gordiecanuk Posted January 4, 2009 Report Posted January 4, 2009 Only 21% of women who get an abortion do so for economic reasons. Are you trying to say that only the poor get abortions? No I'm not, but for those that do abort for economic reasons, what do you think?...let's stick to a single group for this discussion, to make things easy, single mothers. Would you be in favour of providing tax credits and goverment funded subsidies to ensure a decent standard of living for single mothers and their children? Quote You're welcome to visit my blog: Canadian Soapbox
Mr.Canada Posted January 4, 2009 Report Posted January 4, 2009 No I'm not, but for those that do abort for economic reasons, what do you think?...let's stick to a single group for this discussion, to make things easy, single mothers. Would you be in favour of providing tax credits and goverment funded subsidies to ensure a decent standard of living for single mothers and their children? There are plenty of social programs for new mothers to take advantage of and even more for the disadvantaged. I guess you weren't aware of that. Well I'm always happy to help. Quote "You are scum for insinuating that isn't the case you snake." -William Ashley Canadian Immigration Reform Blog
Molly Posted January 4, 2009 Report Posted January 4, 2009 We already knew that. You already told us that you are cheap. Providing _enough_ to eliminate economic hardship as a reason certainly wouldn't satisfy your need to punish 'dirty girls', either. Quote "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!" — L. Frank Baum "For Conservatives, ministerial responsibility seems to be a temporary and constantly shifting phenomenon," -- Goodale
gordiecanuk Posted January 4, 2009 Report Posted January 4, 2009 There are plenty of social programs for new mothers to take advantage of and even more for the disadvantaged. I guess you weren't aware of that. Well I'm always happy to help. So foodbanks and the John Howard society or whatever....just don't raise your taxes, got it. We'll legislate morality fine...just don't expect us to pay anything for it, go see someone else. Very Christian of you. Quote You're welcome to visit my blog: Canadian Soapbox
Oleg Bach Posted January 4, 2009 Report Posted January 4, 2009 We already knew that.You already told us that you are cheap. Providing _enough_ to eliminate economic hardship as a reason certainly wouldn't satisfy your need to punish 'dirty girls', either. Abortion in part is woman hate...If woman were respected and loved and protected properly they would not fear motherhood. We live in a state where pooping dogs are more important than bringing in sweet beautiful children into the world. All I have figured out is that Ontario is like a huge private estate with tons of cattle - Us! - and elitist jerks pushed feminism and abortion on the herd in order to exert total control....In the old days there was extended family and if a young woman had a child - married or not - the family would support the mother - and protect her and the child - now this brave new world we live in makes it a crime to have a child...we are nothing but bio-utlity machines..held in contempt by those who look upon us as commodity...My mother back in 1950 as an immigrant to England was told not to have children...because it might interfere with her being a damned servant. Quote
Mr.Canada Posted January 4, 2009 Report Posted January 4, 2009 (edited) So foodbanks and the John Howard society or whatever....just don't raise your taxes, got it. We'll legislate morality fine...just don't expect us to pay anything for it, go see someone else. Very Christian of you. Not to mention job training programs, subsidized daycare and many more. I of the opinion that single mothers don't want a hand out forever but want to get good paying jobs and learn the skills necessary to get those jobs. Well for the 21% of would be mothers who are less well off. Edited January 4, 2009 by Mr.Canada Quote "You are scum for insinuating that isn't the case you snake." -William Ashley Canadian Immigration Reform Blog
gordiecanuk Posted January 4, 2009 Report Posted January 4, 2009 Not to mention job training programs, subsidized daycare and many more. I of the opinion that single mothers don't want a hand out forever but want to get good paying jobs and learn the skills necessary to get those jobs. Well for the 21% of would be mothers who are less well off. Damn, with all those programs I guess single mothers must be one of Canada's most economically advantaged groups!!! Quote You're welcome to visit my blog: Canadian Soapbox
Oleg Bach Posted January 4, 2009 Report Posted January 4, 2009 Damn, with all those programs I guess single mothers must be one of Canada's most economically advantaged groups!!! "You will ruin your future my dear if you have a baby...better abort until you are finacially capable" - Great...off the girl goes to punch a computer key board for 30 years then she is disposed of......call that a future? Soon after WW2 - the banks figured out that they could have two victims to prey on - not just the husbanding male..the provider - but now they could gouge the so-called liberated working mother...There was a time when one income would suffice..now with two incomes families - have less buying power than the one income...the whole thing was a fraud and woman were not liberated - they were inslaved and in a sense forced to have abortions. Women should be free to raise children and stay at home - soviet style daycare...should not even be considered...it's slavery -----as for the young child..Dragged out of bed at six in the morning and carted off to day care - I see that as child labour - and the pupose the daycared child is to employ thousands of useless "care givers" - who really don't care other than their bureacratic pay cheque! Quote
