made about abortion not being accessible. Prior to the decision, was abortion access limited because of the economic feasibility of having a clinic in that area, lack of demand, etc or strictly because the law prevented it? Since we will never know, I think we should be careful in how we portray it. To the courts, it didn't matter at all if the feasibility/etc was the case, only that the law imposed a barrier. If there is still problems with access to abortion clinics today, then that paints a sorry picture for the national health care system in general, considering that an abortion is a relatively straightforward procedure. If there's no access to abortion clinics, then access to any kind of "complex" (for lack of a better word) health care is probably as equally limited. I should point out that I'm not disputing this as a fact. What troubles me is that someone who isn't aware of the state of our health care system gets the impression that *only* access to abortions is limited, like there is some kind of resistance to the idea in Canada or that people who want abortions are still being persecuted. That's really not the case. Make a point that this lack of access isn't exclusively reserved to abortions, or something like that and I'll be happy.
I just think it's important to keep in mind that the Morgentaler decision intentionally skirted many issues because it wasn't necessary to address them in order to repeal the law and that we shouldn't infer anything about those issues as being settled or decided by the court, even if it was mentionned. By the way, a lot of what you quoted above should be used in the article. -- jag123 07:33, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Okay, looks like our only differences are semantic. Yes, the court criticised the law for limiting access without a suitable justification. It wasn't saying that the state must move heaven and earth to procure an abortion for a woman--I hadn't realised that this was how you read the section. If you read the ruling, you'll see that the access problems referred to were identified specifically as those relating to the law and its operation, not to access problems stemming from any other cause. --[[User:Tony Sidaway| Tony Sidaway| Talk]] 07:07, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Maybe I should have stated that at the beginning (that it was all semantics). Apart from a few things (holocaust survivor, mostly men decided) I don't really have a problem with what's being said, just how it's being said. I don't want to sound pedantic or like a pain in the a--, it's just that I think those subtleties make the difference between something that's filled with undisputable facts and something that's tilted or could be open to debate. For instance, saying that "women in Canada enjoy great bodily autonomy.... following a 1988 decision..." (this is a fact) vs the court decided that a women's body is her own property (it could be argued that the court seemed more concerned about the fact that a woman was forced to do something, or that she wasn't given a choice in the matter. That it concerned pregnancy or carrying a fetus to term seemed incidental) I don't want to debate the finer points of the latter (it's really not the best example) but I figure if I feel that the distinction was made (or not made, depending how you look at the sentence) and I'm pro-choice, then anyone who's looking for trouble can easily make that argument. Since it would boil down to how everyone interprets the legal decision, there'd never be any consensus. In any case, hopefully we can all agree that the former is just as good. We can quote from the decision and just present it as is, without explicitly saying that so-and-so means such-and-such. That way, the paragraph contains just as much info but no one can say that our interpretation is dubious; we're just presenting a fact and quoting from the decision. -- jag123 09:59, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I just wanted to say Jag that the erasure of the new text you had put in was an accident (i came across the fact that Tony had put it back in and what was there). Although we may not agree on all things its not my style to try and erase a whole bunch of new stuff because i'm trying to restore OLDER stuff unless it obviously vandalism (ie someo of the stranger stuff you see). Its the first time i did a revert and i'm sorry it occured-- Marcie 15:15, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It's okay, you're not the only editor here. There was no way that Jag123's entry was going to be forgotten, your revert was fine. --[[User:Tony Sidaway| Tony Sidaway| Talk]] 07:08, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
No problem Marcie. If I didn't want my writing to be edited mercilessly, I wouldn't have submitted it. I don't think you had any bad intentions either. -- jag123 10:08, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
To whoever reformated the other section that i had put in (and others worked on) it looks great the way you bulleted it. I hadn't thought of doing it that way.Thanks makes it look much more professional....did i forget to mention the main suspect had been charged with killing the doctor killed in the US and it was taken out for reason or did i miss that fact...curious as ever...-- Marcie 12:42, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Well to whoever it was that asked the question, if you put a read through the talk page you will get an idea of the fact that it can be changed but it is very unlikely that it will.
