Tory MP Rod Brinooge abortion bill

[BC_chick]

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!

And what do you propose as a measuring stick for determining when frivolous sex becomes a 'relationship'? After two nights, after 10, after they live together? Because left to their own, you know some men will deny being in a 'relationship' even after 10 years of marriage if it meant getting out of paying child support.

Edited December 31, 2008 by BC_chick

[Peter F]

... Because left to their own, you know some men will deny being in a 'relationship' even after 10 years of marriage if it meant getting out of paying child support.

Absolutely. Anyone remember the good ol days being advocated here? Divorce courts instructing fathers to pay child support that was never paid because in order to enforce the divorce orders the mother had to find the guy, hire a lawyer and probably a private detective too, then sue the man in court. All well within the means of most single parents... thus the 'deadbeat dad' regulations.

Drgreenthumb:

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.

Any parent can already do that. Exception being financial and both parents are liable to pay the childs caregiver child support. Wherever do you get the idea that women are not required to pay child support?

Because a woman has an the inherent 'right' (if you wish to call it that) to end her pregnancy, no matter what the laws are about abortions, or how many judges can disagree with her or how many of us clasp hands and fall to our knees and pray to god above for her not to have an abortion - Because a woman can end her pregnancy anytime she damn well wants - somehow that bestows on a man an ability to decide to not pay child support for the sole reason that we want him to have equal decision making capacity as her.

Its a rediculous contention!

A man has never had the 'right' to end a pregnancy short of committing an assault on the pregnant woman.

So to make up for that lack of right a man can now disavow his children? I scoff at the contention.

Edited December 31, 2008 by Peter F

[Mr.Canada]

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

Neither of us were angels when we met but she was Catholic and I held conservative views but was a lapsed Presby. I still believed in God but didn't go to church regular if ever. She introduced me to the Church and it was a natural fit.

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?

No, she is more of a Classical Liberal if I had to peg it. On some issues she is Conservative, mostly the moral/fiscal issues but is mostly socially Liberal. Especially on issues of race/gender since she is mixed race, black/white. She is more of the opinion of live and let live. She always says "they aren't bothering you. What do you care?"

What she's doing with me? I have no idea, it must be my sharp wit and undeniable charm. Certain issues we both take stands on and won't budge but she has softened by stance on many things and I'm better for it imo.

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?

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.

We met in a bar of all places, I don't do clubs cause you can't have a conversation about anything and they all where different faces from reality. I have the hockey Tie Domi look who I get mistaken for all the time, well less now but never the less. It's when I can speak with them that I really rope of them in. Love at first sight, what can I say, it's a bit flaky I know but if it is it is.

I think I like the rules and structure of the Church more than anything. I should've just joined the Army, lol.

[whowhere]

We are in the science generation. Canada, the US, and the world is your God. A few weeks back on sixty minutes they had a story how they interfaced a computer to a human brain. The person was able to control the computer via thought/will impulses. So?? Well, there will be a point when scientist will probably take man and women out of the equation and create humans in a lab. Welcome to the twenty first century. There is no turning the clock back on this freight train.

Get with the times effers and bow to your Gods: Health Canada, the Media, the weather channel, etc, etc. They will tell you what to think and believe sheeples.

On a serious note, if abortion is restricted who is going to feed, cloth, shelter these children in a "quality" life. Maybe this MP is just a christian Asshole who sees no wrong in children living in poverty. If mr MP wants to force life into this world he should step up and state out he plans to provide for said children. I know Canada and its values: a prentious who#$% who talks a mighty talk but weak on delivery. Really, not entirely Canada's fault given it was subjected to the Christian Brainwashing and still has a Christian Queen as it Soverein. Hard for Canada to break away from the immolation values of Christians when you are overshadowed by this dementia.

[Drea]

And what do you propose as a measuring stick for determining when frivolous sex becomes a 'relationship'? After two nights, after 10, after they live together? Because left to their own, you know some men will deny being in a 'relationship' even after 10 years of marriage if it meant getting out of paying child support.

