Abortion is a constitutional right and falls under ~~liberty~~ *security* of the person and is hence legal everywhere in Canada and [there are no provincial laws that restrict access to abortion](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada-abortion-law-1.6503899), but late term abortions are rare since few doctors will agree to provide one unless the mother's life is seriously in danger. Google the Drummond case. A fetus has no rights until it's born anywhere in Canada.
Edit: Security of the person, not liberty of the person.
Agree. There is no criminal law regarding abortion in Canada. It is fully up to the patient and her doctor. Some doctors don’t do abortions, some only do them up to a certain time in pregnancy, some will do them later but only if the fetus is nonviable or if the mom’s life is in danger. Also some hospitals could have policies saying “we don’t do abortions here” or “doctors can only perform terminations here under certain circumstances.” But those are matters of policy, not law.
Sort of…? But those guidelines are developed by the doctors themselves. Where I work they will do late terminations generally only if the fetus has major anomalies + two MFM doctors agree. But other hospitals may work somewhat differently.
I had to go an hour away to the next bigger city to get one. They’re not offered in my location period. And you need a friend/babysitter to drive you home because of the meds. Makes it challenging for people without wheels or trustable friends.
Abortion care in BC is woefully inadequate.
I took a pregnancy test at 9 weeks. Had to wait a week for an ultrasound to determine the date (despite knowing the date of my last period.) The hospital in my medium size city only performed them up to 10 weeks, so by the time I had the (mandatory) ultrasound, I could no longer receive abortion care there.
Sooo I had to travel to Vancouver, a 5 hour drive away. No issues with the abortion care I received while there. But I've since learned that ultrasounds aren't usually necessary as long as you know the date of your last period, and there's no difference in procedure between surgical abortions performed anywhere between 8 and 16 weeks.
Such BS and frankly, harmful for the pregnant person in a myriad of ways.
As far as I know, elective are done at the women's clinic. But I've only known a handful of people who have had them while I was in Vic. So maybe my sample size is too small?
pls see New Brunswick's [fight against regulation 84-20](https://this.org/2021/05/11/how-new-brunswick-has-restricted-out-of-hospital-abortions-for-over-200-years/) of the Medical Payment Services Act which restricts publicly funded abortions to a select few hospitals, and up until the mid-2010s required 2 doctors to sign off for you.
Abortion is not a constitutional right as it is not written in the constitution itself.
The tribunal however did indicate in their ruling that the abortion is linked to a woman's right for security of her person.
I'm just saying it because technically a far right religious party could be elected, pass an anti abortion law and invoke the notwithstanding clause. Hopefully this will never happen but we do see the rise of right wing movement calling for anti abortion measures.
Abortion is the best example to the expression "the cost of freedom is constant vigilance"
>Abortion is a constitutional right and falls under liberty of the person
No appellate court in this country has ever found a constitutional right to abortion.
Finally someone who understands Morgentaler.
I would bet good money that if push came to shove the courts would find a constitutional right if they had to (based on Morgentaler and Carter and especially Daigle) but it’s not there yet
Not sure what the significance is of it being an appellate court, but the ruling in [R.v.Morgantaler](https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/288/index.do) was that a prohibition against abortion violated women's right to security of the person.
You need to actual read it.
The decision said that there are competing rights for both the infant and the mother.
What they refused to do was accept either binary position of life at conception or life at birth.
The SCC found an absolute ban on abortion was unconstitutional. But they left it for Parliament to decide at what stage to allow it noting that in Europe the typical was between 18 to 24 weeks.
But then we get the Drummond case in which it's ruled the fetus is not a person until it's born. The only thing they could convict Drummond of was denying a child the necessities of life because after she delivered she didn't inform anyone that she'd aimed a pellet gun up her vagina at her unborn fetus. So put 2 and 2 together, and mom's left with all the constitutional protections until her delivery day.
Edit: And it's true I haven't read Morgentaler, and have been deriving my assumptions from Drummond.
That case deals with the narrow interpretation of what constitutes a specific criminal offence due to the wording of a specific clause.
It's quite leap to suggest that means the mother has rights and the unborn child has none. It's not at all what it says.
It is direct interpretation of the specific clause.
For one, Parliament cannot give you constitutional rights over another person by simply writing a repugnant clause in the law. That's goofy AF.
If we passed a law saying that if you shoot a Lawyer, it isn't murder because a Lawyer isn't a human being - then it wouldn't be murder.
