segnosaur

Because boobies are of interest to both men and women, and no woman gets turned on by looking at a prostate. Keep in mind that the term 'feminist' is an extremely broad term, and it covers everything from those making reasonable demands (eg. end to sexual harassment, improved educational opportunities, etc. both things I completely agree with) all the way through feminists like Andrea Dworkin, who was making claims about pornography and violence towards women. People like Dworkin should be challenged. Frankly, i'd be quite happy paying for my own PSA tests, if it meant I got to keep watching my pornography.

I don't really think its that difficult to understand. Despite all the hysterics from certain people on the site, I doubt in all cases it comes down to a case of "men wanting to control women". Some individuals truly believe that what counts as a "human being" exists prior to birth; as such, an abortion is the equivalent of murder. Its not a belief I subscribe to, but I understand it, even if I don't agree. On this forum there's a thread about a man who killed his 13 year old daughter and only got 2 months in jail. Does it upset you? If so, why? After all, you weren't one of the individuals personally involved. Yet the case has got people complaining about the relatively short sentence. People don't like it when they see a crime go unpunished. People who go off the deep end, complaining that its "all about men controlling women" are basically hijacking the dialog and make it impossible to have a reasonable discussion about the issue. (Admittedly, the hysterics from the anti-abortionists are probably worse.)

Only in the same way that removing the engine from a car that has no tires goes a long way to ensure it doesn't get driven anywhere. I.e. it does absolutely nothing. Abortion wasn't going to be brought up by the conservative government. Every recent private members bill proposed about the subject has gone nowhere. And if the liberals should form the next government, well, they were already less likely to vote in favour of abortion restrictions than men were. In 1994, Dr. Garson Romalis (a promanant abortion doctor in B.C.) was shot by a sniper while at home. 6 years later he was stabbed while at his clinic. So guess what? Anti-abortionists do engage in violence here in Canada. On the other hand, Sweden does have laws restricting abortions, yet I could not find any evidence of similar shootings there. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence#Canada So what do you know... maybe the absence or presence of abortion laws doesn't impact the rate of violence. Go back and look through the thread. The majority of Canadians actually want some law. They don't want to eliminate all abortions, but a recent opinion poll asked "do you support or oppose the introduction of a law that places limits on when she can have an abortion, such as in the 3rd trimester". 60% of Canadians supported the introduction of such a law. Oh, and in case you think that men should automatically be disqualified from voting, more women supported such a law (at 62%) then men. http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/07/04/new-poll-shows-most-canadians-support-abortion-with-some-restrictions/:

I'm sure you will do your best to convince yourself of that. But, that explanation doesn't really hold much water. If Trudeau did go to various members of his caucus and say "this is what I want to do.... how should I proceed?" how come none of them have stepped forward to say they met with Trudeau before hand? So far I haven't seen one of them say Trudeau discussed things either individually with his MPs or as a group. Maybe he did, but given how this issue seems to have blown up in his face, if such a meeting did occur you figure they'd be able to trot a few MPs out to say thing had been agreed to before hand. That is also questionable. There was never any risk that abortion would be restricted. Private members bills have all been voted down. Nobody on the NDP would vote against abortion, and the conservative party is split. And very few Liberals would vote to restrict abortions, even without his rather draconian "vote with me or else" policy. A simple "I will never bring forward anti-abortion legislation if I were PM" would have had pretty much the same impact... it would affirm the Liberal's pro-choice policy, yet it would allow the liberals to continue claiming they were still a "big tent all inclusive" party.

here are a lot of things that Harper does that I do not like, both in policy and the way he leads. However, Trudeau was supposed to be different. He was supposed to take the high road. His party is supposed to be "inclusive". If a politician says one thing and does another even before a general election is called do you think he'll somehow get better once he becomes prime minister? Do a search on this site for the words "harper" and "dictator". You'll find more than 1 person labeling Harper a dictator. Now, if any Liberal supporter attempts to label Harper as a dictator, they will be hypocrites. Yes, he is certainly making things clear where he stands on that particular issue. However, the way that he's making that clear might be seen as an indication of how he will run the government if he should ever become PM. Will he do is best to build a consensus while respecting diversity? Or will he think "I was able to ram through my position on abortion/liberal senators/etc. I can use the same tactic getting legislation through the House of Commons." There are a lot of issues that a political party and leader must face if they are in power. Sometimes its from issues not raised during a campaign because they're not relevant at the time or not significant enough. If I do some digging I can provably find similar legislation passed by Chretien, Mulroney and Trudeau. However, abortion is a significant issue; it has been for a while and will probably be for a significant time in the future... its been the subject of multiple private members bills, and its an issue that I suspect more people care about far more deeply than they do about the census.

