No.

No, I don't think so. There may be some in his cabinet who want to but he won't because right now it's not an economic issue and that's his platform- the economy ( regardless if people agree with how he handles it). As far as he's concerned that's the mandate he was given and all decisions have something to do with it and his vision for how to accomplish that. The abortion issue is a side issue I doubt he wants to open up while the economy is hurting. He's money minded and that's it- if the economy, from his point of view, could benefit from opening the debate he might try- but it won't so he won't open it. I don't think he's as much of a moral idealogue on the other issues as people think. He may be doing things that people disagree with and that don't regard the well being of everyone, and stifling debate on things- which is a concern, but it's all about the economy and how his majority of supporters views his handling of it.

 

getting 'rid' of abortion would get rid of jobs and, ergo, hurt the economy...

Regardless of his own opinions on these matters, Stephen is a political pragmatist and has shown that time and time again. He knows that governments don't win on issues like abortion and could easily lose on them. At best, he'd be playing to the base and would likely lose some of the centre-right economic conservatives, esp. in places in Ontario that he desperately needs to hold on to. He might allow a private member's bill to go up but even then he would make it a free vote and you might even see some senior Conservatives abstaining; knowing that voting against them could cost votes in their conservative base but voting for it could hurt them more by losing the moderate right and centrist voters who tend to be economic conservatives but not necessarily social ones.

 

Mendalla

 

I agree. People like some of my relatives- we don't agree politically, but they voted PC because of his position on the economy. Abortion
wasn't on their radar. I think that's who his real base is.

I don't believe it's an accident that this issue has come up with two of his mp's wanting to bring up the abortion debate "through the back door". It permits Harper to keep the subject of abortion at arm's length while giving hope to Alliance pro-life groups that the Reformers/Cons are still working for them. 

The first instance of this was Woodward wanting to reopen the debate about when life begins, and then it shifted to mp Mark Warwara bringing up the issue of sex-selective abortion, and attaching it to the free speech issue. How can anyone argue with that? No one wants to see girls aborted in favour of boys. This was to try and bring in the more credulous mainstream voters, as was the whole "free speech" argument  that ensued.

This is also enough to encourage right-wing Christians to stay optimistic. Keeps the party afloat. 

If Harper didn't want to "revisit" the issue, it would never have been brought up in the first place. There are no accidents here. Harper knows who is in his cabinet.

The "how can anyone (except some monster) argue with that" technique has been used many times by this PM's cabinet.

If I've learned anything about this pm, it's that he and his party are master strategists. and there are no loose cannons in his War Room. 

If this PM is given a second majority mandate, it could happen. Be afraid.

Harper has no interest in revisiting the abortion issue. Letting it come up every now and then, though, works very much to his advantage. It lets the social conservatives in his caucus feel good by at least getting to make some noise about it, and it distracts attention from his real agenda - downsizing the federal government, severely limiting federal social programs, leaving more and more things like health care under provincial jurisdiction no matter that it leads to even bigger discrepancies in what the various provinces can afford, and gutting things like the Environment Department. And those things tend to fly under the radar, because everybody goes crazy when some otherwise unknown backbencher with no clout makes some noise about abortion. Harper must laugh that he's been able to transform Canada so much with hardly anyone noticing. Whatever I think of him, he's a brilliant political strategist.

 

And, going back a few years - don't forget that the social conservatives generally didn't want Stephen Harper as leader because they knew that things like abortion and same sex marriage weren't on his political agenda. They wanted Stockwell Day.

Steven, it amazes me how critically important issues can be eclipsed like this. If anyone takes the time to follow it, a clear line can be drawn between the interests of powerful lobbies and environmental and social policy.

 

I could go on, away off topic. 

 

I am afraid you are right. Excellent post BTW.

no i dont hink Mr Haroer will bring the issue to the table, however his backbenchers ought be able to discuss this and any other issue in the HoC

The Harper gov't has learned that "free speech" is important to large numbers of Canadians. Why is it this particular instance re:Wawara is the test case? Kills two birds with one stone; after all, what kind of monster is against "free speech"?
I'd wager more was suppressed than is apparent about different issues. Maybe the Ministry of Truth (aka Office of Religious Freedom) will bring forward more violations of "free speech".
Time will tell.

People who speak out against environmental degradation or for First Nations are officially "radicals" according to this gov't. They hire people to go after them and attempt to shut down free speech on online news sites and comment boards. Any different opinion than that of the cons has to be from the "loony left". This automatically demonized all of us in the centre.
My point is that this backbencher drama was likely carefully scripted, but then again, this current gov't is turning me into a conspiracy theorist.

To be clear the government will not change the law regarding abortion.  You can not change what no longer exists.

 

There are those who want to re-create one though.  But I think Harper is smarter than to open that can of worms.  THere are alos those who want Constitutional change, particularly around the Senate, but Harper is smarter than to open that can of worms as well.

 

SOme things such that you can not win if you open them up.  SO better to leave them closed.

Hi dreamerman,

 

 

I think it probable that there are some.  Who they are is beyond my ability to do anything but guess.

