[Abortion is a done deal]

1 hour ago, Goddess said:

I was pointing out the idiocy of "no abortions under any circumstances".  There will certainly be no consequences to men - like having to pay child support from the 6th week of pregnancy.  And the pro-lifers don't seem to care about the millions of fertilized embryos that are thrown in the garbage from IVF treatments, which tells me they are not truly pro-life, just anti-woman.

Though I'm pro-life, I'm not pro-life in the conventional sense of necessarily wanting to ban abortions, but rather in the sense of wanting to deter unwanted pregnancies in the first place. From a male perspective in a country in which banning abortions is out of the question for most, male reproductive rights apply only before conception (unlike female reproductive rights that apply both before and after conception). For that reason, if men truly want to better protect their reproductive rights without banning abortion, it makes more sense to focus on laws around sexual intercourse itself (the final cause of unwanted pregnancies).

I do think that many of our laws ignore the complexities of sexual coercion (a potential source of unwanted pregnancies) especially when a male is the victim and a woman the aggressor due to ignorance about the fact that sexual coercion is over 90% psychological and less than 10% physical; so yes, a woman can easily subdue a stronger man. Sexual coercion (whether verbal or emotional, whether involving unwanted touching or blackmail, whether involving a weapon, alcohol or other drugs, or the use of physical force) are at epidemic levels when you look at the stats. As for the comment about men suffering coercion being wimpy that French Patriot made above, consider the impact of childhood sexual abuse on the adult. Some think the effects magically disappear at maturity. Even the stats for childhood sexual abuse are surprisingly high and a victim of childhood abuse will not always have learnt how to defend his boundaries in adulthood, which in turn can make him more vulnerable to coercion in adulthood too

Also, while coercion in adulthood can sometimes sit on the' low' end of the spectrum (begging, nagging, pouting, unwanted touching, which can trigger panic attacks in an adult victim of childhood abuse), I've  experienced it on the medium end  (sexual assault through the use of physical force, though I admit I'd contributed negligently to makiing myself vulnerable to it) and even on the high end too (threat of suicide with a knife to the stomach) as an adult. As strange as it might seem, I  actually found the low-end coercion more traumatic than the sexual assault through the use of physical force probably because I was already emotionally numbed by the time I'd experienced the physical assault a few years later.

My two greatest fears from the sexual assault through the use of physical force were contracting an STI and impregnation. Just because a man is physically stronger than a woman, he still doesn't normally expect a woman to sexually assault him, so she can exploit the element of surprise if he negligently makes himself vulnerahble. It takes more than a few seconds to recognize what's happening, decide whether to give consent going forward and if not, then to resist, acknowledge counter-resistance, and then decide how much force he's prepared to use, how much he's prepared to risk causing physical injury to the woman, and how to proceed to fight a woman so as to cause her minimal injury while she is fighting back. Ironcially, had she punched or kicked me, I might have reacted sooner and with more force; but because she was not trying to inflict any physical injury on me, I needed more time to process what was happening and decide how much force was appropriate. In hindsight, given the risk of impregnation and of contracting an STI, I probably had every legal right to use lethal force if necessary; but at the time, I was stunned by what was happening. I was confused since I'd never experienced anything like it before. The assault could all be over within seconds before a man  even has the time to process all of that information, especially if he's sleep-deprived for example. And yes, a man can experience arousal, an erection, orgasm, and ejaculation without consent.

The threat of suicide by stabbing herself in the stomach was the worst form I'd ever experienced in my life even if the woman was pointing the knife at her own stomach. It's a cruel mind game to think that your refusal to do something that's well within your right to refuse could cause another person's death, especially if she's acting like she actually could do it. No I would not have been to blame, but it's still a terrible mind game to experience. In that particular case, she was not coercing me into sex but rather to keep me in a sexually and emotionally abusive relatinship.

Then there's the issue of sexual assault being difficult to prove when everything surrounding the assault other than the assault itself is legal. Furthermore, once a male victim impregnates a female aggressor, he will have no say in the pregnancy from that point on. That means that male reproductive rights must start before conception, not after conception.