Why is that relevant? Nobody here is calling for abortion to be banned. Nobody here is suggesting the Liberal party under Trudeau should take an anti-abortion stance. The issue that is the focus of discussion is whether Trudeau implemented his abortion policy by building consensus and respecting other people's opinions, or whether he implemented his policy through by treating the Liberal party as is own little private fiefdom/dictatorship and ramming the changes through (i.e. by doing the things Liberal fans seem to accuse Harper of doing all the time).

Uhhh... no. Abortion laws actually vary from state to state. Many have absolutely no waiting period; only around half do, and in those cases the waiting time us usually a day. (only 2 states have waiting times of 3 days.) I haven't checked on yuor claim that a woman would be "guilty of murder", but since you made mistakes with your '3 days' claim, I'm going to assume your 'guilty of murder' claim is also incorrect. http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_OAL.pdf How... idiotic. What if it was a pro-abortionist (someone who disagreed with waiting periods, etc.)? Would the be ineligible to post here?

Here's what I find ironic... You claim that some law restricting late term abortions is "wholly unnecessary". Yet you claim that Trudeau's actions were somehow necessary despite the fact that no abortion bill has ever come close to getting approved in the past few years. What's more likely... that somehow the majority of the ~90% of pro-choice liberals will somehow change their minds and become anti-abortionists? Or that there will be some doctor somewhere who decides to do late-term abortions for non-medical reasons (for financial reasons, because he is from a culture that approves of sex-selective abortions, etc..) Here's a question.. where is your proof that "not a single one" ever does such a procedure for non-medical reasons? (Or more importantly, that no one will ever perform one for non-medical reasons? Do you follow every abortion doctor around and make sure every moment of their time is accounted for? Claiming that each and every single doctor that has ever practiced in the past 2 decades, and every doctor that ever will practice until the sun burns out will follow the same code is a rather high bar to set. Now, in practice I will admit that the vast, vast majorities of late-term abortions are only for medically necessary reasons; I just take issue with the claim that it would be impossible for a doctor to do elective abortions if they so desired.

Ummm... basic understanding of numbers? The conservatives do have a higher proportion of social conservatives than the liberals. Two years ago, a conservative backbencher bill about abortion failed to pass. (And this wasn't even a bill outlawing abortion at any stage... just a call to create a committee to examine the issue.) Only 4 Liberals voted for the motion (out of 35 MPs total). If only 11% of Liberal MPs voted for a bill that as mild as that, why exactly do you think you'll all of a sudden get a giant influx of anti-abortion MPs should the liberals get a majority?

No, it isn't. Stickle's bill didn't pass, and that was with the "evil anti-woman conservatives" in power. Why do you think that, should the liberals (with an even higher number of pro-choice individuals) ever gain power, that somehow the anti-abortionists would be able to dictate policy?

Paul Steckle did in 2006. http://www.arcc-cdac.ca/action/bill_c338.html Note that the other person said that the Liberal government would bring in an anti-abortion bill. Steckle's bill was a private member's bill. Different thing. (Private member's bills tend not to go very far.)

And once again... nobody is criticizing the reasons he holds the beliefs he does. They are criticizing the way he implemented them. He could have (for example) brought the issue up with either his cacus or during a convention brought it to a vote. (After all, we're assuming the Liberal party is pretty pro-choice, and such a vote would probably have passed easily.) Or he could have made a statement that "When I am a leader there will never be government support for an anti-abortion bill... any new MPs will have to accept that". It would reaffirm the Liberal position on abortion, but give MPs the right to vote their consience in the case of a free vote. (Such a free vote would likely fail anyways.) I'm always surprised by Trudeau's attachment to the Catholics. Catholic dogma has very specific things to say on divorce and abortion, and whether Trudeau's actions are consistent with that is questionable. There are many different religions in the country... he could easily join another church (one without the stigma of being run by a bunch of child molesters), one that would be more in line with his own beliefs. Perhaps the United Presbeterian church of Anglicanism. Or better yet, if he's so smart, become an atheist. I'm one. I get rather annoyed when I see politicians on the right trying to "out-jesus" each other. Now, Trudeau apologists will rush in to defend him... probably claiming that he's separating is political from private beliefs... but, if his private beliefs are so important, why does he feel it necessary to stay in public office? After all, an Amish persion wouldn't be able to reconcile their non-violent dogma with going to war, so they would be labeled "contientus objectors". Except of course when it comes to the clause about "Free speech". In which case he's more than happy to step on people's rights and freedoms. (See: Bill 101.) http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/10/25/justin-trudeau-pq-language-plan_n_2018712.html

