Tory MP Rod Brinooge abortion bill

[WIP]

You have no clue how it's supposed to work obviously. A Christian marriage is not so simplistic. A husband and wife are one. A wife has her own feelings and opinions. In a discussion she brings them to the husband and they talk it over until they come to a full agreement on how to carry forward. Then the husband acts as the messenger of their decision and becomes the "public face" if you will, of that decision. The chauvinism that you describe is wrong, it's disgusting, it's a Sin.

Back to the topic, I support the end of women murdering their children.

Well if that wasn't a total load of crap, I don't know what else you can call it. If the husband is the "public face of their decision," then you are telling us that either she has to vote according to her husband's wishes, or she should have no vote at all, and call for repealing voting rights for women.

I'm against anyone murdering children also, so is just about everyone...problem is FERTILIZED EGGS ARE NOT CHILDREN.

[WIP]

Sorry if I implied this, I was just using this as an extreme example of how having zero abortion laws allows terrible acts to happen legally, and funded by the government. I know 3rd trimester abortions make up probably far less than 5% of abortions, but to me selective abortions during the 3rd trimester is by far the worst events done by our society.

I don't believe that Canada will ever ban abortion, but I wish 3rd trimester abortion without medical reasons should be out-lawed. I am unsure why the government pays for legal abortions in this country, when it doesn't pay for any other form of birth control. Also, why are we not fully funding the medication for people having problems getting pregnant in this country, just ending them.

Even much less than 5%. In Canada, only .8% of abortions occured after the 20th week, so only a few women are procrastinators when it comes to deciding whether or not to have the child. If you're talking about restricting late term abortion, when a case can be made that fetal development is significant enough (higher brain development) to make a case for a fetal right to life, you'll have the clear support of the majority of people on your side -- but even in the case of third trimester abortions, most people want to make exceptions for health risks to the mother, or severe birth defects.

There may even be extreme cases of extreme birth defects where a case could be made that abortion should be mandated, such as the birth defect anenacephaly -- a rare birth defect that starts about 7 or 8 weeks into pregnancy, where the brain and top part of the skull fail to develop, and if the deformed baby survives birth, it will remain deaf, blind and unconscious during the brief time it remains alive. So what sense do so called right to life arguments make in such cases?

[WIP]

All this topic does is point the need for education of both men and women of being socially responsible. So far it is pointed out that women now have the legal right to abort their pregnancy on a whim and taxpayers are on the hook for it.

What's so wrong with teaching people of both sexes from an early age that sex before marriage is bad as is irresponsible teen sex. A return of teaching traditional family values is clearly what society needs. Is that really so bad?

Because "traditionally," men and women got married a short time after they came of age; now that few are prepared for marriage before their mid-20's, what sense does abstinence before marriage make besides creating a mess of unplanned pregnancies among young people who've been taught not to carry condoms along on a date. Those few who actually remain virgins until marriage seem to be so sex-obsessed that they can't enjoy it after marriage either!

[WIP]

Yes, because teenager have sex whether you teach it or not. They have been having sex for thousands of years, ignoring parents, priests, politicians and everyone else. Teenagers don't give a damn, that's part of being a teenager. Besides "traditional family values" tended to be either shotgun weddings or the family doctor performing the abortion very quietly.

The world you believe existing never did exist. It's a fantasy of social conservative reactionaries.

Amen brother!

[WIP]

and

Clearly the two of you have a difficult time distinguishing between biology and sociology. Carrying a child is a biological issue, one which, to date, requires a woman's body. Raising a child is not a biological issue, it is a social repercussion.

As I said before, the law cannot interfere with biology of a woman any more than it can interfere with my desire to pee standing up. It can, however aim for social equality - as such, the secondary caregiver is obligated to contribute to the child's upbringing. If the woman is the primary caregiver, the man is obligated to contribute and vice versa if the man is the primary caregiver. That's social equality.

Forcing a woman to carry a child is not social equality.

Well stated, but I wouldn't say any rights are absolute. There may be cases in the later stages of pregnancy where fetal development may give good reasons for a right to life, but even then, exceptions should be made for cases involving birth defects and health risks to the mother.

In the early stages of embryo or fetal development, trying to make a case that its right to life supercedes the mother's interests and rights to decide how to spend the next nine months are totally ridiculous. There are conflicting rights involved in the abortion issue, but early on, before the embryo or fetus has any higher brain development, it should not have the right to overrule the rights of the mother.

