Tory MP Rod Brinooge abortion bill

[Argus]

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.

But the "primary caregiver" faces no such responsibility, eh? Talk about having your cake and eating it too!

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

How about forcing the woman to be responsible for the child she carries - until it reaches its 18th birthday - whether she wants to or not?

[Argus]

Yes, it's our body.

But it's our wallet. Once the baby is born, it is entirely your decision as to whether you want to raise it or give it up to the state. You face no financial repercussions if you choose the latter. Why should men have no similar choice?

[Argus]

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?

Actually, the law is even more perverse and discriminatory when it comes to certain aspects of sex. If the two parties get drunk, for example, and have sex, the woman can later prosecute the man for having sex with her while she was drunk. She can claim she was too intoxicated to have given real consent. And if the man claims "But I was drunk too" the law says "That's no excuse". Yes, the law expressly disallows intoxication as any excuse for a man, but specifically states it absolves women of ALL responsibility for having consented to, or even pursued sex.

[Argus]

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.

In fact, mothers have NO legal or responsibility for a child. They can get rid of it at any point, before or after it is born, and face no punishment or sanction.

As an example, I know a woman who had a baby girl out of wedlock and decided to keep it. But then, five years later, met a man with a big house, and an old-fashioned family who wanted to marry her - but only if she dumped the kid. So she dumped the kid on the C.A.S.. She wasn't even obligated to tell the father he had a child, much less give his name to CAS. He only found out 25 odd years later. The child, btw, now a woman, is laden with insecurities, as might be expected.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Where is was going with this is that women get all of the choices and men get all of the responsibilities, that is reflected in the law. Toward the point of law, it has been subject to social engineering. Where once the pendulum swung far to the right it now swings far to the left. Group rights are now fundamental and individual rights are under constant attack and are at constant risk.

We now have no right to own property. How is that for an attack on individual rights? Further to this the rise of group rights denies individual rights unless of course you belong to one of the proscribe groups listed by the human rights commission, human rights(group based) do not apply to you.

To return to the case of abortion, I will again state that freedom of choice does rightly belong to women. Yet upon birth, men should have some entitlement to choice as well. A man should be able to choose whether or not to be involved in a relationship. Having one forced upon them is simply repugnant. As to financial burdens, again I will suggest that a man should have the option of accepting responsibility or not. If the man did not want to have a child as his responsibility in the first place, and has had this forced upon him by the choice of a woman, should that lack of choice then result in a financial responsibility? Is that not in reality being punished twice for something done with mutual consent?

Let me put it this way; should a female choose to have a child outside of wedlock against the wishes of a male sexual partner, the male should at least have the option of ending the relationship and be absolved of responsibility for the child.

The concept of choice should not be merely applied to one sex, but both instead. In my opinion that would be the definition of equality under the law.

[Drea]

Let me put it this way; should a female choose to have a child outside of wedlock against the wishes of a male sexual partner, the male should at least have the option of ending the relationship and be absolved of responsibility for the child.

The concept of choice should not be merely applied to one sex, but both instead. In my opinion that would be the definition of equality under the law.

Jerry I absolutely agree. When an unexpected pregancy occurs it is the woman's choice to keep or abort. The man has no such choice.

A man should be able to absolve himself from the situation completely if he so chooses. If the woman decides to keep the fetus she should be prepared to raise it alone (as the man is not interested in doing so in this example) financially and emotionally.

I don't believe a man should have to pay for a one-night stand for twenty years!

As it is the woman who gets pregnant, it is up to her to be prudent about her birth control.

If a couple is in a relationship, that is a whole different ballgame. But for one-nighters -- girls... be wise make sure you are on birth control -- heck use more than one method if you are unsure! Boys... bag it bag it bag it!

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Jerry I absolutely agree. When an unexpected pregancy occurs it is the woman's choice to keep or abort. The man has no such choice.

A man should be able to absolve himself from the situation completely if he so chooses. If the woman decides to keep the fetus she should be prepared to raise it alone (as the man is not interested in doing so in this example) financially and emotionally.

I don't believe a man should have to pay for a one-night stand for twenty years!

As it is the woman who gets pregnant, it is up to her to be prudent about her birth control.

