Aid Groups Told to STFU About Abortion or Face Increasing Backlash

[Argus]

At the very least, Ms. Somerville says, having any legislation, even one that does little to actually limit abortion access or popularity, sets a cultural tone about how a nation feels about something.

Read more: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2972995#ixzz0myCWa254

Are we a nation of buttinskis? If you get to make my medical/life decisions, then I demand a shot at making some of yours.

If I'm paying for yours then I do get a say in it. And 41% of Canadians don't think abortion ought to be funded by government exept in cases where it is medically necessary. In other words, many people are uncomfortable with abortion as retroactive birth control, and even more uncomfortable with paying for it.

[Argus]

Can I legislate your testicles?

Are you paying for his testicles?

[Argus]

you already carved out a "large group" of people as being against abortion (as murder)... do any of these overlap into your "center country group" that pines for abortion regulation? Do you also have numbers for this second of your carved out groups?

Environics survey on abortion law attitudes

[Argus]

I'm serious. There seem to be some people who are quite willing to carve a big legislative stamp into a woman's uterus, to compel her to live by their own codes of conduct, so I think the question is legitimate. If a woman's reproductive organs ultimately belong to the state, then what about testicles?

I don't know about morality here. But it seems to me that pro-choice advocates often take two sides on the issue. When it comes to the females, they should have the total freedom to negate the physical results of their sexual relationships at any time they choose and in any manner they choose. That is to say, they can take an abortion pill right after discovering they're pregnant, or, they can get an abortion, perhaps months later, or, they can have the child and give it away. In other words, women should not be expected to have ANY responsibility whatsoever for an unwanted pregnancy.

On the other hand, men must in all cases and situations, even where they've been tricked or duped into it, be be compelled by the full weight of the state to be financially responsible for the welfare of that child for the next eighteen years. No ifs, no ands, no doubts. Why? Because they're responsible. No matter what. The state, metaphorically speaking, does indeed legislate your balls, or at least, grab you by it and make you squeal till you pay.

Not the woman though. Dump the kid in a box and walk away. We're okay with that. We won't judge you. You poor thing you.

Pretty hypocritical, as far as I can see.

Edited May 4, 2010 by Argus

[ToadBrother]

Not the woman though. Dump the kid in a box and walk away. We're okay with that. We won't judge you. You poor thing you.

Pretty hypocritical, as far as I can see.

This is a pretty obvious example of arguing from an extreme. But let's pretend that your premise is anything but a rare event. That woman still bears an ever-growing fetus for nine months, enduring the vast physical changes that go along with it. In short, it isn't hypocritical to say that what men experience is nothing like what women experience.

[Argus]

This is a pretty obvious example of arguing from an extreme. But let's pretend that your premise is anything but a rare event. That woman still bears an ever-growing fetus for nine months, enduring the vast physical changes that go along with it. In short, it isn't hypocritical to say that what men experience is nothing like what women experience.

Certainly she experiences more physical discomfort. But only if she chooses to. She can dump the kid at any time. At ANY time. The male has no such ability.

Why is that again?

I mean, if we say, as a society, that women have no responsibilty to the child they produce. Why do we hold men responsible for the next eighteen years?

Are women equal or not? It appears they want to be considered as equal - but only when they benefit from it.

[Topaz]

Shouldn`t abortion be part of foreign aid when the country has too many people to feed and a lot of them die from starvation. Rape goes on a lot more over in those countries and the women and young girls should be able to CHOOSE and not STEPHEN HARPER! Perhaps Harper should live among the people he is saying no to and live THEIR lives.

[M.Dancer]

You keep saying you've posted the answer, but I look up and that's all your saying. So how about you treat me like an idiot (which you're already trying to do), and give me the evidence that elective and cosmetic procedures are the same.

You read my posts in this thread? And now you would like me to provide evidence about a claim i have not made...in this thread or any other...?

[JB Globe]

Disgusting is right. Canada should not be forcing other countries into the practice of abortion. Especially if those countries and cultures consider the action to be abhorrent. It's also disgusting how the Liberals are trying to use this as a political issue in an effort to garner support. Epic fail.