Keep in mind that in order for Canada to remove the Queen has head of state, it would require reopening the constitution. This would of course cause all sorts of interprovincial squabling, finger pointing, and conflicts. In the best case, it would tie up our politicians, wasting time and money for years. In the worst case, it would give Quebec yet another excuse to complain "we didn't get exactly what we wanted" and stage yet another referendum. Is your hate-on for the monarchy really so great that you would risk all that conflict in order to change a symbolic head-of-state? As others have pointed out, technicaly she's not a 'foreigner'. Except of course that royalty is subject to pretty much the same laws that you are. They might be considered wealthier (although that gets rather complex since not all royal wealth is personally owned by the queen), but they also have more responsibilities. And lets face it, the queen and her family basically live in fish-bowls, with every mis-step reported promenantely in the news. In practical terms, it seems like they have LESS freedom than you or I.

Ok, a couple of major issues with that post... First of all, the term 'socialist' is kind of a fuzzy term. In historical terms, it was often applied to an economic system that had complete government control. Countries like Sweden, Norway, etc. would probably be better characterized as "social-democrat". It should also be noted that those countries do not have purely state-run economies. All of them involve the private sector (i.e. capitalists) to a certain degree. (Sweden is the home to such private companies as Ericsson, Atlas Copco and Electrolux). Heck, pretty much every Western economy is a mixture of private and public sector endeavors... including that bastion of Capitalism.. the United States. Secondly, while you like to jump up and down and praise the "socialist" countries, keep in mind that what you are looking at is currently a snapshot. The U.S. does have significant problems now, but a few decades ago they were doing much better. And the success of a country can depend quite highly on factors outside of its control. (For example, Norway benefits quite highly due to its oil revenues... Its pretty easy to have a high standard of living when you've got a small population base and huge revenues.) The success of any economic system cannot be guaged by examining a single point in time.

Not as serious as it appears? The disproportionality here is appalling. That there is no plans to address rightfully upsets a great many people. There are 2 issues here... First of all, part of the claim seems to be "aboriginal women are going missing/dead and the police aren't doing anything". But, as one of the other posters pointed out, that probably isn't the case... police seem to be solving the cases at roughly the same rate as non-aboriginals. So any investigation into that aspect would be investigating nothing. (i.e. it appears to be a non-issue.) The other issue is that aboriginal women are victims of abuse more often than non-aboriginals. Now, admittedly this is a problem.... however, as I stated before, we pretty much know the problems (poverty, lack of opportunities, etc.) and the solutions (more women's shelters, better education for aboriginal communities to give women more opportunity, etc.) Any inquiry into those problems will just result in certain parties saying "Give us more cash!", not very useful in the grand scheme of things.

I don't think you can really draw any sort of conclusions regarding legislation and abortion rates. Abortion rates will will depend significantly on culture, availability of alternative contraception, practicality (e.g. canada doesn't have a law, but the system from a pragmatic point of view acts as one).

I take it you are no longer even trying to take this discussion seriously? Its hard to take anything seriously here, given the fact that so many people are entrenched in their own little political world, and generally bring very little to to the table other than petty taunts. Let me summarize much of the interaction between me and cybercoma: C: "Why should Trudeau's actions matter" S: (insert description about how it illustrates problems with potential leadership) C: "I don't see why it should matter".

Who said any sort of anti-gender selection law would involve doctors making decisions based on race? I can think of a few things that could be done: - Limit elective abortions to 18 weeks, before Ultrasounds (one of the most common methods) can determine gender. After that, require more stringent rules. Oh, wait, that would bring Canada in line with Sweden, which we've already determine is a misogynistic hell-hole - Improved funding for abortion services across Canada (so that if a woman does want one, she can get one early enough without running into the 18 week deadline.)

Actually, a better analogy might be that of a set of conjoined twins with shared organs. I rather suspect in that situation, if the twin that owned (for example) decided to stab their conjoined twin to death then it would be considered "murder", even if the shared organ was housed in the body of the surviving twin. (Why? Its my liver goddarnit! I'm tired of my brother stealing my bile!) Technically, the pro-choice only grants "equal rights to all" because it assumes that the foetus is not a legal person, and ignores any contributions that it may be making to the mother's physiology. Now, I don't want you to assume I'm "pro-life/anti-abortion". I'm all for the woman's right to choose, and I'm quite happy with the current status quo. However, that that does not mean I automatically dismiss the arguments made by pro-life people.