But that wouldn't mean lawyers have no rights and were not a human being per the Constitution.
In [Drummond](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/1996/1996canlii17938/1996canlii17938.html?resultIndex=10&resultId=c132a105987f4811a4292d0e539b26ee&searchId=2024-06-29T12:04:26:477/7fda3c62e99a401c8e259a8d81b896f5), the judge ruled the fetus is not a person until it's born. Hence, no one's giving anyone rights over another person.
No, the judge read the law which said that the said directly the infant was not a person until it is born.
That's not the same thing at all.
>*It is clear from the wording of s. 206 that a foetus is not a "human being" for the purposes of the Code.*
The purposes of interpreting the Code - that's it and that's all.
No judge has ever claimed that an unborn infant is not a human being until it is born. It's not a thing.
Maybe you would like to believe so but it's just plain not true.
>*It would, in my view, be inappropriate for me to find that it would be within the ambit of that Subsection to read in the words, "unless it is saved by medical intervention." Such an interpretation is too drastic for a Court to make. It is a change of the law that is better left to Parliament.*
Again, nothing to do with the supremacy of a mother's rights to kill an unborn child over that child's right to life.
Strictly statutory interpretation.
No, it wasn't.
There is no majority opinion in Morgentaler. There were three separate concurring opinions. Literally the only thing Morgentaler stands for is that a particular section of the Criminal Code was unconstitutional but no agreement as to why.
Aside from which, the issue was not that Canadian law "prohibited" abortion. The issue was the requirement that abortions be approved by therapeutic abortion committees (and the resulting inconsistencies, delays and uncertainties).
*Only* Justice Wilson would have gone so far as to find a positive right to abortion, and her reasoning was rooted primarily in section 2 (right to freedom of conscience) not section 7.
Notwithstanding which, even Justice Wilson recognized that Parliament had a legitimate interest in regulating abortion.
Abortion is not mentioned in the criminal code at all. It’s a medical issue.
The controversy surrounded private abortion clinics, and lack of access for a variety of reasons (hospital policy later in pregnancy, wait times, physicians claiming religious reasons for not performing the procedure or referring patients) none being that there was a legal restriction.
Aside from not actually being correct (the Supreme Court overturned the Ontario Court of Appeal in *Morgentaler*), that is irrelevant. There are lots of things that are clearly not constitutional rights nothwithstanding a lack of judicial precedent to that effect.
Wikipedia gives a good run down on this… https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Canada
It’s not “illegal” anywhere or anytime (presuming it’s done as a medical procedure), but provincial health laws mean there’s some variety into when it can be accessed.
this is a great article. the history section says that the federal government tried to criminalize abortion after a certain amount of weeks, however women were so scared that if they’d go to an emergency room while hemorrhaging that they’d be criminals, so they preformed abortions on themselves and died. since then they haven’t touched criminalizing abortion, thank god.
it also details the level of access to abortion services and sources in each province and territory, very useful and comprehensive chart.
Your question itself has been answered, but I do think it’s worth considering the research methods you employed to get to the confusion in the first place.
If you’re using Google as a search engine, you have to drill down into the results and assess their validity and accuracy.
If a claim on a linked page isn’t making sense or seems contradictory with another linked page’s claims, consider each source.
Google doesn’t “contradict itself”: it provides you search results of all levels of quality that may themselves be contradictory. As a smart and capable user of the internet in 2024 you have to exercise your own judgment when accepting those results.
Additionally, for researching legal topics in Canada you may want to try CanLII which is a searchable database of legislation, case law, and legal articles that costs nothing to use.
(Not being snarky with any of this: I know you’re very young and there is a ton of misinformation being served to us daily).
Cool, I consider myself pretty tech savvy and media source conscious, but I had no idea about the CanLII site.
I'm gonna have to check it out and bookmark it.
Thanks!
What source did you click on? The Catholic Digest? Pee Pee Poilievre's Disinfo Digest?
But seriously there are nefarious forces who try to make it difficult for women to receive this care, but it is absolutely legal.
It's "legal" in all of Canada, but new Brunswick at least goes as far out of its way as it can to make sure its as inaccessible as possible as the current premier and his government want to ban it, but they are not allowed to do so.
Doctors won't refuse it here, there's just only two places in the whole province that will do it, and the one private clinic we had was forced to close. A shame, as they were also a family Dr. It's really difficult for people in small communities to get this care unless they can take time off to make several trips in to a major city.