If a couple is in a relationship, that is a whole different ballgame. But for one-nighters -- girls... be wise make sure you are on birth control -- heck use more than one method if you are unsure! Boys... bag it bag it bag it!

Thanks

[White Doors]

You know...I don't disagree.Unless we are talking about some sort of medical necessityor the two other cases you've mentioned,I see no reason for it whatsoever.

By the way,late term abortions are probably some of the medically barberous things that one human being can do to another.

Agreed. I would support banning abortions after a 20 week gestation period for any other reason than the pregnancy is threatening the life of the woman. Before 20 weeks it can work the same it is now. Hopefully with increased contraceptive use abortions will continue to decline. I do not liek the idea of abortion as a form of birthcontrol, but you got to give to get sometimes. In short, Canada is the only country in the western world that confers ZERO rights for the unborn at ANY stage of development and I think that shuld change. I don't think this has to be a black and white issue and I am tired of zealouts from both sides clouding the issues and preventing progress on this.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I would support the rights of the unborn if;

The mother was responsible for the health and welfare of the child. Smoking and drinking would constitute an endangerment or risk to the unborn.

The parents were held financially responsible for the unborn child, savings plans and educational plans as well as inheritance plans.

Society would include the unborn as second citizen within the body of the mother.

[Drea]

I agree with White Doors that 20 weeks or so should be the “cut off” unless the woman is in danger if she continues the pregnancy.

Anyone should be able to make the decision to abort well before 20 weeks. If a woman is that unsure about whether or not she should abort, she obviously shouldn’t.

Jerry,

It’s clear that we will never (wouldn’t want to) be able to regulate what pregnant women ingest. Is margarine or butter better? Is a Big Mac dangerous? My cats won't even eat it.

And it would be impossible to “make” the parents have enough money to save for all the children they weren’t “allowed” to abort! Ack!

[Mr.Canada]

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

However, raising people to be responsible is.

This isn't Harveys where you can have it your way. This line of thinking is terribly flawed.

[punked]

However, raising people to be responsible is.

This isn't Harveys where you can have it your way. This line of thinking is terribly flawed.

That is right I think we can agree less abortions would be nice, so lets teach sex ed, hand out condoms in schools and Educate the youth.

[Mr.Canada]

That is right I think we can agree less abortions would be nice, so lets teach sex ed, hand out condoms in schools and Educate the youth.

Sounds pretty reasonable.

No condoms in Catholic Schools though please but everything else is good.

Don't they teach Sex Ed anymore? They used to call it Health class when I was in school. Educate the youth to be strong morally and ethically. Teach them to have strong traditional family values.

[ToadBrother]

Sounds pretty reasonable.

No condoms in Catholic Schools though please but everything else is good.

Don't they teach Sex Ed anymore? They used to call it Health class when I was in school. Educate the youth to be strong morally and ethically. Teach them to have strong traditional family values.

And teach them to use birth control when they decide to have sex even after they've had Mr.Canada's religious re-education class.

[punked]

Sounds pretty reasonable.

No condoms in Catholic Schools though please but everything else is good.

Don't they teach Sex Ed anymore? They used to call it Health class when I was in school. Educate the youth to be strong morally and ethically. Teach them to have strong traditional family values.

It is called PDR in Nova Scotia and yes they do. I am glade we can agree on this.

[Drea]

Don't they teach Sex Ed anymore? They used to call it Health class when I was in school. Educate the youth to be strong morally and ethically. Teach them to have strong traditional family values.

Sure… teach them that their sexual urges are sinful and should be ignored at the very least. That if they are good little godchildren they wouldn’t even have those terrible, nasty thoughts! Imagine the guilt you religious folks must feel… I pity you a little bit.

Sex education needs to teach young folks about STDs and pregnancy; about oral sex, and anal sex and its possible medical implications (over and above STDs).

Premarital sex has been around for all of our history. It is not a new concept.

While some people may prefer to “save” themselves for their wedding… I think I’d like to “try on the shoes” before I make a commitment to purchase them!

We don’t buy houses without checking to make sure the roof and the foundation are secure…why marry someone that you may or may not be sexually compatible with?

Sex is the glue in a relationship. If the sex sucks the relationship is doomed. Isn’t it wiser to find out if you are sexually compatible before marriage?

