Smallc Posted September 28, 2012 Report Posted September 28, 2012 However, once the child is born, then both mother and father have a legal duty to support that child until such time as the child can support itself. The mother can give it up for adoption. If the mother chooses to keep the baby, the father doesn't have a similar option. Quote
Peter F Posted September 28, 2012 Report Posted September 28, 2012 The mother can give it up for adoption. If the mother chooses to keep the baby, the father doesn't have a similar option. She most certainly does - as does the Father. Quote A bayonet is a tool with a worker at both ends
Smallc Posted September 28, 2012 Report Posted September 28, 2012 She most certainly does - as does the Father. Can the father give up all obligation to the child that he created if the mother doesn't? If he can, I don't have a problem anymore. Quote
Mr.Canada Posted September 28, 2012 Author Report Posted September 28, 2012 In our society men are fourth in the hierarchy. The order is Women, Kids, Dogs and then men. Everyone screams about equality but there is nothing equal about our society at all. Quote "You are scum for insinuating that isn't the case you snake." -William Ashley Canadian Immigration Reform Blog
The_Squid Posted September 28, 2012 Report Posted September 28, 2012 In our society men are fourth in the hierarchy. The order is Women, Kids, Dogs and then men. Everyone screams about equality but there is nothing equal about our society at all. What a self-pitying, pathetic viewpoint. Grow a pair and man-up. Quote
The_Squid Posted September 28, 2012 Report Posted September 28, 2012 Can the father give up all obligation to the child that he created if the mother doesn't? If he can, I don't have a problem anymore. The deal with knocking someone up is if they take responsibility then you must do so as well.... Nothing unfair about it... Quote
Mr.Canada Posted September 28, 2012 Author Report Posted September 28, 2012 (edited) What a self-pitying, pathetic viewpoint. Grow a pair and man-up. That is reality. Women, kids and dogs all have more rights then men do. If you don't see that then you're in denial. We're Catholic so I have all the power in my family but not everyone is so lucky. Men are second class citizens. Edited September 28, 2012 by Mr.Canada Quote "You are scum for insinuating that isn't the case you snake." -William Ashley Canadian Immigration Reform Blog
Smallc Posted September 28, 2012 Report Posted September 28, 2012 The deal with knocking someone up is if they take responsibility then you must do so as well.... If precautions were taken, and it still happened, and the man doesn't want it, why doesn't he get a choice? Quote
Bonam Posted September 28, 2012 Report Posted September 28, 2012 (edited) I understand the argument, except for the claim that a foetus (assuming, as we are in this, that it is technically a person) being removed before viability isn't being put to death. Conversely, I wonder if the father has the right to not be used as the means to keep another human being alive; ie. to have a choice in paying to support the child the mother decided to carry to term (when the child certainly has become a person). [ed.: +] Now see that is an interesting question. One I've brought up a number of times, but our friend cybercoma fails to see the analogy. I'm glad the two of you also recognize the parallel. Edited September 28, 2012 by Bonam Quote
The_Squid Posted September 28, 2012 Report Posted September 28, 2012 If precautions were taken, and it still happened, and the man doesn't want it, why doesn't he get a choice? Because precautions fail and kids are expensive. Quote
The_Squid Posted September 28, 2012 Report Posted September 28, 2012 That is reality. Women, kids and dogs all have more rights then men do. If you don't see that then you're in denial. We're Catholic so I have all the power in my family but not everyone is so lucky. Men are second class citizens. If you are as whiny and pathetic in real life, I really doubt you have"power". Quote
BC_chick Posted September 28, 2012 Report Posted September 28, 2012 Moonbox. No one seems to know when human life actually begins. Motion 312 seeks to answer that question. Answering a question isn't ending anyones basic human rights. This was a free vote not a whipped vote. You're suggesting that Mp's shouldn't be allowed to vote freely. What a shame. I thought you were in favor of democracy? Or is only democracy when you get what you want? Give it a rest will you? What motive could there possibly be for this 'study' other than modifying abortion laws? And for the record, I'm all for banning abortions after viability; even if they never happen. Still... you are insulting our intelligence with this charade that there is no connection between abortion and motion 312. Quote It's kind of the worst thing that any humans could be doing at this time in human history. Other than that, it's fine." Bill Nye on Alberta Oil Sands
Mr.Canada Posted September 28, 2012 Author Report Posted September 28, 2012 (edited) Give it a rest will you? What motive could there possibly be for this 'study' other than modifying abortion laws? And for the record, I'm all for banning abortions after viability; even if they never happen. Still... you are insulting our intelligence with this charade that there is no connection between abortion and motion 312. The media keeps trying to draw this asumption as well. It isn't for me to decide what the government plans to do with this information. I just think that's it's always better to have all the information before making a decision about anything. Seems like so many people are afraid of having the real answers. They would only be afraid of the answer if they suspected it would be an answer they wouldn't like. Otherwise they'd be all over it. Edited September 28, 2012 by Mr.Canada Quote "You are scum for insinuating that isn't the case you snake." -William Ashley Canadian Immigration Reform Blog
BC_chick Posted September 28, 2012 Report Posted September 28, 2012 Do you honestly not think it's hypocritical for the state to force a man to pay (using his body to perfom the tasks for which he is paid and subjecting it to added stress, the degree of which depending on the father's financial circumstances) for a child he didn't want, but the state grants the mother the free choice of whether to give birth to that child and raise that child or not to? The woman is fully sovereign in this matter, while the father is subject to both the woman and the state. Fair? I think not. Is it 'fair' that women are the ones who have to carry an unwanted baby to term? Quote It's kind of the worst thing that any humans could be doing at this time in human history. Other than that, it's fine." Bill Nye on Alberta Oil Sands