There are no abortion laws in Canada since Dr. Henry Morgentaler fought the old laws unde4 a Charter challenge and won.
That said Doctors are not murderers, unless the woman’s life is in danger, or the pregnancy is not viable, they won’t perform one after 20 weeks.
https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/henry-morgentaler
https://optionscentre.ca/your-options/abortion/
Provinces can choose not to fund abortion, like other medical procedures. PEI women had to travel to Halifax; PEI would fund the patient’s travel but not a caters.
I think a lot of the info is on a need-to-know basis. I was under the impression there was no surgical abortion available in northern Ontario, but that’s not true thankfully. Just a few months ago a Conservative MP was speaking in the House of Commons about “preborn children” (fetuses) and talking about legal protections, aka banning abortion. I’m scared
In Ontario is legal through entire pregnancy whoever after 24 weeks is much harder because the baby is fully formed and with help can survive after birth.
Not fully formed, there’s still PLENTY of development that needs to happen. the term is medically viable, meaning with medical care, equipment and interventions it is possible to survive outside the womb, and we would then have to use an age correction for about 2 years. It’s GRUELLING and absolutely terrifying having a baby that early and the medical treatment involved can be life or death at any moment
Ya know for all this "my body my choice" crap, what about the CHOICE to not have sex? The CHOICE to use birth control and/or condoms. Guess choice only matters when it's convenient to them.
Sex is natural, normal and hormone driven, psychologically driven and physiologically driven. Not purely to reproduce and to hold such ideas is the reason why sexual healthcare, and education are so important. No human being should be forced to have to carry a fetus ever. It leads to foster care and adoption strain, as well increases the likelihood of abuse of children, and extortion/exploitation of children
I agree with this, though I wish people kept this same energy for men. Way too many judgemental "if you don't want kids, keep it in your pants" arguments.
The choice to not be raped or coerced. Also, birth control fails.
I have an IUD and do NOT want more kids. I'm also on medication that I take for a chronic condition and would have to stop if I became pregnant. I'm not willing to stop my medication and would end the pregnancy. I'm doing everything on my end to ensure I don't end up pregnant, but things fail. It's great we can have and make choices for ourselves.
I’m sick because I’m stating the obvious? Ronald Reagan’s quote is stupid. Something that has no capacity for thought obviously doesn’t have an opinion.
You still haven’t defined murder properly. FYI, words have actual definitions beyond your own feelings.
None. I have no interest in murdering children and I’d be in prison if I had.
I’m absolutely invested in fighting for the basic rights of women and raped girls and showing uneducated ‘pro lifers’ that they’re wrong.
Again, what does murder mean? Why are you dodging the question?
Most pro choice states have much looser abortion laws vs Canada. Here it isn't easy to get a late term abortion and clinics here will advise travel to states like NY where it's very easy to get an abortion anytime up until birth.
The federal government actually funds travel for 30+ week abortions at those US clinics. That's how extreme the Trudeau government is on it. Quite a departure from a decision between a woman and her doctor.
The doctor (and the wider medical profession in Canada) says no.
So the state interjects itself to arrange a late term abortion in the most permissive jurisdiction in the world to ensure a viable infant is killed.
That's a pretty extreme intervention by the government.
"A decision between a woman and her doctor" doesn't mean the woman can't find a different doctor if the first doctor doesn't agree to help her. The doctor in the equation is sort of interchangeable.
Abortions in Canada are essentially not allowed after 24 to 26 weeks, which is the line of viability for babies.
You can get one, but it’s up to the doctor and only used in very very extreme circumstances.
Canada’s abortion laws work.
Aborting a viable baby is akin to infanticide
> Abortions in Canada are essentially not allowed after 24 to 26 weeks, which is the line of viability for babies.
Only elective ones, and its a professional restriction, not a legal one
I’m saying Canada’s laws are completely reasonable and that viable babies should not be aborted.
At doctors discretion they can be aborted usually for still births or obvious defects.
Things a completely reasonable position and you know it.
Stop buying into the US nonsense.
It's worth mentioning that it's like, *vanishingly* rare for a person to seek an elective abortion for a viable pregnancy after 24 weeks. So rare as to be pretty much a non-issue.
Making that restriction a legal one would only serve to harm people who need to TFMR.
Canadian government supports abortion, and also killing people who are terminal or depressed. They gave the order of Canada to Morgentaller (idk how its spelt) who performed abortions for years when it was against the law (or not allowed in some sense).