The pro life side that claims a fertilized egg is a person and should be given a right to be born try to ignore the fact that giving rights to a fetus usually mean taking rights away from the women who bear the children. In reality, this leads to shocking situations such as El Salvador, where the Catholic Church-backed government brought in one of the most draconian antiabortion laws in the world, and there are now a number of reported cases of women who have gone to hospitals after suffering internal bleeding, have been manacled to their hospital beds while awaiting a forensic examination to determine if the cause of their bleeding was the result of a botched abortion. It's a bizarro world where a woman's uterus can be turned into a crime scene and any woman who supports idiots like Rod Brinooge, are asking for the same kind of justice to arrive in Canada.

[Mr.Canada]

Well if that wasn't a total load of crap, I don't know what else you can call it. If the husband is the "public face of their decision," then you are telling us that either she has to vote according to her husband's wishes, or she should have no vote at all, and call for repealing voting rights for women.

I'm against anyone murdering children also, so is just about everyone...problem is FERTILIZED EGGS ARE NOT CHILDREN.

If human life doesn't start at conception then when does it start and why?

EDIT- Any guy that picks up some random chick and bangs her but doesn't wrap it is an idiot. If shes willing to sleep with you on the first night shes done it before and is loose. These girls are to be regulated to fellatio duty or they can hit the road. If more people thought like this there'd be much less pregnancies and STD's.

Edited January 2, 2009 by Mr.Canada

[Jerry J. Fortin]

If human life doesn't start at conception then when does it start and why?

EDIT- Any guy that picks up some random chick and bangs her but doesn't wrap it is an idiot. If shes willing to sleep with you on the first night shes done it before and is loose. These girls are to be regulated to fellatio duty or they can hit the road. If more people thought like this there'd be much less pregnancies and STD's.

It starts with a successful birth. Until then "it" is a fetus.

[Mr.Canada]

It starts with a successful birth. Until then "it" is a fetus.

I see, so at full term, right before birth it isn't a human being?

So why does it become a human being only after birth?

EDIT- One more question. So if a pregnant women is murdered and the baby dies you wouldn't want the murderer charged with the babies murder as well right?

Edited January 2, 2009 by Mr.Canada

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I see, so at full term, right before birth it isn't a human being?

Apparently not?

So why does it become a human being only after birth?

No idea, I didn't write the law.

EDIT- One more question. So if a pregnant women is murdered and the baby dies you wouldn't want the murderer charged with the babies murder as well right?

Oh yes I would.

Try to keep in mind that legal definitions are already in place, and that the entire subject is based on emotional debate not legal fact.

[Mr.Canada]

Apparently not?

No idea,

I didn't write the law.

Oh yes I would.

Try to keep in mind that legal definitions are already in place, and that the entire subject is based on emotional debate not legal fact.

I see so a doctor performing a third term abortion is not murder but a pregnant women who was murdered and lost her baby is?

Can't have it both ways. The pregnant womans baby isn't a human life according to you so what would the murderer be charged with?

The law is going to change soon don't worry about that. Canada has the least restrictive abortion laws in the civilized world. I love how the left points to places like Sweden for changes to voting laws but refuses to do so in such things like abortion. Hilarious.

EDIT- and again you havent answered my questions.

What is the baby before birth?

Why does a baby only become a human being after birth?

Edited January 2, 2009 by Mr.Canada

[jdobbin]

The law is going to change soon don't worry about that.

So Harper is going to make it an election issue?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I see so a doctor performing a third term abortion is not murder but a pregnant women who was murdered and lost her baby is?

Can't have it both ways. The pregnant womans baby isn't a human life according to you so what would the murderer be charged with?

The law is going to change soon don't worry about that. Canada has the least restrictive abortion laws in the civilized world. I love how the left points to places like Sweden for changes to voting laws but refuses to do so in such things like abortion. Hilarious.

Abortion is legal, murder isn't. I am pro-choice so I guess I should have seen your poorly veiled attack, but I did not.

You speaks as if it is I that have written and agree with these laws, I did not and do not agree with much of this foolish legislation.

What is hilarious is religious fanatics who claim some sort of moral authority. They are the same wingnuts that have brought us situational ethics and affirmative action. Clowns is what I usually refer to them as.

What I have done Mr.Canada is truthfully answered your questions to the best of my ability. For this effort you reward me with attacks on my person and attempt to put words in my mouth. Is that your intent? Or are you merely angry and foolish enough to lashout at everyone who has opposing views to you?

[Mr.Canada]

Why is abortion not murder but the baby of a pregnant women who's murdered is?

Doesn't make sense at all.

So for the third time.

If not at conception when does the baby become a human life?

And why?