This is cultural imperialism at its worst. Shame on all of you. :angry:

200 000 women and girls have been raped in the Democratic Republic of Congo alone as rape has become an actual terrorism tactic used by militia groups . Most of these cases involved gang rape. In some cases family members were forced to rape their mother/sister/daughter at gunpoint or face the alternative of the whole family being shot. A lot of the women became pregnant as a result of the rape.

Are you against giving a woman who's been gang raped the option to terminate the pregnancy? Are you for forcing her to carry the baby to term?

What about a barely pubescent girl who was raped by her brother at gunpoint? If she's forced to give birth, I don't sleep better at night - do you?

This s*** isn't as simple as you think it is - abortion means something completely different in conflict zones than it does here in Canada.

Especially when forcing these women to carry the child often means getting illegal abortions in dirty back-alley clinics which can kill them. OR having (another) mental breakdown because the child is a reminder of their rapist(s), and attempting to remove the baby themselves with a kitchen knife while having a psychotic episode.

But hey, don't worry - I'm sure you'll find a way to filter this into your narrative somehow - you just might need a hell of a f***ing sieve.

[nicky10013]

http://www2.macleans.ca/category/need-to-know/?current=124604#post124604

1. Conservatives cut funding to women’s groups

At least 12 organizations will no longer receive money from Ottawa

At least 12 women’s groups have seen their federal funding dry up over the past two weeks according to an investigation by Le Devoir. Aside from their focus on women’s issues, the only thing that links all 12 is their unanimous opposition to Ottawa’s reluctance to fund abortions abroad, prompting some to suggest the cuts are politically motivated.

[Bonam]

200 000 women and girls have been raped in the Democratic Republic of Congo alone as rape has become an actual terrorism tactic used by militia groups . Most of these cases involved gang rape. In some cases family members were forced to rape their mother/sister/daughter at gunpoint or face the alternative of the whole family being shot. A lot of the women became pregnant as a result of the rape.

Are you against giving a woman who's been gang raped the option to terminate the pregnancy? Are you for forcing her to carry the baby to term?

What about a barely pubescent girl who was raped by her brother at gunpoint? If she's forced to give birth, I don't sleep better at night - do you?

This s*** isn't as simple as you think it is - abortion means something completely different in conflict zones than it does here in Canada.

Especially when forcing these women to carry the child often means getting illegal abortions in dirty back-alley clinics which can kill them. OR having (another) mental breakdown because the child is a reminder of their rapist(s), and attempting to remove the baby themselves with a kitchen knife while having a psychotic episode.

But hey, don't worry - I'm sure you'll find a way to filter this into your narrative somehow - you just might need a hell of a f***ing sieve.

That's all very unfortunate but what does it have to do with Canada and why should we pay for it? Not our war, not our problem.

[Argus]

http://www2.macleans.ca/category/need-to-know/?current=124604#post124604

Case in point: the Tories are currently on the hot seat for having cut funding to 11 womens groups in the last two weeks. Never mind that they are still funding 400 such groups, including some new ones that hadnt received funding before.

Tasha Kheiriddin

I am with the author. Why the hell is Harper continuing to fund hundreds of do-nothing feminist groups?

Edited May 6, 2010 by Argus

[M.Dancer]

I am with the author. Why the hell is Harper continuing to fund hundreds of do-nothing feminist groups?

No one will ever experiance a net vote loss by telling professional femninists to shut their yaps.

[Molly]

True.

No one has ever lost an election by underestimating the intelligence of voters.

[M.Dancer]

True.

No one has ever lost an election by underestimating the intelligence of voters.

Well...aside from Martin, Dion, Layton, et al...

[bloodyminded]

Disgusting is right. Canada should not be forcing other countries into the practice of abortion. Especially if those countries and cultures consider the action to be abhorrent. It's also disgusting how the Liberals are trying to use this as a political issue in an effort to garner support. Epic fail.

This is cultural imperialism at its worst. Shame on all of you. :angry:

The only forcing that's happening is the forcing of women NOT to have abortions.

But really, you know that, don't you?

[bloodyminded]

Well, I'd definitely like to see some type of abortion legislation. In particular, partial-birth abortion, and late-term abortion. Both are abhorrent practices.

Why "in particular"?

"Killing babies" is "killing babies"...isn't it?

Or is a six-month fetus more human, and the one-month fetus only sorta human?