Personally, I’ve been in relationships where the heart beats fast, you can’t stop thinking about the other person, you are deliriously happy – until you have sex… then hohum bye bye quickened heart beat, bye bye wonderful delirium…

How many couples in the past mistook lust for love and married only to find out they hated one another and the only reason they married was because they were so hot for one another?

[Peter F]

Where is was going with this is that women get all of the choices and men get all of the responsibilities, that is reflected in the law. Toward the point of law, it has been subject to social engineering. Where once the pendulum swung far to the right it now swings far to the left. Group rights are now fundamental and individual rights are under constant attack and are at constant risk.

We now have no right to own property. How is that for an attack on individual rights? Further to this the rise of group rights denies individual rights unless of course you belong to one of the proscribe groups listed by the human rights commission, human rights(group based) do not apply to you.

To return to the case of abortion, I will again state that freedom of choice does rightly belong to women. Yet upon birth, men should have some entitlement to choice as well. A man should be able to choose whether or not to be involved in a relationship. Having one forced upon them is simply repugnant. As to financial burdens, again I will suggest that a man should have the option of accepting responsibility or not. If the man did not want to have a child as his responsibility in the first place, and has had this forced upon him by the choice of a woman, should that lack of choice then result in a financial responsibility? Is that not in reality being punished twice for something done with mutual consent?

Let me put it this way; should a female choose to have a child outside of wedlock against the wishes of a male sexual partner, the male should at least have the option of ending the relationship and be absolved of responsibility for the child.

The concept of choice should not be merely applied to one sex, but both instead. In my opinion that would be the definition of equality under the law.

Well, I can't agree. Where will all this freedom to choose to be responsible for the child or not end up? It will end up exactly where we were 10-15 years ago. Many fathers not paying child support and single mothers taking on the financial burden themselves with only minimal support from the government.

If the government gave loads of financial support to a single-parent for the duration of the child-raising, I'd sign up to the idea that fathers can come and go as they wish. But the government doesn't so I don't.

We are not talking about an unborn child here - we are discussing financial support (if nothing else) to an actual crawling bawling diapered kid.

You seem to be saying that a womans decision to carry through on her intentional/unintentional pregnancy is equivalent to a mans decision after the child is born to then have the same choice the woman had prior to the birth - in order to have equal decision making opportunity. I don't buy it.

As you say (and I am in full agreement) it is a womans right to choose abortion or not - not the mans. But there is no quid pro quo here. Because the woman had a right to choose doe's not mean that (in financial child support terms) the man suddenly is endowed with a right to choose also - just so's things can equal out.

Once the child is born, then financially at the very least, both parents are on the hook to pay.

Abortion has nothing to do with child support. They are two entirely different things.

To say that because a woman gets to choose to abort her pregnancy so a man should be able to choose to pay child support is illogical and if allowed is detrimental to society not to mention the fathers child.

[Mr.Canada]

Sure… teach them that their sexual urges are sinful and should be ignored at the very least. That if they are good little godchildren they wouldn’t even have those terrible, nasty thoughts! Imagine the guilt you religious folks must feel… I pity you a little bit.

Sex education needs to teach young folks about STDs and pregnancy; about oral sex, and anal sex and its possible medical implications (over and above STDs).

Premarital sex has been around for all of our history. It is not a new concept.

While some people may prefer to “save” themselves for their wedding… I think I’d like to “try on the shoes” before I make a commitment to purchase them!

We don’t buy houses without checking to make sure the roof and the foundation are secure…why marry someone that you may or may not be sexually compatible with?

Sex is the glue in a relationship. If the sex sucks the relationship is doomed. Isn’t it wiser to find out if you are sexually compatible before marriage?

Personally, I’ve been in relationships where the heart beats fast, you can’t stop thinking about the other person, you are deliriously happy – until you have sex… then hohum bye bye quickened heart beat, bye bye wonderful delirium…

How many couples in the past mistook lust for love and married only to find out they hated one another and the only reason they married was because they were so hot for one another?

Hey, I had a lot of sex in my teen years but it was wrong and I was wrong. I wish I had saved myself for marriage. Sex isn't what a relationship should be based on. I've had relationships where everything was hot n' heavy but after a while even great sex isn't enough if the person has nothing going on upstairs and cannot have a reasonable discussion about current issues or what have you. I'd much rather be involved with a socialist who is smart and can discuss things then a conservative who can't.