When the law on abortion was thrown out by the Supreme Court of Canada they made it clear that it could be possible to write a law on abortion (and i think they made clear some things that couldn't be included). Then Justice Minister (later Prime Minister) Kim Campbell put forward a new law on abortion (which was really bad even as they go, she tried to get it the most restrictive possible i think). It passed in the House of Commons but it lost in the Senate by a tie vote. Legally a government could write a law on abortion and have it passed. Politically it would be suicide (even the same government didn't go for a second try after they saw what opinion was on the first new try).
I would say that a women's right to choose freely came somewhat later in Canada but that it is more complete and secure than in the US. There are currently discussion going on about what type of testing is ethical in making a choice for an abortion and should be allowed or made illegal (there was a Royal Commission on the topic of New Reproductive technologies, information ethics and that...i can find you the link if you want...i read it for university and it was interesting). Its clear gender is not considered OK, although its one that can be hard to enforce. Those would be the only sorts of laws that i think would be able to pass in Canada.
Finally the ruling was on a different basis than in the US and was based more on women's rights than on privacy (although it included privacy, but it was the right or women to have medical privacy....but it was only part). Even a total shakeup of the Supreme Court wouldn't allow a large change, such as may happen in the US...although from a case in the late 90's with planned parenthood in the US i understand the right of the women to choose was strengthened over the Roe decisions.
I know i'm likely wasting my time here folks...i thought i'd put something in, in case the person cared and would come back...maybe they are new and don't know about the talk page...the change didn't look much like the usual vandilism we have (for example it was a question of could this change which isn't rude or extreemly opiononated in my view) -- Marcie 18:25, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The article seems to be fairly NPOV to me. It outlines the status of abortion in Canada, the legal history, and accessibility, and notes the political controversies. Would anybody object if we removed the POV check notice? --[[User:Tony Sidaway| Tony Sidaway| Talk]] 05:03, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Duh! Now I look more closely the article already had a NPOV tag, but it was at the bottom. I moved it to the top where it should be and removed the POV check for now as superfluous. Does anybody still think we need either tag? --[[User:Tony Sidaway|
Tony Sidaway|
Talk]] 06:05, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Go ahead. --[[User:Tony Sidaway| Tony Sidaway| Talk]] 10:16, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Responses by [[User:Tony Sidaway| Tony Sidaway| Talk]] 00:24, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC) in italics. I apologise that I have to make my comments in instalments because my laptop is prone to cutting out without warning. Broadly I agree that there is much too much interpretation in the current wording, and my comments below are attempts to tease out the factual basis behind some of the POV so that we might perhaps decide what should go into the article. --[[User:Tony Sidaway| Tony Sidaway| Talk]] 00:40, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I think the holocaust survivor's status may possibly be relevant but only if this was raised at the time and was used to rally support for him. If it's true, we should say that people thought some people though it was a bit much for a government to such extraordinary steps in view of his status as a holocaust survivor. If not, I agree that it shouldn't be mentioned.
It doesn't say men, true. It says on the law in question: "The purpose of the section is to take the decision away from the woman and give it to a committee" (page 172). Probably some women would be on the committee, possibly all would be women, but obviously she isn't permitted to make her own decisions. I suggest that the word "men" should be replaced by "committees". --[[User:Tony Sidaway| Tony Sidaway| Talk]] 00:24, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The ruling comments at page 34: "The argument that women facing difficulties in obtaining abortions at home can simply travel elsewhere would not be especially troubling if those difficulties were not in large measure created by the procedural requirements of s. 251. The evidence established convincingly that it is the law itself which in many ways prevents access to local therapeutic abortion facilities." The cancer patient's travel requirement was generated not by the law but by scarcity of local facilities--an administrative matter, not a legal one. The wording of the section here is very poor I think and should be tightened up (including actual quotes) but the point was made in the ruling.