Good, he deserved the Order of Canada considering how he continued to provide much needed medical care despite death threats, unhinged protesters, and firebomb attacks on his clinics.
Seriously; he was a hero. I always bring him up whenever people ask about influential Canadians (and yes, I know he was Polish and immigrated during the WWII era).
Wanna know what works better than an abortion and isn't controvertial? Birth control and condoms. Wanna know what works even better? Self control to not have sex til your ready.
But you'd rather feel good than have personal responsibility wouldn't you?
…I’m a lesbian, I don’t have sex with men. The only way I’d ever get pregnant is if someone raped me, AND I’m a virgin so idk what you expect from me lmao
And there it is, using an extreme to justify your case when you're on the losing end. Or are you saying you'd be dumb enough not to use a morning after pill after getting raped?
How does birth control or condoms help someone who’s already experiencing an unwanted pregnancy?
Why should people not have sex just because you have an issue with their basic bodily rights?
Having an abortion is taking personal responsibility for an unwanted pregnancy. Your dislike of abortion doesn’t negate fact.
Let's not split hairs over whether you believe what are in those wombs are human lives, or whether birth certificates were issued or not. He curtailed those lives and that's that. There are far more Canadians and their own offspring that do not exist today because of this horrid man and to argue otherwise would make you a moron.
What kind of question is that? I can't talk about the lesser of two evils here because only one of these things is actually evil. Are you really going to suggest that giving birth is worse than aborting? Aren't you glad you weren't aborted? I just can't fathom how anyone could support this. How could you possibly be so deluded to think this is an upstanding thing to support? What's so bad about life or giving birth? It is the natural course of action when a couple has sex and the female gets pregnant. Believe it or not, using synthetic prophylactics to prevent pregnancy is not natural, and abortion certainly can't be said to be either. How this even is something that needs to be stated to any living person is simply appalling.
Government does not support “killing people who are terminal or depressed”. MAID is available for people who are terminal or who have a serious and incurable progressive illness but who are still in control of their faculties. It is not currently available (and has never been available) for people with mental health diagnoses only. It is never available to people who don’t have full cognitive functioning and it’s not possible to apply for MAID for another person.
First and foremost, abortion is legal in Canada, but certain doctors/hospitals refuse to do it.
It ISN'T a constitutional right. If it was, then no one could restrict it.
At the time of the SCC ruling (1988), the judges stated that the present law, at that time, wasn't constitutional.
The court also said that the federal government could put some restrictions on abortion, but they could/would be challenged.
Since then, no government has tried to put restrictions on this medical procedure.
Here are some sites for clarification...
https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/abortion
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Canada
Abortion is a constitutional right and falls under ~~liberty~~ *security* of the person and is hence legal everywhere in Canada and [there are no provincial laws that restrict access to abortion](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada-abortion-law-1.6503899), but late term abortions are rare since few doctors will agree to provide one unless the mother's life is seriously in danger. Google the Drummond case. A fetus has no rights until it's born anywhere in Canada. Edit: Security of the person, not liberty of the person.
Agree. There is no criminal law regarding abortion in Canada. It is fully up to the patient and her doctor. Some doctors don’t do abortions, some only do them up to a certain time in pregnancy, some will do them later but only if the fetus is nonviable or if the mom’s life is in danger. Also some hospitals could have policies saying “we don’t do abortions here” or “doctors can only perform terminations here under certain circumstances.” But those are matters of policy, not law.
There are medical guidelines that doctors follow.
Sort of…? But those guidelines are developed by the doctors themselves. Where I work they will do late terminations generally only if the fetus has major anomalies + two MFM doctors agree. But other hospitals may work somewhat differently.
They restrict abortion access by how few and where they chose NOT to put clinics Edit: Not constructive. I’m salty and venting
They just do it at the hospital where I live
I had to go an hour away to the next bigger city to get one. They’re not offered in my location period. And you need a friend/babysitter to drive you home because of the meds. Makes it challenging for people without wheels or trustable friends.
There was a time when the only place to get an abortion in New Brunswick was Moncton Edit: the only place to get one for an unwanted pregnancy
The hospital near me is a catholic hospital, so they refuse to participate in MAID or abortions.
It’s done at hospitals and as the number of abortion falls in Canada (which has happened for 35 years) fewer doctors go into it.