So, what you're saying is that you have no problem with gender-selective abortions. Got it.

The gender statistics you speak of could be pointing to something that is concern, although at 20 weeks you are running into that usual deadline of elective abortion. Technically I said that they could find the sex around 20 weeks... From my googling, I found that ultrasounds can sometimes determine the sex at 18 weeks, well within the 20 week limit. (And there are other methods that could find the sex even earlier still.) Uhhh.... so? Any bill would likely have been quite useless. And of course consider the fat that while Harper did shoot down Warawa's attempts, at least the MP had the chance to speak his mind... Trudeau is being even more of an authoritarian in silencing his MPs. (Under Trudeau's rules, they wouldn't be able to bring in a bill either, since they are in theory completely "pro choice".) Your argument makes no sense. Under the current system, the decision to terminate the pregnancy is up to the woman, and she does not have to tell the doctor why she wants the procedure done... the doctor could be 100% honest and ethical, and is just performing a task that's being (legally) requested of him. It has nothing to do with the doctors themselves.

First of all, who said we actually need a law? We're condemning Trudeau for dragging up an issue that would probably be best left alone, in a way that makes us question his leadership skills. That's different than us arguing "We need a law". If we did have a law, it would simply be one codifying what happens now in common practice... abortion on demand in the early stages, but with restrictions for late terms. Want a reason? Go back and look at my earlier posting where I pointed to gender-selective abortions... They do happen. Its an ugly byproduct of allowing abortion on demand. And while some steps can be taken (such as limiting non-essential ultrasounds) you can never totally eliminate the chance a parent will find the sex of a fetus.

Your earlier posting finished with the phrase: I don't see why this is important at all. It certainly looked like the present tense, implying that even after the earlier explanations you still didn't see the importance. If it was something you didn't understand before but was now explained, you should have said "I didn't see why it is important". Or if you had some sort of reasoning why it shouldn't be important even after the explanation (such as "trustworthyness should never be an issue when evaluating candidates") then you should have mentioned it.

I think the point was... Sweden HAS an abortion law. Canada has none.... yet Sweden hasn't descended into a misogynistic hell-hole where women are viewed as second class citizens... A suggestion that Canada should have some law (even if its simply codifying the current situation... abortion on demand in the early stages, but with restrictions for late term abortions) is always taken by those on the political left as attacking women. Yes, it is self regulating. Of course, in theory it doesn't prevent some doctor from setting up a clinic offering "abortions up to the 9th month for anybody!", something most Canadians would probably object to. Or gender-selective abortions. Of course, if you mention any of this, those on the left stamp their feat and yell "PRO-CHOICE!", ignoring the great middle ground that most Canadians fall into. Then why aren't you condemning Trudeau for his actions? The conservative government had no plans to address the abortion issue (and any conservative MP who raised the issue would not see his efforts go very far.) And even without Trudeau's "pro-choice MPs Only" policy, its unlikely that a future Liberal government would have made any changes either. I would have been quite happy to let the issue lie dormant; I'm comfortable enough with the situation as it stands.... yet Trudeau was the one that dragged the issue out like a beached whale in the sun.... something that smells bad and risks exploding, covering everyone in debris. Keep in mind that the gender of a fetus can be determined around the 20th week. And there is evidence that some women do abort fetuses if they are the wrong gender. (A study by the Canadian medical association found that women of Indian origin had a sharp increase in the number of boys compared to girls for the 3rd child born into families.) So, she may not want an abortion just for the fun of it, but she may be pressured by family or her culture to produce a boy. Now, that is (in my opinion) no reason to ban abortions... I think that there are better ways to handle the issue. But there IS a problem. http://www.torontosun.com/2012/04/17/immigrants-using-sex-selective-abortion

Actually, segnosaur - this is a serious matter and the discussion would be helped by taking it seriously, thanks. Humor/satire is an often used tool when dealing with uncomfortable situations. However, since you want things to be 100% serious: It is a serious matter when someone goes missing or is killed. However, this call for an inquiry is not the same thing. As other posters have pointed out, the idea that there is a huge problem of "missing aboriginal women ignored" is probably not supported by data... The numbers sound serious, but when compared to non-aboriginal women the numbers don't seem too out of proportion. Any inquiry is going to probably be at best useless (although it may cost money, it likely won't uncover anything useful that wouldn't be obvious to someone with 2 brain cells to rub together). At worst, it will be a political tool to bludgeon the conservatives as "uncaring" when they refuse to trot out the dog-and-pony show that an inquiry would be.