 

Will such legislation succeed?  I'm doubtful that it will.  Turning back the clock on this issue is not something that the majority of Canadians want.  Some safeguards to prevent selective abortions might pass.  Making abortion illegal will not.

 

Grace and peace to you.

John

Harper's interest is twofold - his agenda, which is far, far more radical than most Canadians realize - and votes.

Permitting an abortion debate serves  neither of those interests No matter how the debate goes, it  has nothing to do with  his agenda, and it won't win him any more of the anti-abortion vote than he already has - which must be most of it.

A bit tangential to the OP question but:

http://followingfrodo.blogspot.ca/2013/04/safe-legal-rare.html

Speaking of abortion, why isn't the main stream media covering the murder  trial of Kermit Gosnell, who ran a "house of horrors" abortion practice in Philadelphia for many years.

http://www.businessinsider.com/kermit-gosnell-clinic-not-inspected-2013-4#ixzz2QGpovf4O

Let me get this straight Mely, in the article that you posted which seems to me to be from a pro-life group with several biases and you are wondering why the mainsteam media isn't covering it? Well maybe it is lacking authenticity. So the pro-choice govenor in Philidelphia is against a safe environment for women to have abortions and the pro-life govenor wants a safe place for women to have abortions. Ya that seems reasonable doesn't ti? Let me ask you this Mely are you for or against having a safe place for women to have an abortion?

Please do a Google search on Kermit Gosnell and tell me this story lacks authenticity. 

http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/gosnell.asp

 

 

Okay lets for a minute say the story is true. Is this the normal way legal abortions are done in the USA? Should all abortions be illegal because someone decided to perform a criminal act? Now I will ask you are you in favour of women having a safe legal place to have an abortion or do you prefer the idea of obtaining an abortion through illegal means?

 

So I gather from the video snp that you are not planning on having an abortion in the near future. Well that is pretty big of you.

 

Hey Peter Pan time to return to NeverNeverLand.

 

Still having trouble believing an abortionist could do evil? (Assuming you believe abortion is not evil in the first place).

I truly hope not.

A deflection, which does not address the original post from Mely. But I'll play your game. I believe abortion used as a method of birth control is truly horrendous. In such instances, I am not in favour of legal or illegal means. The morning-after pill should be widely and freely available. Now you can bring out your coat-hangar argument, as that justifies killing life on a massive scale.

i hear ya, i hear yas -- i'd expect at least the Republicans to be speaking aboot this, but silence from them as well...

 

here's the google news linkfest

 

 

The Kermit Gosnell case is an example why women should have access to safe, affordable abortions. This happened in a state where nearly half the Planned Parenthood offices have been closed, with women who were ill-equipped to find or fund alternatives, with an unscrupulous doctor, to put it mildly. The primary charges, as I understand it, are about the unsafe and unclean practices that lead to the deaths of two women. This in not solely about late-term abortions. But keep working that angle.

 

This case does not help your side. The anti-abortion crowd created the atmosphere for this to happen by making it harder for women to get abortions. The defunding strategy is having consequences, and the anti-abortion side is exploiting those consequences to take it one step further.

 

I agree no one should have an abortion if they believe it's wrong.

 

I think there are some who would see it changed. However, I don't think that they will be able to put forth a bill.

 

50 million legal abortions in the US since 1973. Apparently its hard to get an abortion down there.

What should abortion be used for if not a form of birth control?

Sure, there are probably cabinet members who want to make it illegal.

The only changes I could see would just be having more specific rules as to when abortion is legal.  Things like a gestation limit if there are no medical problems.  Even then, I don't think it's likely.

What I think NUCC means is planned birth control. As in before the woman ever gets pregnant in the first place.

 

 

"My side"? And what would that be. I've never expressed an opinion about abortion here, as far as I know. I would say I'm mostly pro-choice, at least for pregnancies in the early weeks. However I can understand how people feel on both sides of the issue. And even though I'm pro-choice I would admit the difference between an abortion and the old (?) Chinese practice of abandoning unwanted newborns to die on a hillside is only a matter of degrees . I posted about the Gosnell case as an example of how extremely biased and non-objective the main stream media is. I would have thought that as a scientifically minded person you could look at the Gosnell case more objectively. I dont see how you can blame this on the anti-abortionists or on anyone but Gosnell and the grossly incompetent government oversight that allowed him to continue his ghastly practice for many years.

It is quite stunning that the media have covered this up so much that snopes is talking about it. There has been so much cover up that only shifting rumors have got out to the public at large. I have almost given up on the main stream media as a news source.

Sorry, maybe contraception was a better word. From Wikipedia:

An American study in 2002 concluded that about half of women having abortions were using a form of contraception at the time of becoming pregnant.

 

(My math skills suggest half were not using contraception)

And that other half had damn well better suffer for their sexual crimes.  Fortunately, God Almighty has put in place a natural punishment for sex:  Unwanted childbirth!  And who are we to interfere with God's punishments?