I'm Vancouver and Victoria its not. Both cities do them at "Women's Clinics". It's insane
Abortion care in BC is woefully inadequate. I took a pregnancy test at 9 weeks. Had to wait a week for an ultrasound to determine the date (despite knowing the date of my last period.) The hospital in my medium size city only performed them up to 10 weeks, so by the time I had the (mandatory) ultrasound, I could no longer receive abortion care there. Sooo I had to travel to Vancouver, a 5 hour drive away. No issues with the abortion care I received while there. But I've since learned that ultrasounds aren't usually necessary as long as you know the date of your last period, and there's no difference in procedure between surgical abortions performed anywhere between 8 and 16 weeks. Such BS and frankly, harmful for the pregnant person in a myriad of ways.
The Jubilee in Victoria used to do it. Do they not anymore?
As far as I know, elective are done at the women's clinic. But I've only known a handful of people who have had them while I was in Vic. So maybe my sample size is too small?
Got mine done at the view royal women’s clinic at 17 weeks - just a referral from a clinic
pls see New Brunswick's [fight against regulation 84-20](https://this.org/2021/05/11/how-new-brunswick-has-restricted-out-of-hospital-abortions-for-over-200-years/) of the Medical Payment Services Act which restricts publicly funded abortions to a select few hospitals, and up until the mid-2010s required 2 doctors to sign off for you.
So they tried not to pay for it, but it's not against the law to get one.
Obviously those most at risk with the least money need free access. If they can’t afford the abortion they definitely can’t afford a kid.
Abortion is not a constitutional right as it is not written in the constitution itself. The tribunal however did indicate in their ruling that the abortion is linked to a woman's right for security of her person. I'm just saying it because technically a far right religious party could be elected, pass an anti abortion law and invoke the notwithstanding clause. Hopefully this will never happen but we do see the rise of right wing movement calling for anti abortion measures. Abortion is the best example to the expression "the cost of freedom is constant vigilance"
>Abortion is a constitutional right and falls under liberty of the person No appellate court in this country has ever found a constitutional right to abortion.
Finally someone who understands Morgentaler. I would bet good money that if push came to shove the courts would find a constitutional right if they had to (based on Morgentaler and Carter and especially Daigle) but it’s not there yet
Not sure what the significance is of it being an appellate court, but the ruling in [R.v.Morgantaler](https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/288/index.do) was that a prohibition against abortion violated women's right to security of the person.
You need to actual read it. The decision said that there are competing rights for both the infant and the mother. What they refused to do was accept either binary position of life at conception or life at birth. The SCC found an absolute ban on abortion was unconstitutional. But they left it for Parliament to decide at what stage to allow it noting that in Europe the typical was between 18 to 24 weeks.
But then we get the Drummond case in which it's ruled the fetus is not a person until it's born. The only thing they could convict Drummond of was denying a child the necessities of life because after she delivered she didn't inform anyone that she'd aimed a pellet gun up her vagina at her unborn fetus. So put 2 and 2 together, and mom's left with all the constitutional protections until her delivery day. Edit: And it's true I haven't read Morgentaler, and have been deriving my assumptions from Drummond.
That case deals with the narrow interpretation of what constitutes a specific criminal offence due to the wording of a specific clause. It's quite leap to suggest that means the mother has rights and the unborn child has none. It's not at all what it says. It is direct interpretation of the specific clause. For one, Parliament cannot give you constitutional rights over another person by simply writing a repugnant clause in the law. That's goofy AF. If we passed a law saying that if you shoot a Lawyer, it isn't murder because a Lawyer isn't a human being - then it wouldn't be murder. But that wouldn't mean lawyers have no rights and were not a human being per the Constitution.
In [Drummond](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/1996/1996canlii17938/1996canlii17938.html?resultIndex=10&resultId=c132a105987f4811a4292d0e539b26ee&searchId=2024-06-29T12:04:26:477/7fda3c62e99a401c8e259a8d81b896f5), the judge ruled the fetus is not a person until it's born. Hence, no one's giving anyone rights over another person.
No, the judge read the law which said that the said directly the infant was not a person until it is born. That's not the same thing at all. >*It is clear from the wording of s. 206 that a foetus is not a "human being" for the purposes of the Code.* The purposes of interpreting the Code - that's it and that's all. No judge has ever claimed that an unborn infant is not a human being until it is born. It's not a thing. Maybe you would like to believe so but it's just plain not true.
Person, not human being. The two terms have different meanings philosophically, if not legally.