Mr.Canada Posted January 4, 2009 Report Posted January 4, 2009 Damn, with all those programs I guess single mothers must be one of Canada's most economically advantaged groups!!! We've come a long way since 1969. Quote "You are scum for insinuating that isn't the case you snake." -William Ashley Canadian Immigration Reform Blog
Oleg Bach Posted January 4, 2009 Report Posted January 4, 2009 We've come a long way since 1969. Yah sure! Back in 69 ...at least the child would live through adoption..The girl could be sent away and have the kid secretly...and sometimes a grandmother or older sister would raise the child. - Now, all I hear are adds for fertility clinics - where woman who waited to long or made them selves infertile through mulitiple abortions, suddenly want children at 40 years of age...I guess it took them that long to figure out that "abortion providers" - Provide nothing and they got ripped off for real wealth - which is husband, home and children. This was all engineered.......As for the abortion bill ....I don't know what the bill consists of...what it should have is provisions to grant families support so they can have children instead of depending on the throw away immigrants from other lands who are not the cream of the human crop. Quote
punked Posted January 4, 2009 Report Posted January 4, 2009 We've come a long way since 1969. We are no even close. Quote
Oleg Bach Posted January 4, 2009 Report Posted January 4, 2009 We are no even close. Abortion should not be a form of birth control...It's not like pulling out an absessed tooth...it's a very serious matter....We encourage our young to parrot and mimic the pop culture of disposablity and totally recreational sexuality...If you don't want to have a child - don't have sex...what are you - a dumb animal? Quote
punked Posted January 4, 2009 Report Posted January 4, 2009 Abortion should not be a form of birth control...It's not like pulling out an absessed tooth...it's a very serious matter....We encourage our young to parrot and mimic the pop culture of disposablity and totally recreational sexuality...If you don't want to have a child - don't have sex...what are you - a dumb animal? Abstinence does not work we need to teach them to use conceptives. Yes I am an animal you claim to be some sort of higher being? You don't eat? You don't sleep? My body is the same as theirs. Quote
Drea Posted January 4, 2009 Report Posted January 4, 2009 (edited) Oleg, you sound like a little old lady from my youth... she said about a young woman who got pregnant back then "If she didn't want a baby, why did she have sex?" Oh gee, I wonder why. Could it be that sex is fun and pleasureable? Nah! Women hate sex, we just lay there hating it all the while obviously. Animals have sex only to procreate, they do not do it for pleasure ('cept the Bonobo (sp) monkey)... so no, we are not dumb animals... we are human beings with desires beyond procreating. Oleg, women are not weak little victims who need to be protected. We are human beings in our own right, we own our mistakes and do not expect the world to come to our rescue (or we shouldn't). We don't need people telling us that we are helpless little creatures who can't take care of ourselves. I know it makes you feel good to feel like you are a saviour, but by "saving" women from their mistakes, you perpetuate the notion of women as victims in our society with no say as to the consequences of their actions. Edited January 4, 2009 by Drea Quote ...jealous much? Booga Booga! Hee Hee Hee
daniel Posted January 4, 2009 Report Posted January 4, 2009 Telling people to abstain from sex is like telling the right-wing to abstain from military intervention. Quote
Oleg Bach Posted January 4, 2009 Report Posted January 4, 2009 Oleg, you sound like a little old lady from my youth... she said about a young woman who got pregnant back then "If she didn't want a baby, why did she have sex?" Oh gee, I wonder why. Could it be that sex is fun and pleasureable? Nah! Women hate sex, we just lay there hating it all the while obviously. Animals have sex only to procreate, they do not do it for pleasure... so no, we are not dumb animals... we are human beings with desires beyond procreating. Oleg, women are not weak little victims who need to be protected. We are human beings in our own right, we own are mistakes and do not expect the world to come to our rescue (or we shouldn't). We don't need people telling us that we are helpless little creatures who can't take care of ourselves. I know it makes you feel good to feel like you are a saviour, but by "saving" women from their mistakes, you perpetuate the notion of women as victims in our