I'll take the example of Canada's laws against sodomy up until the 1960s. Not one charge ever involved an act of sodomy between two consenting adults in a private room with neither reporting the other to the police even though it was still technically illegal. I presume that the reason has to do with the fact that such incidences would never have even made it onto the police radar. Each and every case involved an act in public or one in which either participant reported the other to the police. Some US states still have fornication in the books as a misdemeanor offence punishable by a small fine of a few hundred dollars, usually applied when the prosecutor suspects sexual assault, prostitution,  or solicitation for sex but can't prove that beyond reasonable doubt.

Now imagine a hypothetical scenario in which fornication were an offence in Canada punishable by a heavy fine (let's say maximum 2000.00 dollars (to double for each repetition of the offence)). It would probably end up working like the old sodomy laws. In other words, whenever it would involve two consenting adults in private, the police would have no way to even know about it. However, this would keep people on their toes. The moment one partner seems hesitant or even mildly resistant, the other would now have a reason to think twice about pushing the matter because if she reports him (or he her), he could pay a heavy fine if they can prove even just fornication. Sure a woman could make a false accusation, but the man would be getting involved knowing the rules ahead of time. For good measure, we could even guarantee the accused the right to an inquisitorial trial without rape-shield protection so as to ensure adequate due process against the falsely accused.

Even if a woman sexually assaulted a man and then accused him of assault, he'd have little to worry about since a prosecutor would still need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he'd at least consented to the act. If a man fears that a woman could make a false accusation, then don't consent to sleeping with her: Sex isn't a fundamental human right. The same would apply in reverse if a woman tries to pressure a man into sex.

Also, stricter laws around different addictions could help too. For example, some studies have shown that gambling addicts face a higher risk of entering prostitution (a risk factor in unwanted pregnancies obviously). Adopting stricter self-exclusion laws requiring a casino to scan ID cards and fingerprints could help to keep the self-excluded out. This in turn could reduce the risk of a gambling addict gambling her way to prostitution and so increase  the risk of an unwanted pregnancy.

Of course I'm writing this from a male perspective (reproductive rights prior to intercourse) rather than from the female one (reproductive rights both before and after iintercourse); but I do think that stricter laws around sex itself would deter more sexual assaults and other forms of sexual trauma and this in turn would probably calm relations between the sexes in our modern Western culture. It would also reduce the need to ban abortions since fewer unwanted pregnancies would occur in the first place.

[The dilemma between sexual freedom and deterrence under the law.]

You can consider the Canadian sodomy laws up until the 1960's. Even though it was illegal, not one charge was ever laid in cases involving two consenting adults in private, probably because the police had no way to know abou it. Fornication essentially works the same way in jurisdictions where it's illegal. As long as it's done in private between two consenting adults, the police would never know about it anyway. Only if done in public or one reports the other to the police or if cought in a prostitution sting would the police actually find out about it. If they can't prove sexual assault or prostitution, then fornication becomes their next bet if they can prove at least that beyond reasonable doubt.

[The dilemma between sexual freedom and deterrence under the law.]

13 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adultery#United_States

Prosecutions are rare.  Not sure what this amounts to... a legal wild goose chase I reckon.

From my understanding, fornication at least in the US states is usually used in a plea bargain in cases of paying for sex or sexual assault or rape when the latter can't be proved but fornication can be, as a deterrent. From my understanding, it's usually just a few hundred dollars. It still serves as a deterrent against assaults and such though. If you know that all your partner has to do is report you for assault and you could pay a fine for fornication, you'll be careful not to pressure her and ensure you get appropriate consent and clear consent too, no?

[Abortion is a done deal]

15 minutes ago, Goddess said:

I think they should just go all the way and make child support mandatory from the 6th week of pregnancy, since it's a human already.

They should allow 6 week old fetuses to be insured and women should be able to collect if they miscarry.

They should not be able to deport anyone pregnant, since it is a US citizen.

Who is going to be charged with murder for all those fertilized embryos that get thrown in the garbage after IVF treatments?  The couple? The doctor?  The lab techs?

If you're gonna do it, do it all the way, then.