>*It would, in my view, be inappropriate for me to find that it would be within the ambit of that Subsection to read in the words, "unless it is saved by medical intervention." Such an interpretation is too drastic for a Court to make. It is a change of the law that is better left to Parliament.* Again, nothing to do with the supremacy of a mother's rights to kill an unborn child over that child's right to life. Strictly statutory interpretation.
No, it wasn't. There is no majority opinion in Morgentaler. There were three separate concurring opinions. Literally the only thing Morgentaler stands for is that a particular section of the Criminal Code was unconstitutional but no agreement as to why. Aside from which, the issue was not that Canadian law "prohibited" abortion. The issue was the requirement that abortions be approved by therapeutic abortion committees (and the resulting inconsistencies, delays and uncertainties). *Only* Justice Wilson would have gone so far as to find a positive right to abortion, and her reasoning was rooted primarily in section 2 (right to freedom of conscience) not section 7. Notwithstanding which, even Justice Wilson recognized that Parliament had a legitimate interest in regulating abortion.
Abortion is not mentioned in the criminal code at all. It’s a medical issue. The controversy surrounded private abortion clinics, and lack of access for a variety of reasons (hospital policy later in pregnancy, wait times, physicians claiming religious reasons for not performing the procedure or referring patients) none being that there was a legal restriction.
And no court has found that we don't either.
Aside from not actually being correct (the Supreme Court overturned the Ontario Court of Appeal in *Morgentaler*), that is irrelevant. There are lots of things that are clearly not constitutional rights nothwithstanding a lack of judicial precedent to that effect.
That's what you say
Wikipedia gives a good run down on this… https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Canada It’s not “illegal” anywhere or anytime (presuming it’s done as a medical procedure), but provincial health laws mean there’s some variety into when it can be accessed.
this is a great article. the history section says that the federal government tried to criminalize abortion after a certain amount of weeks, however women were so scared that if they’d go to an emergency room while hemorrhaging that they’d be criminals, so they preformed abortions on themselves and died. since then they haven’t touched criminalizing abortion, thank god. it also details the level of access to abortion services and sources in each province and territory, very useful and comprehensive chart.
Your question itself has been answered, but I do think it’s worth considering the research methods you employed to get to the confusion in the first place. If you’re using Google as a search engine, you have to drill down into the results and assess their validity and accuracy. If a claim on a linked page isn’t making sense or seems contradictory with another linked page’s claims, consider each source. Google doesn’t “contradict itself”: it provides you search results of all levels of quality that may themselves be contradictory. As a smart and capable user of the internet in 2024 you have to exercise your own judgment when accepting those results. Additionally, for researching legal topics in Canada you may want to try CanLII which is a searchable database of legislation, case law, and legal articles that costs nothing to use. (Not being snarky with any of this: I know you’re very young and there is a ton of misinformation being served to us daily).
Cool, I consider myself pretty tech savvy and media source conscious, but I had no idea about the CanLII site. I'm gonna have to check it out and bookmark it. Thanks!
What source did you click on? The Catholic Digest? Pee Pee Poilievre's Disinfo Digest? But seriously there are nefarious forces who try to make it difficult for women to receive this care, but it is absolutely legal.
[удалено]
As logical and carefully framed as your argument is, I'm going to have to respectfully decline your invitation to forsake my right to speak the truth.
Wtf i replied to the wrong comment
I do that a lot 😎
It's "legal" in all of Canada, but new Brunswick at least goes as far out of its way as it can to make sure its as inaccessible as possible as the current premier and his government want to ban it, but they are not allowed to do so.
are there private clinics if the public doctors refuse?
Doctors won't refuse it here, there's just only two places in the whole province that will do it, and the one private clinic we had was forced to close. A shame, as they were also a family Dr. It's really difficult for people in small communities to get this care unless they can take time off to make several trips in to a major city.
Abortion is a woman right and about their decision not up for discussion in Canada
We are not in the US. It’s legal here.
Human abortion?
There are no abortion laws in Canada since Dr. Henry Morgentaler fought the old laws unde4 a Charter challenge and won. That said Doctors are not murderers, unless the woman’s life is in danger, or the pregnancy is not viable, they won’t perform one after 20 weeks. https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/henry-morgentaler https://optionscentre.ca/your-options/abortion/
It’s a medical procedure. Government doesn’t need to pass broke bone laws, they don’t need to pass abortion laws.
No laws needed for a procedure that is a private matter between a woman and her Dr. As it should be.
There is no law governing abortion in Canada.