jacee Posted September 28, 2012 Report Posted September 28, 2012 Thousands sign petition calling for status of women minister’s job after abortion vote Quote
Mr.Canada Posted September 28, 2012 Author Report Posted September 28, 2012 (edited) Thousands sign petition calling for status of women minister’s job after abortion vote A petition means absolutely nothing and carries absolutely no weight unless it is signed all by people in her riding. if it isn't it is e asily dismissed. More people all parties can add to their list database. It was a free vote. You don't like freedom? Democracy? Edited September 28, 2012 by Mr.Canada Quote "You are scum for insinuating that isn't the case you snake." -William Ashley Canadian Immigration Reform Blog
Smallc Posted September 28, 2012 Report Posted September 28, 2012 A petition means absolutely nothing and carries absolutely no weight unless it is signed all by people in her riding. This isn't about her job as an MP. Quote
Mr.Canada Posted September 28, 2012 Author Report Posted September 28, 2012 This isn't about her job as an MP. Sure it is. The only people she has to answer to is to people in her riding and to PM Harper. No one else has any impact on her life at all. She can smugly ignore them. Their will be always be people who dislike other politicians. Surprise The left and the middle want you to resign...news flash. One vote doesn't erase all the work she's done at her current post. The vote didn't pass and even if it did it wouldn't have anything to do with the abortion law. The supreme court already ruled on abortion 30+ years ago so I don't see why everryone gets all out of shape whenever anyone wants to have an open discussion on the subject. Quote "You are scum for insinuating that isn't the case you snake." -William Ashley Canadian Immigration Reform Blog
Keepitsimple Posted September 28, 2012 Report Posted September 28, 2012 Canada is the only Western country without some sort of legislation surrounding abortion. Whether it is Sweden, Germany, France, Netherlands or anyone - they ALL have legislation that puts SOME level of restriction on abortion. In Canada, there is a significant percentage of the population that feels SOME safeguards are warranted. With the bullying of the opposition and pro-choice activists - those Canadians are without a voice. It's revealing to see that Conservatives - with a free vote - have expressed themselves in a manner that's fairly consistent with Canadians as a whole - in that opinions differ greatly. Between them, the NDP and Liberals could muster only 4 brave souls (the NDP even whipped their members) who supported the motion - once again reflecting the narrow mind-set of these parties. Quote Back to Basics
Topaz Posted September 28, 2012 Report Posted September 28, 2012 I wonder where both sides of the issue stand on the "right to die" issue. If you are for abortion would you be FOR the right to die and if you are against abortioin are you against the right to die. I would think more Canadian would rather have a debate in the Commons about the right to die than abortion. Myself, I would like the OPTION of choosing how my like would end not the governments. Quote
Bryan Posted September 28, 2012 Report Posted September 28, 2012 You guys continue to ignore the fact that a financial obligation is not even remotely close to the same thing as telling a woman that something must live inside of her body against her will. I honestly don't even understand how otherwise reasonable people could make that comparison. You're right. The woman's obligation is significantly less. She's got a medical condition that will solve itself if she just ignores it, in less time than a lot of Canadians wait to have other medical conditions dealt with. A few months of inconvenience, and she's done. The man on the other hand, is being forced to bear a tremendous financial burden for (at least) 18 years. If he ignores that, it doesn't solve itself, he goes to jail. Even if abortion was 100% illegal, the woman is still substantially better off than the man is. Quote
g_bambino Posted September 28, 2012 Report Posted September 28, 2012 Is it 'fair' that women are the ones who have to carry an unwanted baby to term? Er... They don't. Quote
Peter F Posted September 28, 2012 Report Posted September 28, 2012 You're right. The woman's obligation is significantly less. She's got a medical condition that will solve itself if she just ignores it, in less time than a lot of Canadians wait to have other medical conditions dealt with. A few months of inconvenience, and she's done. The man on the other hand, is being forced to bear a tremendous financial burden for (at least) 18 years. If he ignores that, it doesn't solve itself, he goes to jail. Even if abortion was 100% illegal, the woman is still substantially better off than the man is. Oh cmon...it costs the mother some bucks too. Quote A bayonet is a tool with a worker at both ends
Bryan Posted September 28, 2012 Report Posted September 28, 2012 Oh cmon...it costs the mother some bucks too. Only if she chooses to. Quote
g_bambino Posted September 28, 2012 Report Posted September 28, 2012 (edited) Absolutely fair. You are still drawing a false equivalence; The male may have no bottom line say wether a woman carriesthe child to term or has an abortion - influence certainly - but the decision is essentially out of his hands. It seems you believe I'm drawing a false equivalence because you misrepresent my argument. Let me express myself in the simplest terms possible: If the state cannot deny a woman the right to abort a foetus she doesn't want (and I'm not implying that should be any different), the state equally should not deny a man the right to refuse to support - financially or otherwise - a child he doesn't want. However, once the child is born, then both mother and father have a legal duty to support that child until such time as the child can support itself. Is that so? I thought a mother can give her child over for adoption. But, if she doesn't, the father is still on the hook for child support. [ed.: +] Edited September 28, 2012 by g_bambino Quote
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.