That's one route to follow if we do decide to recognize a feotus as a human life at conception. An alternative sotution to criminalizing abortion is to try to reduce the occurrence of unwanted pregnancies in the first place. For example, stricter gambling rules could help keep a problem gambler out of prostitution. More effective deterrents against sexual assault could help too. For example, what about a heavy fine if a person is found guilty of coercion on a balance of probabilities and fornication beyond reasonable doubt. Let's call it aggravated fornication. If he's innocent, well, he would have slept with her (or she with him) knowing the risks.

As a society, we need to stop thinking of sex as a fundamental right: it isn't. For those who believe in science, sex produces babies, can spread STI's, can destry marriages and traumatize children, and other problems. Just look at the stats.

Even the stats of female-on-male coercion are much higher than many realize:

'A total of 43 percent of high school boys and young college men reported they had an unwanted sexual experience and of those, 95 percent said a female acquaintance was the aggressor, according to a study published online in the APA journal Psychology of Men and Masculinity^®.'

https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2014/03/coerced-sex

The rate for male-on-female coercion is probably comparable and from my understanding, when we break it down, has a higher rate of use of force too.

Figures that high reach epidemic proportions in my opinion. Sex is not a plaything and the law should not treat it as such.

[Abortion is a done deal]

Another point concerns male reproductive rights:

'A total of 43 percent of high school boys and young college men reported they had an unwanted sexual experience and of those, 95 percent said a female acquaintance was the aggressor, according to a study published online in the APA journal Psychology of Men and Masculinity^®.'

https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2014/03/coerced-sex

If a man impregnates a woman while she sexually assaults him, he can be held responsible for the child. Given the implications of this and that sexual assault is difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt, should a man not be allowed to opt for stricter sexual laws to apply to himself and others in relation to him as a way to deter that person from assaulting or otherwise coercing him? Or do reproductive rights apply to women only?

Consider too that even today, reules exist to ban certain sexual interactions. For example, you can't have sex with a minor, a physician or psychiatrist can't have sex with a patient, a professor can't have sex with a student, you can't have sex with a person who is too mentally ill to consent, etc.

With the above in mind, it wouldn't be that far-fetched for a person to conclude that self-exclusion from fornication could better protect that person from themselves and others, depending on their mental health for example. Then the onus would be on others to determine that person's status. If in doubt, then marry the person.

[The dilemma between sexual freedom and deterrence under the law.]

You might not be aware of historical laws. Historically (and still today in some US states even), fornication if an offence. In some US states, you can pay a fine for it (misdemeanor). The advantage is that if a prosecutor can't prove sexual assault, they can still charge him with fornication as a deterrent against sexual aggressors.

[Abortion is a done deal]

48 minutes ago, French Patriot said:

The states who make abortions hard or impossible are just exporting jobs to other more progressive states.

They may even create a shortage of doctors in their states as doctors move away from the morally backward states that trained them.

Wait till they see the real social cost of making women slaves to the state.

Regards

DL

 

I don't think you understand the political reality in Canada. Abortion will not be criminalized in the forseeable future. In other words, when I say I'm pro-life, I mean it within the present poltical reality, that we should toughen our sexual-assault laws to deter unwanted pregnancies in the first place. For example, we could consider imposing a heavy fine if it's proved on a balance of probabilities that a person coerced another into sex and beyond reasonable doubt that they had sex.

[Abortion is a done deal]

1 hour ago, French Patriot said:

Are you willing to pay a rather larger amount of taxes to maintain all the welfare babies that would be around if the right to lifers had their way?

Do you see you as having the responsibility to insure the best, non-welfare life and the reduction of the horrible stats that those children produce?

Would you force your ilk to pay more taxes directly to those you have forced to have an unwanted child?

Would you like to be one of those unwanted children?

Regards

DL

  

Wouldn't tougher laws against sexual coercion reduce the cost of abortion itself? What? You think abortions are free?

[Abortion is a done deal]

1 hour ago, Realitycheck said:

No, you are pro-birth. Like all religious nuts you don't give a damn what happens to that kid once it is born. Fornication is a religious term and since people were having sex long before marriage was invented, we are all products of fornication (sex without marriage). The best thing which could happen is if we managed to rid ourselves of the mental illness called religion. It is nobody's business what a woman does with her body.

Fine. I'll use the more convoluted term 'sex outside of marriage.' No wonder English is a mess. Can't use a 4-syllable term because of some silly connotation.

