Talk:Abortion in Canada

Old Pages:

• Archive 1
• Archive 2
• Archive 3

Paul Martin

Former Prime Minister and Liberal leader Paul Martin has indicated he would protect a woman's right to choose, but to what degree he would go in forcing his party to do so is not clear.

Paul Martin is no longer the Liberal Leader. --72.140.175.249 03:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Crisis pregnancy centres

As far as I can tell, everything in the crisis pregnancy section after "However, in recent years, a trend has emerged in the United States..." is referring to the situation in the U.S. specifically. This article is about Abortion in Canada, shouldn't it just stick to the actual current situation in Canada? Kilrogg 07:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Looked in the phone book and none of the CPCs in my area advertise free ultrasounds — just "free pregnancy tests," "counselling," etc. I can't say whether or not CPCs in Canada don't offer free ultrasounds or whether they simply don't advertise this service. I agree, though, that coverage of the CPCs in this article should remain Canada-specific, although it's fine to reference the U.S. situation, as long as U.S.-specific information is clearly indicated as such. -Severa (!!!) 03:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Kim Campbell

Shouldn't Campbell's attempt be mentioned in the article? It wasn't that far off getting through Parliament (a tie in the Senate, I believe). At the moment it reads as though nothing has happened since the Morgentaler case(s). I'm not Canadian, so apologies if I'm missing something obvious, but it seemed like quite a significant thing when I read about it elsewhere, then came here and was surprised to see nothing. 86.136.251.18 13:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Ethical considerations for doctors

Since there are no criminal laws, there should be more discussion of the ethical guidance given to doctors by their accrediting orders and other bodies. It seems that ethical decisions made by doctors take the place of what is done by law in most other countries. 169.229.140.69 (talk) 20:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

This article is not balanced or fair.

There needs to be more from the Pro-life side of the debate, to show both sides of the arguments. The Pro-life section is so small, and barely explains their position. This article should not be politically biased, and should give both sides of the ongoing debate around the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.216.94.170 (talk) 16:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd point out that the pro-life section is about the same size as the pro-choice section. Could you elaborate, please, about what specifically is not balanced or fair? justinfr (talk) 17:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Massive bias in this sentence "In 1992, Morgentaler's Toronto clinic was firebombed and sustained severe damage. The event occurred at night, so no one was injured, although a nearby bookstore was damaged. Appointments were switched to another clinic in Toronto and no abortions were prevented." 134.153.11.25 (talk) 15:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Obvious question: how is this biased? Spotfixer (talk) 00:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't speak for 134.153.11.25. This being said, I removed the paragraph as the wording of that paragraph, and especially the section in which it appeared, implied that the firebombing was committed by abortion opponents. Problem : no one was ever arrested in that case. Therefore any claim regarding why that firebombing was committed is necessarily speculation.

This source confirms that "the perpetrator was never caught".

This Alberta Report article suggests other reasons that could explain why that firebombing was committed.

— ABCXYZ (talk) 21:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

No, that sort of partisan conspiracy-mongering is not any sort of reliable source, so I will be restoring the censored text immediately. Spotfixer (talk) 00:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the whole section on abortion violence is unnecessary. Do you have an article about violence towards pro-lifers? Obviously not.216.185.250.92 (talk) 06:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

In the modern newspeak, allegedly conservative-orchestrated arson which kills no-one is "firebombing" but flying airplanes into a building and killing thousands is "a disaster." 70.88.233.70 (talk) 21:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

One other point: the conservative party is "far right," but the liberal party is "center-right"? Conservatives and liberals are both right of "center"? Who is in the center?

History & Legality

There seems to be a lot of overlap between the history and legality sections. I'm going to take a stab at merging/reorganizing them tonight to see if I can come up with something that's clearer. I created this heading in advance, in case there are any suggestions before I begin, and as a place for you all to tear apart my edits later ;) justinfr (talk) 17:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Access throughout Canada

I've twice today reverted the addition of this text (from an IP editor):

There is no legal requirement stating that children must have parental consent to have an abortion. Therefore, children who hit puberty and become pregnant, as early as 12 years old or younger, may have an abortion without their parent's permission. This fact is utilized by abortion providers promotional material, such as the Morgentaler Clinic's website which states "...you do not need parental and partner permission to book an appointment or to have an abortion."

And replaced it with simply:

Abortions in Canada are legal for all females, and anyone over the age of 12 years of age can legally have an abortion in a clinic setting without parental consent.

My objection is that the first version sounds judgemental, non-NPOV, and asserts that clinics are promoting abortions to children. I think that the more neutral version is better. Does anyone else have thoughts? --Dawn Bard (talk) 19:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree with your amendment. The language in the other version definitely comes off as judgmental. Ronniecat (talk) 17:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed the paragraph. There is no such thing as a national law regarding the age of consent for obtaining an abortion in Canada. There are many claims out there and they often contradict each other. See for instance the following links :

http://www.bloorwestwomensclinic.com/faq.asp

http://www.morgentaler.ca/faq.html

http://www.cfsh.ca/Sexual_Health_Info/Abortion/abortion-FAQs.asp

http://www.kidshelpphone.ca/en/informed/sub_gipreg.asp?sec=3&sb=2

Unless someone can find the legal age of consent for each province with appropriate sources (i.e., legal sources) it seems to me that we should remain silent on this issue. — ABCXYZ (talk) 16:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Reaction and Reception of Humanae Vitae

The article should maybe give information on how Humanae Vitae was received in Canada. As I recall, it was almost unanimously rejected, with even the Bishop's Conference publishing the semi-dissident Winnipeg Statement as a response to the grave amount of protest which acccompanied the encyclical. ADM (talk) 23:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC) Well, what I think it abortion is wrong and should be illegal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.82.85.170 (talk) 15:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Role of the Globe and Mail

The article should maybe mention the role of the Globe and Mail in the campagin for the decriminalization of abortion. There is an interesting essay here by Father Alphonse de Valk on the debate that led to the 1968 Trudeau law, much of which was orchestrated by the Toronto newspaper. [1] ADM (talk) 15:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

opinion polls

This section begins:

Polls indicate that a majority of Canadians oppose the idea of making abortion completely illegal. However, polls also indicate that a majority of Canadians favour some legal restrictions on abortion.

I question whether this is a reasonable summary for the section and suggest it be removed. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I have now removed it. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)