EDIT- You see folks, I pose very simple questions. Yet the Pro-Choicer cannot answer me. Makes me wonder if he knows what exactly he is supporting if he cannot answer this simple question.

Edited January 2, 2009 by Mr.Canada

[jdobbin]

If not at conception when does the baby become a human life?

When brain activity is present, in my view. Just as it is in death.

Now why won't the pro-lifer answer me on that? I have asked you before.

[Mr.Canada]

When brain activity is present, in my view. Just as it is in death.

Now why won't the pro-lifer answer me on that? I have asked you before.

What is the baby before that if not a human life?

[jdobbin]

What is the baby before that if not a human life?

It is potential human life. Without brain activity, we cease to be human.

[Drea]

Was there not some "bill" about that very thing Mr. Canada?

The problem is is woman A's fetus is murdered by a stranger and woman B's fetus is aborted -- the law will not be able to tell the difference. And the anti-choice camp would use the law to label women murderers.

It's far to blurry a line for us pro-choice folks.

[Mr.Canada]

It is potential human life. Without brain activity, we cease to be human.

Pretty weak dobbin. You seem to be taking a softer stance probably so you can try to backtrack at a later time and say you never fully agreed with the legal murder of children.

So to jdobbin a pregnant woman who is murdered and loses her baby is just one life. The murderer should not be charged with two murders, just one as the baby isn't alive according to jdobbin. Well, it's good to know where you stand on these issues.

Drea, I find it hard to believe that you as a mother yourself support the murder of unwanted children. I just don't get it.

Edited January 2, 2009 by Mr.Canada

[Smallc]

the baby isn't alive according to jdobbin.

And the law. Under the law (in the US anyway) a fetus becomes a person when it breaths on its own.

[Mr.Canada]

I am far too brilliant for people to answer my questions. You see folks, you see how they avoid this Christian man. They try a bit but then give it up and move onto other posts. The secular socialist pov is a shallow one and they are easily dispersed as long as you keep your faith in God strong and don't back down or show weakness through flexibility.

[jdobbin]

Pretty weak dobbin. You seem to be taking a softer stance probably so you can try to backtrack at a later time and say you never fully agreed with the legal murder of children.

Actually, my personal stance has everything to do with how I determine what a human life is. I think it begins and end with brain activity. In your world, it seems that organs harvested from a brain dead person is murder.

So to jdobbin a pregnant woman who is murdered and loses her baby is just one life. The murderer should not be charged with two murders, just one as the baby isn't alive according to jdobbin. Well, it's good to know where you stand on these issues.

It is just one human life and one potential human life. As I said, for me, a human begins and end with brain activity. In your view, it is when cell division takes place and when cell division stops. Any attempt to define it otherwise for you is murder.

I can only guess what punishments you would have if you think it is murder.

[jdobbin]

The secular socialist pov is a shallow one and they are easily dispersed as long as you keep your faith in God strong and don't back down or show weakness through flexibility.

You show flexibility by voting Conservative. Are your religious views shallow? Are you not furious with Harper? Is not Harper aiding and abetting murder?

Edited January 2, 2009 by jdobbin

[Mr.Canada]

Actually, my personal stance has everything to do with how I determine what a human life is. I think it begins and end with brain activity. In your world, it seems that organs harvested from a brain dead person is murder.

It is just one human life and one potential human life. As I said, for me, a human begins and end with brain activity. In your view, it is when cell division takes place and when cell division stops. Any attempt to define it otherwise for you is murder.

I can only guess what punishments you would have if you think it is murder.

Wow, that's pretty cold blooded. I thought socialists were supposed to be bleeding hearts and all that? So to jdobbin when a pregnant women is murdered and she loses her baby the babies life doesn't count and isn't even a life. Cold blooded dobbin.

Yet in the same breath these socialists will lobby on behalf of children, hypocrisy at its finest.

[Smallc]

Yet in the same breath these socialists will lobby on behalf of children, hypocrisy at its finest.

No, its not hypocrisy, but you can go on thinking that. You are far too brilliant to come down to the level of we socialists after all.

[jdobbin]

Wow, that's pretty cold blooded. I thought socialists were supposed to be bleeding hearts and all that? So to jdobbin when a pregnant women is murdered and she loses her baby the babies life doesn't count and isn't even a life. Cold blooded dobbin.

So for you, it is cell division that determines life and death for humans rather than brain activity?

By the way, if you are inflexible, you should not be voting Conservative. You are cold blooded because you are aiding and abetting murder (according to your definition).

Edited January 2, 2009 by jdobbin