Now though I'm pro-life, let's put that aside for a moment and suppose that I were pro-choice on the matter. Given the whole #metoo movement, the constant complaiints of sexual assault acquittals and sexual assault being so difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt, and rape shield laws to lower the burden of proof even if it could lead to wrongful convictions, would it not make sense to let a person decide for him or herself how much sexual freedom that person might rather trade in for more sexual deterrence under the law? It would then be up to others to just not sleep with that person. How else do you propose fixing the dilemma between sexual freedom and sexual protection under the law without lowering the burden of proof?

[The dilemma between sexual freedom and deterrence under the law.]

One dilemma society seems to be facing is that between sexual freedom and deterrence under the law. If every sexual act between two consenting adults in a private room are legal, then assault and coercion become extremely difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt. This greatly reduces the deterrent effect of the law against rapists and even lesser agressors who use more subtle means of coercion which can be just as traumatic.

One solution is to lower the burden of proof through rape-shield laws, but then they increase the risk of a wrongful conviction.

One hypothetical solution I remember reading somewhere (though I can't remember where now) was to give the individual the freedom to choose for himself how much sexual freedom he wants under the law. For example, just as a person can self-exclude from gambling in some jurisdictions, why not allow a person to self-exclude from fornication? This would mean that if he fornicates, he could face a heavy fine for fornication; but anyone who encourages him to do so could face a heavy fine for incitement to fornicate. The details of such a law would need to be worked out such as how a self-excluded person could formally inform another of his status as a way to warn the person away, etc. Details aside, though, the principle of it seems reasonable. After all, a person who has no interest in exercising their legal freedom to sleep around would naturally see that freedom as a disadvantage when facing rape or other forms of coercion since that freedom just removes deterrence against such actions. So for a person for whom that legal freedom is more of a disadvantage than an advantage, why not allow that person to forfeit that freedom in exchange for more legal protection?

[Abortion is a done deal]

I'm pro-life, but let me approach this from a different angle. What causes unwanted pregnancies in the first place? Rape is an obvious one. Other forms of coercion (including paying for sex or offering sex for money, but begging, nagging, pouting, unwanted touching, and threats of suicide with a weapon are others among a much longer list too) are others. Mental-health problems like compulsive sexual behaviours (or what some refer to in layman's terms as sex addiction) are another. Just plain carelessness is yet another.

Now, there's not much we can do about simple carelessness, but we might be able to do more about the others. The following is more of a brainstorm than anything worked out in detail.

I remember reading somewhere online I believe even though I can't seem to find it anymore, a suggestion that a person could self-exclude from fornication similarly to how a person could self-exclude from gambling. In some US states, a person can self-exclude from gambling in which case he makes it a criminal offence for himself to trespass onto any casino property in that state. Following a similar idea, imagine that a person could self-exclude from fornication and so make it an offense punishable by a heavy fine to fornicate, but also make it an offence for others to encourage him or her to do so lest they be fined for incitement to fornicate. Essentially, a person could make himself or herself legally toxic to any would-be agressor since fornication and incitement to fornicate would be easier to prove than sexual assault or coercion overall. Of course the details would need to be worked out as to how a person would formally inform a partner of his or her status so as to warn them off, but I thought it was an imaginative solution to the dilemma of 'the more sexual freedom the law gives, the harder it is to prove assault, and the easier it is to prove a sexual offence, the less sexual freedom the law can give.' Self-exclusion would allow a person to decide for themselves how much sexual freedom they're willing to trade for more sexual protection and deterrence under the law.

Another thing that could help would be for sex ed classes in schools to teach about 'sex addiction', it's causes (usually severe childhood abuse), symptoms (usually compulsive masturbation in the early stages that can escalate into compulsive promiscuity from there), and its remedies (usually therapy, 12-step, groups, and other remedies among others). Make sure they know where to turn for help.

The above could reduce the occurrence of sexual coercion and compulsive sexual behavrious. Then there's other addictions. Some researchers have found that gambling addiction can push a person into prostitution. In many jurisdictions in the world outside of North America, you can't get into a casino without scanning your ID card and fingerprint (to deter you from borrowing a friend's ID card), and if you've self-excluded, you're not getting in. This could protect some from turning to prostitution. Similar laws relating to alcohol, nicotine, and other addictive products might help too.

