Tory MP Rod Brinooge abortion bill

[capricorn]

My birthday is in exactly 6 months and 4 days...I guess that makes me a Cancer...

No Jokes!!!!!

Cancer is extremely loyal to those who appreciate and support them, they are the nurturer of the zodiac and will protect and cherish the person for a long time. One of the greatest things about Cancer is their ability to make others feel good about themselves and loved. This is because instead of doing this for themselves, they project this onto other people. This is a positive cycle because in making others feel nurtured, wanted and loved, they in return feel good for making someone feel good. Other people can lean on and depend on cancer, they will listen to people's problems and help them however they will rarely express their own deep feelings to anyone. People who want to share deep emotional thoughts and opinions with a Cancer might feel that the scales are tipped on one side for cancer will rarely reveal it's true deep feelings. A friend of Cancer is usually a lifelong devoted friend that can be trusted.

http://zodiac-signs-astrology.com/zodiac-signs/cancer.htm

My dearest friend is a Cancer. He makes up for all the ones I don't get along with. A friend who is a Cancer is a friend for life. That, I know.

We're way off topic so I'll cut it out. I'm just giddy because I'm still alive and kicking. Making it over 60 does it to you.

[Jack Weber]

And I'm telling you "traditional family values" are largely a farce. Traditional families had to deal all the time with teen pregnancies, and the usual method in the olden days was to marry the young couple and do some clever arithmetic so their firstborn wasn't a bastard.

At any rate, teaching kids to treat each other with respect and dignity doesn't sound so bad to me. I find it odd that you think that is bad. I realize you're a religious bigot who wants every kid to be taught that Jesus is Best and, regardless of what religion they may be, they're losers if they don't accept your narrow-minded prejudices, but there's a point where one has to ask "What is your problem? Why do you hate so many people? And why do you think you're so much better than everyone else when you betray such incredible ignorance of history, politics, society and damned near everything else?"

It's best not to ask that,or those questions.

Just take solace in the fact that folks like Mr.Halton Hills usually self segregate into rural areas where they cannot be touched by thoughts reminiscent of the 19th century,let alone the 20th and 21st century.Folks like him are doing us a favour and they don't even know it!

[Jack Weber]

http://zodiac-signs-astrology.com/zodiac-signs/cancer.htm

My dearest friend is a Cancer. He makes up for all the ones I don't get along with. A friend who is a Cancer is a friend for life. That, I know.

We're way off topic so I'll cut it out. I'm just giddy because I'm still alive and kicking. Making it over 60 does it to you.

And all this time I thought the Yanks had a nice national holiday for me???

[email protected] a let down when I have to read that shmultzy stuff.

[Peter F]

If you really want to be even-handed, BC, you'll let her make the decision to raise a child only for herself, and allow the man to opt out.

Why is it women can choose not to have a child, to avoid that particular responsibility, but a man cannot make a similar decision? If she decides to abort the child that's that. If she decides to carry the child to term and raise it, he's stuck with paying child support for 18 years.

Not true at all. No one, parent or not, is forced to care for a child. For society to force anyone, be they natural parents or not, to care for a child is to condemn the child to neglect and abuse. Society recognizes this and no one is forced to raise a child - it is done volountarily. If not by the natural parent/s then by some other volounteer.

A mother can abandon her child if she so wishes - so can a father. Niether is forced to raise and care for the child.

But both, however, can be forced to pay child support. Note that paying child support is not the same as raising and caring for the child.

[Argus]

A mother can abandon her child if she so wishes - so can a father. Niether is forced to raise and care for the child.

But both, however, can be forced to pay child support. Note that paying child support is not the same as raising and caring for the child.

Yeah, okay. And can you tell me the last time a woman gave her child up to the C.A.S. and was asked to pay child support?

[Peter F]

Yeah, okay. And can you tell me the last time a woman gave her child up to the C.A.S. and was asked to pay child support?

Nope.