I could be misreading the document, but it appears that the quote is from the majority opinion. It is appropriate to represent this as the ruling of the court. --[[User:Tony Sidaway| Tony Sidaway| Talk]] 00:31, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I agree that it sounds a bit vague. On this subject, or a relating subject, the ruling actually says: "The following statutory requirements contribute to the manifest unfairness of the administrative structure imposed by the Criminal Code: (1) the requirement that all therapeutic abortions must take place in an "accredited" or "approved" hospital as defined in s. 251(6); (2) the requirement that the committee come from the accredited or approved hospital in which the abortion is to be performed; (3) the provision that allows hospital boards to increase the number of members of a committee; (4) the requirement that all physicians who practise lawful therapeutic abortions be excluded from the committees." So it wasn't so much that pro-lifers actively tried to infiltrate the TACs (even if they did) as that the law required the TACs to be skewed against pro-abortion physicians, and permits the hospital board to manipulate TAC membership. --[[User:Tony Sidaway| Tony Sidaway| Talk]] 00:38, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
In Canadian law, the government is obliged to make it easy for a woman to have an abortion, at least in the sense of not putting unreasonable legislative barrier in her way. Where the legislative barrier means the woman has to travel a long way and spend a lot of money, such legislative barrier is unreasonable because this permits legislation to constrain her rights under the constitution. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|
Tony Sidaway|
Talk]] 01:37, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I think you may be applying US standards here. I think that the law in Canada probably does require freely available abortion. This is certainly the case in the UK. The idea that a right shouldn't be actively defended by a government seems to apply in the United States but not always elsewhere. --[[User:Tony Sidaway| Tony Sidaway| Talk]] 01:40, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
To summaries, I agree that the sections in question were too loose in their presentation of the ruling. However, it isn't enough to just lop it off. A lot of what was said is radically different from what a court of another country would have said, and I agree with Marcie that we should collaborate to rewrite rather than just throw away what is there. --[[User:Tony Sidaway| Tony Sidaway| Talk]] 01:42, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It's very hard replying to your comments because they are seperated. Re: holocaust survivor, I still don't believe it belongs here. I'm really sorry for the guy, but he was probably making a lot of money performing abortions, especially when it was illegal. To then turn around and say his treatment is unfair because he's a holocaust survivor, even if it was actually quoted anywhere is really wrong. It makes it look as if the pro-lifers, at the time, were just a bunch of heartless animals.
The legislative barrier to getting an abortion was removed when the law was repealed. To highlight that today, abortions are difficult to obtain is unfair. It makes it look as if abortions are difficult to obtain because there is a behind the scenes effort to quelch it, which is not true at all. I still think the Obstacle to access section, especially regarding the maritimes should be seriously reworked. How is health care in that area in general?
Just because what was said is radically different does not mean it deserves special mention here. "Abortion in Canada" is supposed to describe abortion in Canada. It's not a platform. If you put too much emphasis on the fact that what was done here is so radically different compared to elsewhere, then it seems that you have ulterior motives beside just describing the situation. I even question why we have a politics section. No party has adopted a position on the matter. Does it really matter if the right has more pro-life and the left more pro-choice? I think that until a party adopts a position on the matter, or there is some kind of movement to change or make new law regarding abortion, this section should stick to the basics. -- jag123 04:19, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Okay, in more conventional style. No, I don;t want to make a big deal out of his being a holocaust denier, but if it was seen as a big deal at the time by many people (I don't know that it was) then that fact should be mentioned as a facet of the public response to the case. I understand that there were quite large demonstrations in his support (there may have been equally large or even larger demonstrations against him, granted).
"To turn around and say his treatment is unfair." Well that is precisely what a NPOV article cannot say. But if significant numbers of people at the time had opinions for or against this then we should note the fact that they did.
"The legislative barrier to getting an abortion was removed when the law was repealed. To highlight that today, abortions are difficult to obtain is unfair." It is my understanding from reading the text of the article that it's talking about the situation pertaining at the time the law was thrown out by the Supreme Court of Canada.
You don't think we should have a politics section in the article? I say that if abortion is not a political issue in Canada we should have a politics section that says that all parties are agreed that the law as it stands should not be changed.