Of course none of the above would prevent unwanted pregnancies, but they could greatly reduce the occurrence of such. Perhaps we need to focus on the root causes of unwanted pregnancies in the first place. Given the public-health aspects of promiscuity (unwanted pregnancies, abortions, trauma, STI's, broken families, affected children, etc.), it would seem to make sense to more effectively regulate promiscuity in the law. Even religion aside, there would be plenty of scientific and public-health reasons for it.

[How do we force immigrants to assimilate?]

29 minutes ago, Argus said:

People can wear whatever they want when attending or conducting religious rites. And if clerics want to wear some kind of uniform or costume, okay. I don't have a problem with the pope wearing his tall, funny hat in the Vatican. But if every baptized Catholic started wearing those hats on the streets it would be pretty damn hard to take them seriously.

And I happen to be one. 

What about the Amish? they don't wear turbans.

[How do we force immigrants to assimilate?]

3 minutes ago, Argus said:

The turban bothers me. It's foreign to this country. We don't wear religious costumes here and never have.

And before you ask, I don't think much of the Hasidics stupid ass outfits and goofy hair either.

Don't you know anything about Canadian history?

What about indigenous spiritual regalia? What about priests and nuns in their outfits?

[How do we force immigrants to assimilate?]

19 minutes ago, Argus said:

The first Sikh I ever met was back in college. Dave Singh. I had no idea what a sikh was. He had somewhat browner skin. Aside from that, there was nothing to tell him apart from any other Canadian.

How come every Sikh who runs for office, every MP and MPP wears a turban and has a beard? 

Is it okay to wear a turban with no beard or grow a beard without a turban, or is the that particular combination that bothers you?

[How do we force immigrants to assimilate?]

4 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Perhaps that was Wes's point, but since  immigrants get the *same* (or sometimes less) benefits as people born in this country, and since many people in this country do not think our social support system does enough for those born here, how would we justify reducing support to refugees/immigrants?  Is there an upside to reducing social support systems so that even more people/families/seniors are homeless and desperate?  

In any case, immigrant unemployment runs at 6.4%, 1.4% more than the unemployment among people born in Canada as a whole.   Clearly, most immigrants gain employment, just as most Canadians gain employment.    

The argument that "immigrants come to Canada because they are lazy, don't want to work and only want to collect because our social support system is so generous" is simply not accurate.  Certainly, some immigrants will 'take advantage', just as some people born here 'take advantage'.  However, most people - born here or not - want to work and provide for themselves and their families.

I'd imagine too that a person who'd rather 'take advantage' of such a meagre existence probably suffers depression or some other mental-health problem. Social assistance is not that generous for the most part as far as I understand.

[What Are You Listening To?]

 

 

Almost makes me want to learn Indonesian.

[How do we force immigrants to assimilate?]

17 hours ago, paxamericana said:

There's a running joke with the Islamic fundamental, there's really only one gender, Men and property. 

Have you ever met a Muslim woman? Some are professional independent women.

[How do we force immigrants to assimilate?]

19 hours ago, Argus said:

Are you done blubbering yet about the real or imagined injustices of the past?

We don't need tough measures. All we need is to be careful about who we let in. No welfare. No pogey. Work or leave. And after say five years, if you haven't developed a level of assimilation then you leave as a failed immigrant and we'll try someone else.

And who defines assimilation? Being financially self-supporting? Being married to a Canadian? Or do you mean something else? Heck, even English, French, and Inuit Canadians often don't share a common language. Even our MPs communicate through earphones like UN ambassadors. So if you mean linguistically or culturally, even our MPs have failed to assimilate into a common culture!

[How do we force immigrants to assimilate?]

19 hours ago, dialamah said:

Why?  Do you think they'd feel better having bombs dropped on them while they starved?  Or maybe being beaten and raped with no chance of legal intervention while begging on the street is preferable to them? 

Not all of them, of course, but many of the people Argus criticizes come from places where employment is low and violence and lawlessness are high.  Why would they "beg to go back"?