I don't really understand how the mainstream media is covering this up. Basically, I only read or watch mainstream media. The Toronto Star, the Globe and Mail, sometimes the New York Times or the BBC or CBC or Global and when I'm in a really wild and crazy mood the National Post. They're all pretty mainstream. But I'm quite familiar with the Gosnell case. I mean, I haven't done an exhaustive google news search to check the extent of coverage, but it can't be "covered up" if I'm completely familiar with it.

 

If something really interests me and I feel I need fuller perspectives I'll start going out of the box, but I haven't felt the need to do that with this case.

The punishment wasn't unwanted childbirth. The punishment was increased pains in childbirth.

 

You're right. Its much better to kill a human life. Let's forget about that side of the equation, because it makes us so uncomfortable.

Potential human life. Saying a fertilized egg is a life is idiotic. Saying a full-term infant isn't is also idiotic. Somewhere in-between lies the best answer. That's where we should be focusing, but we can't because idiot Christians keep hijacking the debate with the mindnumbing argument that it's all murder.

 

The population of Canada is sick of your Christian faux outrage. You don't care about the kids who are born into desperate circumstances or into poverty or anything else - you only care that your imaginary friend's rules are respected. A growing percentage of us couldn't care less about your scripture, and even a lot of Christians now see you as nutcases, though they will be far more careful with their words than I am.

 

Christianity is not a basis of morality - it's just an old religion with old ideas about how things are. The more you try to push it into the public square, the more pushback you're going to receive. So, keep making dogmatic assertions about what your God wants, with no regard to the consequences, and watch as your best and brightest continue to be embarrassed to be associated with your ideas and continue to step away from your beliefs.

Hey Chansen,

I don't believe you can honestly say a fertilized human egg is not human life. Certainly if the Mars rover comes across a fertilized egg on Mars there will be a bit of excitement. But that's different, isn't it?

If you we're a farmer, and I hated you and slipped into your barn and somehow microwaved all your seed so that it would not grow when you planted it, or I waited until you we're about to harvest and then burned down your field - is one a worse crime than the other?

And if Godde spontaneously destroys around 30% of fertilized eggs, and humans decide to destroy a few more fertilized eggs, this is a problem how? God gives us free will, including the freedom to regulate our own fertility.

Did I identify myself as a Christian? I don't think so... Did you know there are proponents of other religions opposed to abortion? There are even non-religious people who are opposed. Yes, it's true!

 

"Saying a fertilized egg is a life is idiotic."

If you saw my earlier post, you see I advocate for the morning after pill. Women don't go to clinics to abort fertilized eggs.

 

"...that it's all murder."

I never used that word.

 

"The population of Canada is sick of your Christian faux outrage."

I think Canadians are roughly evenly split on this topic. But thanks for assuming I'm Christian, and pretending to be outraged. And thanks for speaking for all of us.

 

"You don't care about the kids who are born into desperate circumstances or into poverty or anything else"

More sweeping assumptions which are totally false. I suggest you check out your local faith community and see just what they do to help those you speak of.

 

"and even a lot of Christians now see you as nutcases"

Anyone opposed to abortion is a nutcase. OK, got it.

 

"they will be far more careful with their words than I am."

This is more true than you realize.

I keep hearing about this, but that's the thing - it's still out there in the mainstream.

Facebook, probably twitter (I don't have an account), various blogs, forums, etc. etc.  The coverup isn't working so well :)

I do agree though, it should have been bettered covered by the mainstream news media, especially locally.  It's both prolife and prochoice people spreading this information since news sources aren't.

And for what proportion was it truly consentual for the person who became pregnant?

 

even cooler, there's some evidence it looks like most left-handed people were really twins (with one right-handed, one left-handed) who fought and killed the right-handed one...and then they absorbed the right-handed one :3

 

1 out of 89 conceptions result in twins

 

reality is trippy and cool :3

 

(and more proof that Deity is a really sick effin critter)

 

(or maybe the twin was 'pre-raptured'? ;3)

 

 

 

You would be much more effective if you didn't reeesort to wide sweeping generalizations, and got your facts right.  Do you know the UCC position on abortion? 

 

The UCC sponsors this site, and the last time I checked we were Christian. 

 

The fact is that there are Christians who are pro-life (some of them are extremists).  There are Christians who are pro-choice.   Pretty much the sasme as the general population, from my limited experience. 

 

Do we care about the children?  I think that we have a pretty good record of fighting for children - food, shelter, health care, education.  We probably could do better - but we try. 

 

As for our imaginary friend's rules - it might surprise you to learn that not only does our Bible not condemn abortion, as I understand it (and I can't give you chapter and verse) it suggests ways of terminating a pregnancy. 

 

 

Hey Chansen, I don't believe you can honestly say a fertilized human egg is not human life. Certainly if the Mars rover comes across a fertilized egg on Mars there will be a bit of excitement.

/quote]

 

I know you were talking to Chansen, but I have a question.  That fertilized egg on Mars?   I can imagine the excitement.  It would certainly indicate life, but is it human life?   Or potentially human life?   Or simply life?  

 

If life is the question, the egg is life, so is the sperm.  I've never heard anyone object to the fact that most eggs and most sperm (even human eggs and sperm) are allowed to die.