society with no say as to the consequences of their actions. If the world was tossed back in time to a less artifical era...Your job would be to have babies and water the garden=== My job would be to protect you from predators..not to be some slave...but a patron ( protector - papa...father) - Do you really believe that are so-called evolved society actually protects you because you are a female? They run a ruse...the system as such only dupes females and most males...into believing you are free from abuse and are protected.....as far as sex - YES - it is my favorite recreation ----and as a young man - I was ready to be the father of any child I sired - and I sleep with a lot of woman - I mean a lot...never would I have suggested the abortion of my own child...others did..not I ! Call me a primative patriarch ...if you must - but - my duty was to bring as many children into the world as possible - I might just have 50 out there and five I raised personally....ha ha ha ------------------I AM A MAN. Quote
DrGreenthumb Posted January 4, 2009 Author Report Posted January 4, 2009 It never ceases to amuse me how the most zealous of the left wing PC crowd will still sneer at someone while suggesting they're somehow gay. I mean, anyone else making gay references as a pejorative draw howls of denunciation, but the left sees no problem with trying to insult people by insinuating they might be gay.Just one of the many reasons why I hold little more than contempt for people on the Left, and their hypocritical self-righteousness. I was actually just asking if someone else was hinting that Mr Canada was a closet homosexual. I don't see anything wrong with someone being gay, I just think its funny when certain religious types try to deny their urges under a cover of righteousness. Methinks he doth protest too much is all lol. Quote
DrGreenthumb Posted January 4, 2009 Author Report Posted January 4, 2009 Telling people to abstain from sex is like telling the right-wing to abstain from military intervention. or even like asking them to mind their own business. Quote
Oleg Bach Posted January 4, 2009 Report Posted January 4, 2009 or even like asking them to mind their own business. Sex feels good and so does the money from "military intervension" - ever consider taping a hundred dollar bill on your partners forehead as a sexual aid? Quote
Mr.Canada Posted January 4, 2009 Report Posted January 4, 2009 or even like asking them to mind their own business. Where peoples business is costing taxpayer dollars it becomes everyone's business. Taxpayers have a right to say how their tax dollars are being spent in Canada. This isn't Soviet Russia. Quote "You are scum for insinuating that isn't the case you snake." -William Ashley Canadian Immigration Reform Blog
Jerry J. Fortin Posted January 4, 2009 Report Posted January 4, 2009 Where peoples business is costing taxpayer dollars it becomes everyone's business. Taxpayers have a right to say how their tax dollars are being spent in Canada. This isn't Soviet Russia. Interesting. Did either you or I get a say in bailing out the auto industry? Quote
Mr.Canada Posted January 4, 2009 Report Posted January 4, 2009 Interesting. Did either you or I get a say in bailing out the auto industry? Yes, we did. Just as we got a say in re-opening gay marriage. Quote "You are scum for insinuating that isn't the case you snake." -William Ashley Canadian Immigration Reform Blog
Drea Posted January 4, 2009 Report Posted January 4, 2009 Where peoples business is costing taxpayer dollars it becomes everyone's business. Taxpayers have a right to say how their tax dollars are being spent in Canada. This isn't Soviet Russia. That's why your church should not be tax exempt. WE pay for your social club for pete sake... so your social club should be answerable to me the taxpayer. Quote ...jealous much? Booga Booga! Hee Hee Hee
punked Posted January 4, 2009 Report Posted January 4, 2009 (edited) Yes, we did. Just as we got a say in re-opening gay marriage. YOU JUST TOLD ME YOU WERE FOR GAY MARRIAGE!!! "Hi my name is Mr. Canada I talk out of both sides of my mouth." Edited January 4, 2009 by punked Quote
Mr.Canada Posted January 4, 2009 Report Posted January 4, 2009 (edited) That's why your church should not be tax exempt.WE pay for your social club for pete sake... so your social club should be answerable to me the taxpayer. Christian Churches give much more charity to the precious homeless than anyone does. I understand you hate God Drea, that's your choice and some day you'll answer for it, none the less it isn't a social club. If you've been to Church, you'd know that. Plus this will never happen. YOU JUST TOLD ME YOU WERE FOR GAY MARRIAGE!!!"Hi my name is Mr. Canada I talk out of both sides of my mouth." As in re opening it to change marriage back to the 'traditional definition". Canada said not right now. Get to work fixing Canada. Harper said, you're the boss taxpayer and went about to fixing the mess left by the Liberals. Canada called for strong leadership and Harper answered. Edited January 4, 2009 by Mr.Canada Quote "You are scum for insinuating that isn't the case you snake." -William Ashley Canadian Immigration Reform Blog
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.