[BC_chick]

Oh yes, it's her choice. In fact, even after it's out of her body _it's STILL her choice_. She can look at it, decide she'd rather be spending her time partying, and chuck the baby away without any effort at all. That's not biological. It's legal. Society says that a woman cannot be forced to be responsible for her child before it's born OR after it's born. In fact, even if she takes it home, and decides, three or four or five years later, that the kid is too much trouble, she's free to just dump it and carry on with her life.

A man, on the other hand, has no choice in either case. How is it we can force a man to be responsible for his child's well-being but not a woman?

and

So if it is indeed her choice to abort it's also her choice to keep and give birth right?

Why do men need to take responsibility for her choices and pay for the child if she keeps it when men have no options?

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.

Edited December 31, 2008 by BC_chick

[capricorn]

And all this time I thought the Yanks had a nice national holiday for me???

There you go again, thinking you're the centre of the universe.

[email protected] a let down when I have to read that shmultzy stuff.

I thought you'd like that. From one unsentimental nobody to another, repeat after me..."I have feelings too you know".

[Jack Weber]

I'm getting the creepy feeling we're supposed to have a cyber manhug....

I guess I have to get in touch with my inner "Metrosexual"...

[Jerry J. Fortin]

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.

I would suggest that you cannot have it both ways. If you want equality, then seek and accept it. If you want something else then seek that and accept it. As things currently stand, a man cannot compel a woman to have an abortion. A man cannot opt out of child support. So lets draw this to a logical conclusion, without interfering with individual rights, without forcing anybody to make a decision they believe would be detrimental to them, what can we expect the law to do for us?

Here is my own answer to this question;

In the case of conception resulting from consentual sexual relations, the parents must come to mutual agreement as to the status of any child born as a result. In the case of no consent only the mother has options. Only two options are available to choose from, the child is a product of an existing relationship or the child is not a product of an existing relationship. In the case of an existing relationship both parents are accountable and responsible for the care and upbringing of the child. In the case of a child being born that is not a product of an existing relationship, the mother can either accept full responsibility or give the child up for adoption.

The key of course would be to not engage in sexual activities outside of a relationship.

[BC_chick]

I would suggest that you cannot have it both ways. If you want equality, then seek and accept it. If you want something else then seek that and accept it. As things currently stand, a man cannot compel a woman to have an abortion. A man cannot opt out of child support.

Men cannot carry a child.

Women have to pay child support when they are not the primary caregiver.

IOW, where possible, the law is equal.

So lets draw this to a logical conclusion, without interfering with individual rights, without forcing anybody to make a decision they believe would be detrimental to them, what can we expect the law to do for us?

The same thing it does for us... forcing the secondary parent to contribute to the cost of raising a child when you are the primary caregiver.

Edited December 31, 2008 by BC_chick

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Men cannot carry a child.

Women have to pay child support when they are not the primary caregiver.

IOW, where possible, the law is equal.

The same thing it does for us... forcing the secondary parent to contribute to the cost of raising a child when you are the primary caregiver.

Men cannot carry a child, but should a women be allowed to carry a child? Who gets to choose?

Should a woman be allowed to force a man to pay for a child that the man does not want?

The law is not equal, never was and never will be.

Women receive a little more than "fair" treatment under the law. Let me put it this way, the average white anglo-saxon man cannot be discriminated against according to law. Now is it possible, to use you words, make the law equal with respect to individual rights? I say it is, but the law gives women and minorities rights that the average Canadian male is not entitled to. That is a fact.

[BC_chick]

Men cannot carry a child, but should a women be allowed to carry a child?

Yes, it's our body.

Should a woman be allowed to force a man to pay for a child that the man does not want?

Condoms are a great way to protect yourself from paying for unwanted babies.

Women receive a little more than "fair" treatment under the law. Let me put it this way, the average white anglo-saxon man cannot be discriminated against according to law. Now is it possible, to use you words, make the law equal with respect to individual rights? I say it is, but the law gives women and minorities rights that the average Canadian male is not entitled to. That is a fact.