If you are together long enough to discuss birth control then it can be considered a relationship. Sometimes a one-night stand begins a relationship, others times not. Usually it's two people hot for one another and under the influence. Birth control in that situation takes a back seat (lol) to the passion of the moment.

And yes, if a woman is willing to have that one-night stand she should make damn sure she is protected as she is the one who will have to make the very difficult decision of whether or not to keep a resultant pregnancy.

Men should always wear condoms. Always. A condom is a man's only means of birth control. That makes the onus on the woman moreso as she has so many choices.

Women need to take responsibility for themselves and stop acting like victims when they are not.

[Argus]

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.

Yes, but the woman can choose not to take on any of those responsibilities, including financial, or can choose to end those responsibilities at any time by simply getting rid of the child, before or after birth. The male has no such choice. We say to the male "Well, you had the sex, it's your child, so you are financial responsible." We do not say that to the woman. If she wants to abort it, or have it and then dump it with CAS we say that's her choice.

[BC_chick]

If you are together long enough to discuss birth control then it can be considered a relationship. Sometimes a one-night stand begins a relationship, others times not. Usually it's two people hot for one another and under the influence. Birth control in that situation takes a back seat (lol) to the passion of the moment.

How do you propose a woman can prove that she and the man discussed birthcontrol? Oh that's right, we can't, we can only prove fatherhood.

Besides what's stopping a man and woman from discussing birthcontrol from day one? How's this scenario for a one-night stand....

Man: I don't have condoms on me.

Woman: It's okay, I'm on birthcontrol.

Man: Hell no, I don't know you well enough to risk paying for your child for 18 years. Where's the nearest 7-11, I'll be right back.

[BC_chick]

Yes, but the woman can choose not to take on any of those responsibilities, including financial, or can choose to end those responsibilities at any time by simply getting rid of the child, before or after birth. The male has no such choice. We say to the male "Well, you had the sex, it's your child, so you are financial responsible." We do not say that to the woman. If she wants to abort it, or have it and then dump it with CAS we say that's her choice.

When a child is left for the state to raise, it means both parents have rejected custody. Neither pays.

If one parent rejects custody and the other raises the child, the rejecting party is legally required to contribute to the child's upbringing. It doesn't matter if they are a man or a woman.

I'm not sure where you're getting your information from.

[Drea]

How do you propose a woman can prove that she and the man discussed birthcontrol? Oh that's right, we can't, we can only prove fatherhood.

Besides what's stopping a man and woman from discussing birthcontrol from day one? How's this scenario for a one-night stand....

Man: I don't have condoms on me.

Woman: It's okay, I'm on birthcontrol.

Man: Hell no, I don't know you well enough to risk paying for your child for 18 years. Where's the nearest 7-11, I'll be right back.

That'd be a wise man. And the wise woman has condoms as well. There's more than just pregnancy to guard against.

Anyone willing to have sex (male or female) with a partner they are not committed to should use birth control and std prevention.

Unfortunately for men, once in a relationship (and no one has a disease so condom use stops) they are wholy dependent on the woman to use birthcontrol properly. In a relationship the "what ifs" should be discussed.

Sometimes the moon is blue and the one-night stand pregnancy leads to a life of blissful marriage, but most of the time it does not. Best thing is to educate our young people that sex without a condom is abnormal and should be avoided at all costs.

Edited December 31, 2008 by Drea

[BC_chick]

I think most people on both sides of the spectrum would agree that education should be a priority Drea.

But to get back to the relationship part, yes in an ideal world that's the way things should be. But 'relationship' is a very subjective term, the law needs more of a prescriptive factor in the determining a father's obligations to his children.

This is not to say the law is fool-proof. Just like everything else, there will always be men and women who abuse any situation which was created to protect them. It doesn't mean we allow the majority of people to go without just because a few ruin it for the rest. Imagine the can of worms that would be opened if 'relationship' was the determining factor in making a man pay for his children. Noway, we fought years to get out of that.

