Where Autonomy Belongs: The History of Abortion Laws in the Canadian Context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
From the time of approximately 3000 B.C., abortion, in some form has been a necessary tool of society, and used by many women within it for both personal and medical reasons (Lader, 1966). Despite this fact, after five millennia, abortion continues to be a much-debated issue in the modern era. This paper will use historical sources to sketch a timeline of Canada’s history of abortion practices, which will focus on the rapidly shifting legal status of abortion in Canada, and how it has come to be recognized the way it is today. The first era will be one that predates Dr. Henry Morgentaler and his efforts in abortions and abortion rights. The second era will surround his work, and what was accomplished during his time battling for abortion rights. The final era will be one of a modern Canada, and where abortion stands in the eyes of the law after the era of Morgentaler has passed. The goal of each section will be to identify where the law originally stood, how society, government, or the law may have influenced it, and finally, where abortion laws were at the end of the era, transitioning into the next. This paper will ideally function as a period at the end of the sentence that is the abortion debate, stating that restrictions to autonomy should cease, and encourage others to push for the same. Ultimately, this paper will argue that men have no place determining whether or not women are allowed access to an abortion, as it is ultimately a women’s issue. Even other women should have no say in what others do with their own body and life – the debate on abortion is essentially questioning just how autonomously people can act regarding their own bodies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.045 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".