The narrative that they are lazy and are only interested in taking advantage of our social assistance system is no more true than the narrative that they're so discriminated against that they can't get a job despite all their best efforts.  Doscrimination amd bigotry play a part, lack of skills and education play a part, and for some "easy living" is no doubt true.  None of those things by themselves is the whole problem, they are all part of the whole.

Maybe I misworded myself. I agree with providing support for convention refugees. Beyond that though, I'd be in favour of recognizing a foreign passport as equal to an open work visa.

[How do we force immigrants to assimilate?]

The problem is not immigration but social assistance. If we let them sink or swim, those that can't support themselves would soon be begging to be sent back home.

[How do we force immigrants to assimilate?]

4 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

My Canadian value is defending Canadians from a cabal of crazy communists taking over to run a PRC style totalitarian police state.

I'd be happy to chuck these commies out of a helicopter from a 1000 ft up, for squeamish Canadians I dial that back to chuck em overboard with a life raft off of Cuba.

I don't appreciate the radical left either; but that doesn't mean that I want to kill them. Nor does it mean that I'm prepared to accept a far-right state either, which might be even worse.

[How do we force immigrants to assimilate?]

Just now, Dougie93 said:

Put them on the MV Asterix, sail them to the 12 mile limit off of Cuba, throw them overboard.

 

Ah, are those your 'Canadian values?'

[How do we force immigrants to assimilate?]

Just now, Dougie93 said:

Cultural Marxist pro Chinese Communist style totalitarians, mostly college academics.

War Measures Act, Section 33, deport them to Cuba,

Er... I'm not aware that Canada has such an extradition agreement with Cuba.

[How do we force immigrants to assimilate?]

1 minute ago, dialamah said:

The question here is not "What is Canadian", but "What is NOT Canadian, and therefore worthy of being evicted from Canada".  

A major non-Canadian characteristic is following a religion that believes in male domination over females, resulting in women appearing in public in long dresses and/or head coverings.  It's "non-Canadian" to speak a language other than English or French.  It's "non-Canadian" to live in an ethnic 'enclave'.   It's non-Canadian to get welfare or child tax benefits for having Canadian children when you are something other than white.  It seems there's quite a few things that can make you 'non-Canadian'.

Yup, I have several religions represented in my family.  Also, non-religion - sometimes I forget that people really do believe that God exists and that there is heaven or hell as a final destination.

Perhaps Argus has a definitive answer.  I sure don't.

Oh my! Imagine! I trace my roots back to New France and speak languages other than English and French AND live in an 'ethnic enclave'. I guess that doesn't make me a very good Canadian then. Though I don't profess the Christian Faith, I do read the Bible. I also clip my hair short. Does that count?

[How do we force immigrants to assimilate?]

On 5/12/2019 at 7:34 PM, Argus said:

Canadians are not satisfied with the way immigrants are assimilating. It's been showing up in the polls more often of late.

Environics just did a large poll which showed two thirds of Canadians are unhappy at the rate immigrants are assimilating. And lest you immediately start screaming racism - the unhappiness about assimilation did not change markedly between those who have been here for multiple generations, and those who are first generation Canadians.

Notably, this sentiment held true across both first generation Canadians and third plus generation Canadians, with the 63% of the former and 68% of the latter agreeing that immigrants were not doing enough to adopt Canadian values.

This is somewhat similar to another poll, by EKOS, announced a couple of weeks ago which said 40% of Canadians felt too many non-white immigrants were coming into Canada. In that poll, visible minorities were more likely than white Canadians to feel too many visible minorities were coming to Canada. It seems newcomers are growing alarmed that the place they came to is changing to the kind of places they left, and don't like it.

So how do we force more assimilation? In places like Switzerland and France, immigrants are required to demonstrate how they have assimilated or they can't get citizenship. They need to show how they've blended into their communities, how they have improved their language skills, gotten local friends, joined local clubs, etc. In one case in Switzerland, a family was denied citizenship because their daughters refused to swim with boys at the school's swimming lessons. Another family was denied because their sons would not shake hands with their female teachers. Their few is if you want to become Swiss, you need to BECOME Swiss. I agree with them.

My wife has lived in Canada for years and has no interest in obtaining Canadian citizenship: permanent residency works just fine. Your point is?