Some women also falsely accuse men of rape for personal gains. Should we scrap rape laws too?

On that happy note, lol, Happy New Year, my guests are en route! I'm out... see you all in 09!

Edited December 31, 2008 by BC_chick

[margrace]

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.

There wouldn't be any abortions if the almighty male learned to keep his dodle in his pants and not use it for bragging rights.

[M.Dancer]

There wouldn't be any abortions if the almighty male learned to keep his dodle in his pants and not use it for bragging rights.

If you are suggesting that woman aren't interested in sex or actively seek sexual partners perhaps you should speak for yourself.

[bush_cheney2004]

If you are suggesting that woman aren't interested in sex or actively seek sexual partners perhaps you should speak for yourself.

I didn't know that we had so many Virgin Marys.

[Argus]

There wouldn't be any abortions if the almighty male learned to keep his dodle in his pants and not use it for bragging rights.

You think all women are lesbians? Or is that just a fantasy?

[margrace]

Yep manly control and EGO is the name of the game.

[Argus]

When a child is left for the state to raise, it means both parents have rejected custody. Neither pays.

That makes no sense, you know. First of all, half the time the father hasn't even been told. Nor does the state care enough to tell him.

But the point is that a woman can, at all times, choose to opt out of any responsibilities for a child. The man cannot opt out either before or after birth, regardless of his situation or poverty. The woman decides for him whether he is to be financially encumbered by a child for the most important part of his life.

In the end, if the state really believes that the people who have a child should be responsible for its upkeep then even teenage mothers who give up their child at 15 should be responsible for paying child support for the next 18 years of their lives to whomever raises that child.

[Keepitsimple]

Since this is an all-party initiative, can anyone speculate who would be the MPs from the Liberals or NDP?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Perhaps a proper solution can only be found in a multiple approach to the problem. First of all education, that would include not merely sexual education but the social impact and personal responsibility education that goes along with the adult decision to have sexual relations. This will not stop unwanted pregnancies, but it would act as an eye opener to the implications of conducting sexual relations. I would suggest that this needs to be done, and quickly. It needs to be incorporated into our educational system immediately. Secondly the laws should be changed to reflect responsibility, ultimately the woman is in control and has the responsibility. Birth control is vested in the woman's decision to have sex, period. Yes men can were condoms, and women can use birth control, but no sex equates to no pregnancy. Knowing this our views need to change.

The social impact of unwanted pregnancies is horrific. To this end I would suggest that abortions must remain within the framework of a decision making process available to women. A woman who chooses instead to bear a child without the consent of the male sexual partner must carry the burden of responsibility for that decision with all the impact both financial and physical the decision encompasses.

[Drea]

The social impact of unwanted pregnancies is horrific.

"Horrific" is a little harsh imo. I am one of those single moms who choose to have the child and be wholly financially and emotionally responsible. He is a great kid so not all unwanted pregnancies end up in "horrific" situations.

To this end I would suggest that abortions must remain within the framework of a decision making process available to women. A woman who chooses instead to bear a child without the consent of the male sexual partner must carry the burden of responsibility for that decision with all the impact both financial and physical the decision encompasses.

I completely agree.

Women need to stop acting like victims and take responsibility for their decisions. That being the decision to have sex in the first place and the decision to keep or abort.

[DrGreenthumb]

Drgreenthumb:

Any parent can already do that. Exception being financial and both parents are liable to pay the childs caregiver child support. Wherever do you get the idea that women are not required to pay child support?

That is a pile of crap. The "state" does not go after mothers who don't pay, even in the rare cases when the man gets custody, the child support is not enforced like it is on the male. I havn't recieved one dime in child support in the last 13 years that I have had custody. I am fine with it because I don't have to deal with my crazy ex wife. If it were the other way around however, the state would be refusing me a drivers liscence, keeping my income tax returns, and any other money I made by working would get garnished until I had paid up. I know this because my buddy and my brother in law have both been harassed by maintenance enforcement for simply being a week or 2 late with their payments. It doesn't matter if they fall on hard times and can't even pay their own rent or feed their custodial children, they must pay their ex before they even feed themselves.