No, that is an opinion.

Edited December 31, 2008 by BC_chick

[capricorn]

I'm getting the creepy feeling we're supposed to have a cyber manhug....

Would it creep you out more to know I don't have any family jewels? That's right, I'm female. With a name like Jack, I presume you're male, although in cyberspace one never knows. So much for the manhug Jack. Tell you what, we'll shake on it, a cyber shake, so to speak.

I guess I have to get in touch with my inner "Metrosexual"...

The "sexual' part caught my attention, no ifs about it. It's the "metro" part I don't get. But then, my city doesn't have an underground. I live a sheltered life.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Yes, it's our body.

Great accept responsibility for it.

Condoms are a great way to protect yourself from paying for unwanted babies.

No, that is an opinion.

Try reading something from the HRC website and then get back to me and say something like you were wrong.

[ToadBrother]

Women receive a little more than "fair" treatment under the law. Let me put it this way, the average white anglo-saxon man cannot be discriminated against according to law. Now is it possible, to use you words, make the law equal with respect to individual rights? I say it is, but the law gives women and minorities rights that the average Canadian male is not entitled to. That is a fact.

For the vast majority of our history, women have been chattel, with little or no political and legal rights, and now suddenly here comes the "Anglo-Saxons Males are so picked on crowd" to attempt to rewrite history (read: lie) to suit their silly argument.

The fact is that evolution, God or the Flying Spaghetti Monster (or whatever you believe) imparted the womb to a woman, and she gets the lucky draw on carrying and bearing the young of our species.

[reasonoverpassion]

I can't believe that I am commenting on the abortion debate. This is an issue I normally wouldn't touch with a 10 ft pole but here it goes. . .

Since R. v. Morgentaler in 1988, which struck down any law restricting abortion in 1988, now 20 years ago, has this topic ever been able to capture the attention of any significant portion of the Canadian public? There was outrage from some quarters, when the law was struck down, then nothing. In those polls that ask Canadians: What is the most important issue to you in this election, in all the elections that have happened since 1988, has this issue even cracked the top 10 or the top 100?

This is only an issue for a small vocal minority of Canadians. Leave the law as it is-- non existant. There are far more pressing issues for Canadians to be debating than this one.

Personal choice rules for me one this one. Individual rights trump collective ones. The "collective" Canadian public obviously doesn't care about this issue because it hasn't been made an issue. A small vocal minority of people will not succeed in making this non-issue into an issue the Canadian people will care about.

[Jack Weber]

Would it creep you out more to know I don't have any family jewels? That's right, I'm female. With a name like Jack, I presume you're male, although in cyberspace one never knows. So much for the manhug Jack. Tell you what, we'll shake on it, a cyber shake, so to speak.

The "sexual' part caught my attention, no ifs about it. It's the "metro" part I don't get. But then, my city doesn't have an underground. I live a sheltered life.

No...I'm slightly embarassed that I assumed you were male.Kinda presumptuous of me...Actually,now I'm slightly intrigued...You've alluded to a "cybershake"?

Now that I know you are'nt equipped with an external "package",what part of yours are you going to "shake"?

I am definately not a "metrosexual"...I'm just a regular burpin' and f@rtin' clueless male...If you don't think so,you can ask my wife!

[Jerry J. Fortin]

For the vast majority of our history, women have been chattel, with little or no political and legal rights, and now suddenly here comes the "Anglo-Saxons Males are so picked on crowd" to attempt to rewrite history (read: lie) to suit their silly argument.

The fact is that evolution, God or the Flying Spaghetti Monster (or whatever you believe) imparted the womb to a woman, and she gets the lucky draw on carrying and bearing the young of our species.

At one point in time we burned people at the stake for saying that the world was round. Times change, this is no grave revelation to anyone I hope. Now to slip through the rhetoric; nobody disputes a woman's right to determine what to do with her body, at least not here on this forum to the best of my knowledge. What I am stating is that men should have the same rights as women. This is not the case. Where is the male right as it applies to procreation? Men have no rights under law, women do. All I am saying is that there is a double standard being applied here.