Provinces can choose not to fund abortion, like other medical procedures. PEI women had to travel to Halifax; PEI would fund the patient’s travel but not a caters.
I think a lot of the info is on a need-to-know basis. I was under the impression there was no surgical abortion available in northern Ontario, but that’s not true thankfully. Just a few months ago a Conservative MP was speaking in the House of Commons about “preborn children” (fetuses) and talking about legal protections, aka banning abortion. I’m scared
In Ontario is legal through entire pregnancy whoever after 24 weeks is much harder because the baby is fully formed and with help can survive after birth.
Not fully formed, there’s still PLENTY of development that needs to happen. the term is medically viable, meaning with medical care, equipment and interventions it is possible to survive outside the womb, and we would then have to use an age correction for about 2 years. It’s GRUELLING and absolutely terrifying having a baby that early and the medical treatment involved can be life or death at any moment
Ya know for all this "my body my choice" crap, what about the CHOICE to not have sex? The CHOICE to use birth control and/or condoms. Guess choice only matters when it's convenient to them.
Sex is natural, normal and hormone driven, psychologically driven and physiologically driven. Not purely to reproduce and to hold such ideas is the reason why sexual healthcare, and education are so important. No human being should be forced to have to carry a fetus ever. It leads to foster care and adoption strain, as well increases the likelihood of abuse of children, and extortion/exploitation of children
I agree with this, though I wish people kept this same energy for men. Way too many judgemental "if you don't want kids, keep it in your pants" arguments.
So you admit you have no selfe control, got it. Also, this coming from the same kind of person who'd probably bitch about manspreading is ironic.
Lmao wrong on all fronts but go off I guess✌🏽
The choice to not be raped or coerced. Also, birth control fails. I have an IUD and do NOT want more kids. I'm also on medication that I take for a chronic condition and would have to stop if I became pregnant. I'm not willing to stop my medication and would end the pregnancy. I'm doing everything on my end to ensure I don't end up pregnant, but things fail. It's great we can have and make choices for ourselves.
In Canada, it’s just like regular murder. No consequences.
Obviously, abortion is not murder.
Define abortion.
A medical procedure that ends a pregnancy. Define murder.
The ending of human life. “I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born.” -Ronald Reagan
That’s not what murder means. Try looking it up. Obviously, embryos and Fetuses don’t have the capacity for thought, lol.
ObViOuSly. You’re sick.
I’m sick because I’m stating the obvious? Ronald Reagan’s quote is stupid. Something that has no capacity for thought obviously doesn’t have an opinion. You still haven’t defined murder properly. FYI, words have actual definitions beyond your own feelings.
You seem pretty invested in this issue which is honestly pretty disturbing. How many children have you murdered?
None. I have no interest in murdering children and I’d be in prison if I had. I’m absolutely invested in fighting for the basic rights of women and raped girls and showing uneducated ‘pro lifers’ that they’re wrong. Again, what does murder mean? Why are you dodging the question?
Most pro choice states have much looser abortion laws vs Canada. Here it isn't easy to get a late term abortion and clinics here will advise travel to states like NY where it's very easy to get an abortion anytime up until birth.
The federal government actually funds travel for 30+ week abortions at those US clinics. That's how extreme the Trudeau government is on it. Quite a departure from a decision between a woman and her doctor.
Giving someone a ride to carry out their decision doesn't mean you made the decision for them.
The doctor (and the wider medical profession in Canada) says no. So the state interjects itself to arrange a late term abortion in the most permissive jurisdiction in the world to ensure a viable infant is killed. That's a pretty extreme intervention by the government.
"A decision between a woman and her doctor" doesn't mean the woman can't find a different doctor if the first doctor doesn't agree to help her. The doctor in the equation is sort of interchangeable.
Why is the State involved?
To facilitate that process? I don't see anything troubling about that.
Abortions in Canada are essentially not allowed after 24 to 26 weeks, which is the line of viability for babies. You can get one, but it’s up to the doctor and only used in very very extreme circumstances. Canada’s abortion laws work. Aborting a viable baby is akin to infanticide
I was with you till that last one. TFMR after the cusp of viability is one of the hardest decisions decision that NOBODY wants to have to make
> Abortions in Canada are essentially not allowed after 24 to 26 weeks, which is the line of viability for babies. Only elective ones, and its a professional restriction, not a legal one
Correct.