[Drea]

All that, Dr. Greenthumb, and the income of the mother is not taken into consideration at all. Even if she earns more than he does and has less expenses... it's pathetic in my opinion.

The income, expenses and needs of both parents should determine whether child support is warranted.

My ex makes maybe $45,000 a year or so, whereas hubby and I make over $100. My ex does not pay child support. Although when I was single and needed daycare subsidy, the government forced me to enroll with Family Maintenance. The judge awarded $315 a month from him, but I had it lowered to $100. He had a mortgage, two kids, a stay at home wife, his own business with no dental, etc. He certainly needed the money more than I did.

I pulled out of Family Maintenance once I met hubby, and would've anyway once my son no longer required daycare and I no longer required the subsidy.

And women who talk badly about the father of their children really piss me off. I know so many fathers that have difficult relationships with their "weekend children" because of this.

Again, pathetic.

Edited January 1, 2009 by Drea

[Peter F]

That is a pile of crap. The "state" does not go after mothers who don't pay, even in the rare cases when the man gets custody, the child support is not enforced like it is on the male.

Yes, that is a pile of crap. The child support laws do not refer to mother/father/male/female - they specifically refer to custodial spouse and non-costodial spouse.

I havn't recieved one dime in child support in the last 13 years that I have had custody. I am fine with it because I don't have to deal with my crazy ex wife.

So I take it that you have not persued the matter with the government. You wouldn't have to deal with your crazy ex in the least if you did.

If it were the other way around however, the state would be refusing me a drivers liscence, keeping my income tax returns, and any other money I made by working would get garnished until I had paid up. I know this because my buddy and my brother in law have both been harassed by maintenance enforcement for simply being a week or 2 late with their payments.

and rightly so. I know this also because my wages are garnished of my child support payments. and in a few days when I go on EI they will be chasing after me to pay. And again, rightly so.

It doesn't matter if they fall on hard times and can't even pay their own rent or feed their custodial children, they must pay their ex before they even feed themselves.

They must pay the due child support. All non -custodial parents must. If their financial situation has changed they can apply to have the child support agreement amended to reflect their current income levels - if found legitimate their child support payments will decreased to reflect their new income levels. Fall behind in child support payments and yes the govt will take it from any tax return or garnish wages or sieze passports or not renew drivers licenses. Pay the child support or inform the govt that circumstances have changed. The child deserves it.

Spousal support is an entirely different kettle of fish. You have used the phrase 'maintenance enforcement' and 'pay their ex'. Are you confusing spousal support with child support?

[DrGreenthumb]

Yes, that is a pile of crap. The child support laws do not refer to mother/father/male/female - they specifically refer to custodial spouse and non-costodial spouse.

So I take it that you have not persued the matter with the government. You wouldn't have to deal with your crazy ex in the least if you did.

and rightly so. I know this also because my wages are garnished of my child support payments. and in a few days when I go on EI they will be chasing after me to pay. And again, rightly so.

They must pay the due child support. All non -custodial parents must. If their financial situation has changed they can apply to have the child support agreement amended to reflect their current income levels - if found legitimate their child support payments will decreased to reflect their new income levels. Fall behind in child support payments and yes the govt will take it from any tax return or garnish wages or sieze passports or not renew drivers licenses. Pay the child support or inform the govt that circumstances have changed. The child deserves it.

Spousal support is an entirely different kettle of fish. You have used the phrase 'maintenance enforcement' and 'pay their ex'. Are you confusing spousal support with child support?