I certainly don't want this article to be a "platform", but the legal situation in Canada is radically different. In Canada more than in the USA, a woman's body is her property, with respect to abortion. That is what the ruling meant. That is what the article must say if it is to reflect the situation in Canada correctly.
The situation in the USA is very different, but that is a different country. US concepts must not be permitted to influence the situation in Canada. --[[User:Tony Sidaway| Tony Sidaway| Talk]] 04:40, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
He was a holocaust survivor, not denier :) My problem with that is it's entirely possible that he had lots of support from the population, and that someone mentionned that he was a holocaust survivor. However, most people probably supported him because they believed what he was doing shouldn't be illegal. If someone throws in the holocaust survivor part, his support won't change but it doesn't mean that's it because of that. I'm sure the medias played on this a lot, but that doesn't really change the public's view or their support. Unless it can be clearly shown that the fact he was a holocaust survivor rallied much more support, then please leave it out. I agree with you on the politics section. I didn't mean to say there shouldn't be one, I just think what's in it now is not relevant. You can say that abortion in Canada is not considered an important issue in the Canadian population, that most of Canada favors abortion being legal, and that no party adopts any position on the matter.
"In Canada more than in the USA, a woman's body is her property" I agree 100% with you on that, but that's exactly why the article doesn't need to point that out. When I read the Morgentaler decision, I got the impression that the court avoided discussing many controversial issues, which in my opinion, was wise because it limits the amount of "things" that someone could argue later. That's why they made such a big deal about the access. Not because it was a big social concern, but because that was probably the easiest way to throw the law out. Even when it came to security of the persons right. It was something along the lines of, Is this woman being forced to do something against her will? Yes. Then that's unconstitutional. Case closed. They didn't have to really consider whether a fetus has a right to life or anything of that sort. So to turn around now and assume that because the law was repealed, then that must mean that a fetus has no right to life, or that the access was a tremendous social concern and injustice is totally wrong. It was just the easiest way to junk the law. That's why I have a problem with the article, because it makes a bunch of assumptions based on the decision, which I find to be purely on technical grounds, not moral or ethical. I also assume that most people who visit the page believe that a woman's body is her own property and that they don't have a problem with abortion. And since these weren't really the reason or factors in the decision, to mention them seems to cater mostly to the US pro-lifers, almost in a "hey, look at us, we're more liberal/morally superior than you" way. Prior to reading the decision, I didn't really have a problem with the article. Everything seemed to make sense. After reading the decision though, I noticed that the article takes a lot of liberties and that what was represented on the page was not necessarily what happened in the decision. That's why I can't honestly say it's neutral. --
jag123 05:34, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I think we're very close to agreeing, but I don't understand why, if it's true that a woman now enjoys substantial bodily autonomy in Canada, "that's exactly why the article doesn't need to point that out." Why omit something that is the most significant finding of the court?
"They didn't have to really consider whether a fetus has a right to life or anything of that sort. So to turn around now and assume that because the law was repealed, then that must mean that a fetus has no right to life, or that the access was a tremendous social concern and injustice is totally wrong." Well the ruling did say that access was an injustice, as I have shown. You seem to want to sweep that under the table, but it is precisely what the court said. Access was essential. Beetz, Estey, Dickson, Lamer and Wilson in the majority decision agreed that the woman's right to security of person was violated by the section. Wilson said that access to a safe medical procedure was a woman's right under the charter. Beetz (with Estey) too, though he was less of a "woman's right to choose" advocate. Dickson (with Lamer) focused solely on section 7, the "security of person" section of the Charter, stating "State interference with bodily integrity and serious state-imposed psychological stress, at least in the criminal law context, constitutes a breach of security of the person. Section 251 clearly interferes with a woman's physical and bodily integrity. Forcing a woman, by threat of criminal sanction, to carry a foetus to term unless she meets certain criteria unrelated to her own priorities and aspirations, is a profound interference with a woman's body and thus an infringement of security of the person," an interference which he found did not comport with the principles of fundamental justice. Thus timely access to a safe medical procedure featured prominently in the majority decision.
"McIntyre and La Forest dissented, deciding the the law did not violate the Charter.