[punked]

Hey, I had a lot of sex in my teen years but it was wrong and I was wrong. I wish I had saved myself for marriage. Sex isn't what a relationship should be based on. I've had relationships where everything was hot n' heavy but after a while even great sex isn't enough if the person has nothing going on upstairs and cannot have a reasonable discussion about current issues or what have you. I'd much rather be involved with a socialist who is smart and can discuss things then a conservative who can't.

Your wife made you convert to Catholic didn't she?

[madmax]

Hey, I had a lot of sex in my teen years but it was wrong and I was wrong.

Well, at least you freed up your hand.

I wish I had saved myself for marriage.

I hear the violins....

I'd much rather be involved with a socialist who is smart and can discuss things then a conservative who can't.

Well I am certain a Socialist would marry a Conservative who is smart as opposed to a stupid Conservative.

So, is your wife a Socialst?

[Drea]

I've had relationships where everything was hot n' heavy but after a while even great sex isn't enough if the person has nothing going on upstairs and cannot have a reasonable discussion about current issues or what have you.

Well then I guess it's a good thing that you didn't have to get married or you'd be stuck with a bimbo AND lousy sex! Aren't you glad you tried on those "shoes" and checked that "foundation" before you committed for life?

I'd much rather be involved with a socialist who is smart and can discuss things then a conservative who can't.

The ability to have an intelligent conversation has always been my number one priority for a partner. That and sexual compatibility make for a great relationship IMO.

[DrGreenthumb]

Well, I can't agree. Where will all this freedom to choose to be responsible for the child or not end up? It will end up exactly where we were 10-15 years ago. Many fathers not paying child support and single mothers taking on the financial burden themselves with only minimal support from the government.

If the government gave loads of financial support to a single-parent for the duration of the child-raising, I'd sign up to the idea that fathers can come and go as they wish. But the government doesn't so I don't.

We are not talking about an unborn child here - we are discussing financial support (if nothing else) to an actual crawling bawling diapered kid.

You seem to be saying that a womans decision to carry through on her intentional/unintentional pregnancy is equivalent to a mans decision after the child is born to then have the same choice the woman had prior to the birth - in order to have equal decision making opportunity. I don't buy it.

As you say (and I am in full agreement) it is a womans right to choose abortion or not - not the mans. But there is no quid pro quo here. Because the woman had a right to choose doe's not mean that (in financial child support terms) the man suddenly is endowed with a right to choose also - just so's things can equal out.

Once the child is born, then financially at the very least, both parents are on the hook to pay.

Abortion has nothing to do with child support. They are two entirely different things.

To say that because a woman gets to choose to abort her pregnancy so a man should be able to choose to pay child support is illogical and if allowed is detrimental to society not to mention the fathers child.

I disagree, I think the male should be able to decide to give up all rights/responsibilities to a potential child just like a female can. No child support-and no say in the any decisions made for the child ever. The government should be there to provide sufficient financial support to the custodial single parent. In the long run there would be less cost to society to make sure the child is adequately provided for than to pay the cost later in mental health or criminal tendencies that are linked to poverty. I am completely in favour of a woman's right to choose, but don't pretend that there are no women who purposely get pregnant to get their hooks into a guy they want for love or money. The family court system and the welfare system is totally biased in favour of women. My brother in law had his drivers liscence revoked for being behind in his child support. It didn't matter that the child was in HIS custody, had been for months. The mother was in a crack rehab group home and hasn't paid him a cent in the past year and a half he has had custody of their son.

[BC_chick]

But the "primary caregiver" faces no such responsibility, eh? Talk about having your cake and eating it too!

What are you talking about? The primary caregiver (man or woman) pays for the child everyday, by paying for food, providing shelter, and all the other necessities in life. The secondary caregiver (man or woman) therefore alleviates some of the financial burdens by contributing every month.

[Molly]

...just 'cause this whole conversation is making me crazy...

only about a third of therapeutic abortions in Canada are performed on teen mothers; nearly half of aborting mothers already have a child or dhildren.

[punked]

...just 'cause this whole conversation is making me crazy...

only about a third of therapeutic abortions in Canada are performed on teen mothers; nearly half of aborting mothers already have a child or dhildren.

Yet 50% of teen pregnancies in Canada end in abortion.