I'm not confused at all. I think that men or women should be able to opt out of paying child support if that means they have no say in how the child is raised. I'd rather see financial assistance for raising the child come from the state(yes taxpayers). Either that or the father should have the option of financially supporting the child in other ways such as half time shared custody, or buying necessities DIRECTLY for the child. I can't imagine how maddening it must be for some guys who are forced to pay CHILD support to their ex's who turn around and use it for cocaine support or booze support. My ex collected provincial welfare for 6 months by simply stating that she had custody. They paid for the 2 bedroom apartment plus cut her a check on the spot. they never even checked if she had a kid there, which she did not. I tried to simply get help from welfare for a damage deposit so that my daughter and I would not be out on the street. I had to provide them with my past year's bank statements, a court order showing that I had custody, and my last 2 income tax returns. After doing all this they decided that I had earned too much the previous month to qualify for help. The system is totally biased against single fathers.

Why should a woman be paid to just up and leave a relationship taking the kids with her? Why should the man have to continue paying her even when she is shacked up with some other guy who is playing daddy to his kids? The only way a father gets custody is if he can prove the mother unfit. The wife automatically gets the kids and does not have to prove the father is unfit to raise them. why not? Why should the guy get doubly shafted when his wife cheats on him, takes his kids and then moves a new guy in? I think when mr new guy decides to get involved with a woman with children he should take on the financial responsibility for those kids.

[Kitchener]

Why is it women can choose not to have a child, to avoid that particular responsibility, but a man cannot make a similar decision?

Wow, men have no choice about whether to have a child? And here I thought, as a father of three, I had pretty much figured out what caused pregnancy.

Do you think, just maybe, that men exercise that right when they decide whether or not to have sex? Hmm, it's a puzzler...

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.

The fact that a woman turns out to have a choice that is "downstream" of the man's choice does not absolve him of responsibility for his actions, when the outcome of those actions is a child. He has no reasonable expectation that it will be all the same to the woman whether she has an abortion or not, so he has no right to wash his hands of the matter should she decide to carry the child to term.

I do think it's funny how the PERSUNUL RISPONSABILITY!!!1!! crowd get all worked up when it's a man who's held responsible for his sexual behaviour, contingent on a woman's choice. I mean, sure, people have to take responsibility for their actions and all, but a woman being able to decide whether a man has a kid? That's, like, totally the opposite of what Allah intended!

[DFCaper]

We are in the science generation. Canada, the US, and the world is your God. A few weeks back on sixty minutes they had a story how they interfaced a computer to a human brain. The person was able to control the computer via thought/will impulses. So?? Well, there will be a point when scientist will probably take man and women out of the equation and create humans in a lab. Welcome to the twenty first century. There is no turning the clock back on this freight train.

Get with the times effers and bow to your Gods: Health Canada, the Media, the weather channel, etc, etc. They will tell you what to think and believe sheeples.

On a serious note, if abortion is restricted who is going to feed, cloth, shelter these children in a "quality" life. Maybe this MP is just a christian Asshole who sees no wrong in children living in poverty. If mr MP wants to force life into this world he should step up and state out he plans to provide for said children. I know Canada and its values: a prentious who#$% who talks a mighty talk but weak on delivery. Really, not entirely Canada's fault given it was subjected to the Christian Brainwashing and still has a Christian Queen as it Soverein. Hard for Canada to break away from the immolation values of Christians when you are overshadowed by this dementia.

Despite what atheist and crazy religious people think, Science does nothing to disprove GOD.

There are a lot of people in this country who would love to adopt these babies. The number of babies aborted in the third term would not come close to filling the need.

Do the people on this post who are against teaching morals to our children feel pride when children under the age of 12 are caught having sex? Learning that sex before marriage is wrong has never stopped teenage sex, but maybe helped kids feel that it was OK to wait till an age where they feel ready. There's a huge amount of pressure on kids younger and younger to have sex from TV, the internet and within their peer groups. Absence message should be taught to them as far as I'm concerned as the opposite is a guaranteed lesson that they will learn. Absence doesn't sell products, so I think we should be responsible to teach it so kids can make up there own mind either way, instead of them only getting the sex message. Not teaching sex ed would also be a huge failure of society.

Sorry for going off topic.

We need to be parents to our kids, not friends