I am pro-choice, that choice belonging to women. I do not think that it is the right of society to make a decision which applies only to women, and one which has so profound an impact on so many lives. There is however another side to that coin. It is not only men who are responsible for procreation, ultimately the final responsibility lays with the women. It is not only men responsible for contraception, but women as well. According to law if a woman says no to a man pursuing sexual congress with a woman, then a law is broken by that man. So in fact the woman has complete control and assumes complete responsibility for her actions. The man has no control over this decision. Yet the man can be held responsible according to law. Do you see where I am going with this?

[Bryan]

The pro-life caucus is hardly secret. It's been around for many years, and has had almost as many Liberals in it as Conservatives.

This is also nothing new for Rod. He has always worn his faith on his sleeve, and very openly campaigned that way. Reopening the abortion debate was one of his top priorities in the last campaign. With this right out in the open, he still increased his margin of victory from the last election, in a riding that had been Liberal for quite a long time, and with a parachuted "star" candidate as an opponent.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

The pro-life caucus is hardly secret. It's been around for many years, and has had almost as many Liberals in it as Conservatives.

This is also nothing new for Rod. He has always worn his faith on his sleeve, and very openly campaigned that way. Reopening the abortion debate was one of his top priorities in the last campaign. With this right out in the open, he still increased his margin of victory from the last election, in a riding that had been Liberal for quite a long time, and with a parachuted "star" candidate as an opponent.

Now that is interesting. I would have thought it to be a very foolish political ploy. I was wrong.

[capricorn]

Now that I know you are'nt equipped with an external "package",what part of yours are you going to "shake"?

None. At my age, if I shake it I might break it. Can't be too careful.

I am definately not a "metrosexual"...I'm just a regular burpin' and f@rtin' clueless male...If you don't think so,you can ask my wife!

Not to worry. I snore and so does my better half. A symphony in B Minor until one breaks wind and wakes the other.

[ToadBrother]

The man has no control over this decision. Yet the man can be held responsible according to law. Do you see where I am going with this?

Yes, nature doesn't give a crap about gender politics.

Oh, and sex is a mutual thing. This idea that women are somehow cold calculating vixens wielding their vaginas like battle axes may have kept Medieval thinkers awake at night, but biology just doesn't work that way.

[DFCaper]

Get a grip dude and educate yourself:

Educate myself about what???

Are not 3rd trimester Abortions legal here? I realize they are rare, and hard to find a doctor to preform one, as they are likely discussed by them. I just believe laws should determine what abortions are legal, not the morals of some doctor

[Peter F]

... nobody disputes a woman's right to determine what to do with her body, ... What I am stating is that men should have the same rights as women. This is not the case. Where is the male right as it applies to procreation? Men have no rights under law, women do. All I am saying is that there is a double standard being applied here.

I am pro-choice, that choice belonging to women. ... It is not only men who are responsible for procreation, ultimately the final responsibility lays with the women. It is not only men responsible for contraception, but women as well. According to law if a woman says no to a man pursuing sexual congress with a woman, then a law is broken by that man. So in fact the woman has complete control and assumes complete responsibility for her actions. The man has no control over this decision. Yet the man can be held responsible according to law. Do you see where I am going with this?

I think I see where you are going. It would help if you said where you are going, but let me take my best guess based upon the argument presented.

I think you are saying that since a male has no control over the womans decision to carry a pregnancy to term or not, the father is absolved of all legal responsibility to any child born as a result of the woman choosing to give birth to the child.

In other words; Any child born is solely and completely the legal responsibility of the mother. Fathers should have no legally enforcable responsiblity to any child born.

That would be fair, it seems, because the father has been removed from making decisions about conception and pregnancy. It would then be fair that only the mother, who after all chose to concieve and then chose to carry the child to term , should have sole financial responsibility for the child.

Am I correct?