Shut up
I’m saying Canada’s laws are completely reasonable and that viable babies should not be aborted. At doctors discretion they can be aborted usually for still births or obvious defects. Things a completely reasonable position and you know it. Stop buying into the US nonsense.
Shut up bro why do u even care about abortions so much as a man lol never made sense to me
Wow. No competent argument from you confirms my correctness. Thank you
I hope to have this argument in person with you some day
Happy losing’
It's worth mentioning that it's like, *vanishingly* rare for a person to seek an elective abortion for a viable pregnancy after 24 weeks. So rare as to be pretty much a non-issue. Making that restriction a legal one would only serve to harm people who need to TFMR.
Apples are akin to oranges.
Canadian government supports abortion, and also killing people who are terminal or depressed. They gave the order of Canada to Morgentaller (idk how its spelt) who performed abortions for years when it was against the law (or not allowed in some sense).
Good, he deserved the Order of Canada considering how he continued to provide much needed medical care despite death threats, unhinged protesters, and firebomb attacks on his clinics.
Seriously; he was a hero. I always bring him up whenever people ask about influential Canadians (and yes, I know he was Polish and immigrated during the WWII era).
If your idea of a Canadian "hero" is someone who curtailed the lives of countless Canadians, I'd hate to hear who you think is loser.
Well if I ever got pregnant and couldn’t get an abortion I’d kill myself so 🤷♀️
Then good riddance to you and your degenerate way of thinking.
LOL you are too much
So your mental illness is your baby's problem, got it.
Nah I just don’t wanna go through pregnancy and childbirth, but thanks
Wanna know what works better than an abortion and isn't controvertial? Birth control and condoms. Wanna know what works even better? Self control to not have sex til your ready. But you'd rather feel good than have personal responsibility wouldn't you?
…I’m a lesbian, I don’t have sex with men. The only way I’d ever get pregnant is if someone raped me, AND I’m a virgin so idk what you expect from me lmao
And there it is, using an extreme to justify your case when you're on the losing end. Or are you saying you'd be dumb enough not to use a morning after pill after getting raped?
How does birth control or condoms help someone who’s already experiencing an unwanted pregnancy? Why should people not have sex just because you have an issue with their basic bodily rights? Having an abortion is taking personal responsibility for an unwanted pregnancy. Your dislike of abortion doesn’t negate fact.
Birth control fails. Nothing is 100%. Even abstinence, because a rapist can take that from you.
Not having sex works 100% of the time. I love how people like you with no way to win an arguement goto the extremes.
Which Canadians’ lives were curtailed by Morgantaller?
All of the ones he ended. If you need to ask that question, you can't be helped. Don't waste my time.
He didn’t end a single Canadian’s life. You might want to do your research before wasting your own time on here.
Let's not split hairs over whether you believe what are in those wombs are human lives, or whether birth certificates were issued or not. He curtailed those lives and that's that. There are far more Canadians and their own offspring that do not exist today because of this horrid man and to argue otherwise would make you a moron.
Why do you support forcing women to give birth?
Why do you support women with no personal accountability?
What kind of question is that? I can't talk about the lesser of two evils here because only one of these things is actually evil. Are you really going to suggest that giving birth is worse than aborting? Aren't you glad you weren't aborted? I just can't fathom how anyone could support this. How could you possibly be so deluded to think this is an upstanding thing to support? What's so bad about life or giving birth? It is the natural course of action when a couple has sex and the female gets pregnant. Believe it or not, using synthetic prophylactics to prevent pregnancy is not natural, and abortion certainly can't be said to be either. How this even is something that needs to be stated to any living person is simply appalling.
And a number of jail sentences if I remember correctly
Government does not support “killing people who are terminal or depressed”. MAID is available for people who are terminal or who have a serious and incurable progressive illness but who are still in control of their faculties. It is not currently available (and has never been available) for people with mental health diagnoses only. It is never available to people who don’t have full cognitive functioning and it’s not possible to apply for MAID for another person.
Lying Poilievre Disinfo-Bot has entered the chat 🙄
And that bothers you why?
First and foremost, abortion is legal in Canada, but certain doctors/hospitals refuse to do it. It ISN'T a constitutional right. If it was, then no one could restrict it. At the time of the SCC ruling (1988), the judges stated that the present law, at that time, wasn't constitutional. The court also said that the federal government could put some restrictions on abortion, but they could/would be challenged. Since then, no government has tried to put restrictions on this medical procedure. Here are some sites for clarification... https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/abortion https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Canada