You're right about the right to life of the fetus, I think. This was left to the legislature by the majority of the judges. --[[User:Tony Sidaway| Tony Sidaway| Talk]] 06:24, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Re: your first paragraph, I guess I lost my original point, because that does make sense. As for access, I agree that the courts found it unjust, but not because the access was limited, only because the law prevented access. This is going to be a sticky point with me because health care in general is not nationally accessible. This stems from a personal experience. However, what really bothers me is that such a big fuss is made about abortion not being accessible. Prior to the decision, was abortion access limited because of the economic feasibility of having a clinic in that area, lack of demand, etc or strictly because the law prevented it? Since we will never know, I think we should be careful in how we portray it. To the courts, it didn't matter at all if the feasibility/etc was the case, only that the law imposed a barrier. If there is still problems with access to abortion clinics today, then that paints a sorry picture for the national health care system in general, considering that an abortion is a relatively straightforward procedure. If there's no access to abortion clinics, then access to any kind of "complex" (for lack of a better word) health care is probably as equally limited. I should point out that I'm not disputing this as a fact. What troubles me is that someone who isn't aware of the state of our health care system gets the impression that *only* access to abortions is limited, like there is some kind of resistance to the idea in Canada or that people who want abortions are still being persecuted. That's really not the case. Make a point that this lack of access isn't exclusively reserved to abortions, or something like that and I'll be happy.
I just think it's important to keep in mind that the Morgentaler decision intentionally skirted many issues because it wasn't necessary to address them in order to repeal the law and that we shouldn't infer anything about those issues as being settled or decided by the court, even if it was mentionned. By the way, a lot of what you quoted above should be used in the article. -- jag123 07:33, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Okay, looks like our only differences are semantic. Yes, the court criticised the law for limiting access without a suitable justification. It wasn't saying that the state must move heaven and earth to procure an abortion for a woman--I hadn't realised that this was how you read the section. If you read the ruling, you'll see that the access problems referred to were identified specifically as those relating to the law and its operation, not to access problems stemming from any other cause. --[[User:Tony Sidaway| Tony Sidaway| Talk]] 07:07, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Maybe I should have stated that at the beginning (that it was all semantics). Apart from a few things (holocaust survivor, mostly men decided) I don't really have a problem with what's being said, just how it's being said. I don't want to sound pedantic or like a pain in the a--, it's just that I think those subtleties make the difference between something that's filled with undisputable facts and something that's tilted or could be open to debate. For instance, saying that "women in Canada enjoy great bodily autonomy.... following a 1988 decision..." (this is a fact) vs the court decided that a women's body is her own property (it could be argued that the court seemed more concerned about the fact that a woman was forced to do something, or that she wasn't given a choice in the matter. That it concerned pregnancy or carrying a fetus to term seemed incidental) I don't want to debate the finer points of the latter (it's really not the best example) but I figure if I feel that the distinction was made (or not made, depending how you look at the sentence) and I'm pro-choice, then anyone who's looking for trouble can easily make that argument. Since it would boil down to how everyone interprets the legal decision, there'd never be any consensus. In any case, hopefully we can all agree that the former is just as good. We can quote from the decision and just present it as is, without explicitly saying that so-and-so means such-and-such. That way, the paragraph contains just as much info but no one can say that our interpretation is dubious; we're just presenting a fact and quoting from the decision. -- jag123 09:59, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I just wanted to say Jag that the erasure of the new text you had put in was an accident (i came across the fact that Tony had put it back in and what was there). Although we may not agree on all things its not my style to try and erase a whole bunch of new stuff because i'm trying to restore OLDER stuff unless it obviously vandalism (ie someo of the stranger stuff you see). Its the first time i did a revert and i'm sorry it occured-- Marcie 15:15, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It's okay, you're not the only editor here. There was no way that Jag123's entry was going to be forgotten, your revert was fine. --[[User:Tony Sidaway| Tony Sidaway| Talk]] 07:08, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
No problem Marcie. If I didn't want my writing to be edited mercilessly, I wouldn't have submitted it. I don't think you had any bad intentions either. -- jag123 10:08, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)