Motion 312 vote coming soon!

g_bambino · September 28, 2012

The deal with knocking someone up is if they take responsibility then you must do so as well.... Nothing unfair about it...

It's the mother's choice whether or not to have or abort the baby; the father has no say. It's the mother's choice whether or not to keep or give up the baby; the father has no say. If the mother chooses to have and keep the baby, the father has no choice but to pay to support it. That's an extremely odd definition of fair.

Peter F · September 28, 2012

I get what you're saying; You're saying that it is unfair to impose a financial hardship on a father for refusing to aid the mother in the raising of the children.

You are saying that since the Mother chose to have the child it is therefore the mothers responsibility to raise that child entirely on her own. 100%. The father may or may not support her according to hiswhims.

and you're saying that is an entirely fair system.

Right?

g_bambino · September 28, 2012

You are saying that since the Mother chose to have the child it is therefore the mothers responsibility to raise that child entirely on her own. 100%. The father may or may not support her according to hiswhims.

Drop the creativity in the middle [crossed by me], and, essentially, yes. If the mother has a choice, then so should the father.

cybercoma · 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 that child is something he created. We recognize that the vast amount of resources, not just money, but also time and information, needed to raise that child, whether he wanted it or not, are a shared responsibility. It differs from women's choice because we recognize in Canada that the state cannot make laws that infringe on the security of the body. For instance, they cannot pass laws which require you to take part in risky medical testing; they can't insert microchips into you against your will to track your whereabouts or for any other reason; they cannot require you to give up a kidney or some other organ to save the life of someone else; they cannot tie you to another person and force you to filter their blood through your body until they are healthy, even if you were the one that caused their injuries; they cannot infect you with a disease and have you infiltrate enemy lines in a war, making you a literal biological agent. All of these things are against the law because the government cannot pass laws that create an invasion of your body against your will. When a woman gets pregnant against her will, another human being has invaded her body, and requires use of it for 9 months. If she does not wish for another human being to be growing inside of her for 9 months, then no laws created by the state can force her body to violated in that manner.

When you talk about men using their body for work, it's a huge stretch to say that their bodies are being violated. This is a separate issue from violating a person's body. For example, not all work is physical. As well, the requirement is not that the father work. It's that the father shares the responsibility of providing resources for the welfare of the child. He does not get a say in whether he does this or not, and most importantly neither does the mother. When parents, both mothers and fathers, fail to provide for their children, they are guilty of criminal neglect. This is not a law that discriminates against fathers. A mother can be charged equally under this law. However, a law that would require a woman to carry a child to term is a law that affects a mother and only a mother. This law would require the mother to grow something inside her body that she does not wish to be growing there. This is quite a separate issue from that of providing resources for a child, so children do not grow up in poverty and mothers are forced to juggle the responsibilities of parenting their infants and working to put food on the table.

cybercoma · September 28, 2012

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.

I see the analogy and I've responded repeatedly as to what it does not fit. The only failed perception is yours, as you seem to think a financial obligation is the same thing as being obligated to grow something inside your body.

cybercoma · September 28, 2012

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?

Her ministership has nothing to do with her as an MP. Why do you keep saying this? It has already been pointed out. Her role as a Member of Parliament is different from her role as Minister for the Status of Women. There are plenty of MPs without portfolios. More to the point, no one is saying she should not hold any portfolio at all. They are saying she shouldn't hold this particular one.

cybercoma · September 28, 2012

Sure it is. The only people she has to answer to is to people in her riding and to PM Harper.

Wrong. As a cabinet minister she one of the people that form the government, as distinct from the House of Commons. The government is responsible to parliament and thereby the people. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the way our system of government works. It's understandable, since our legislative and executive branches are blurred.

g_bambino · September 28, 2012

When you talk about men using their body for work, it's a huge stretch to say that their bodies are being violated. This is a separate issue from violating a person's body. For example, not all work is physical.

Work cannot be separated from the body. All that's required to do work stems from the body, whether the work is physical or not. The brain is required for all work. Stress takes a physical toll.

[The father] does not get a say in whether he [shares responsibility for raising the child] or not, and most importantly neither does the mother.

Of course she does. She can either not have the child at all or give it up after birth. The father has no say in the decisions or on the consequences to him.

guyser · September 28, 2012

It's the mother's choice whether or not to keep or give up the baby; the father has no say.

The father has rights to the baby and can exercise them if he feels she is thinking of adopting out the baby.

Peter F · September 28, 2012

Drop the creativity in the middle [crossed by me], and, essentially, yes. If the mother has a choice, then so should the father.

If the father should have a choice then why did you cross out the supposed creative part? the crossed out part is part and parcel of the father having a choice.

cybercoma · 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.

So what? Why is legislation needed? See the following point.

In Canada, there is a significant percentage of the population that feels SOME safeguards are warranted.

For what reasons are safeguards needed? Nobody has provided any empirical evidence that there is a serious problem with women aborting viable children. If you look into the figures, roughly 90% of abortions happen in the first trimester. The point where most laws place viability is the third trimester. If 90% of abortions happen in the first trimester, most of the rest happen in the second trimester, that leaves a handful, quite possibly less than 1% happening after the third trimester begins. A percentage of those would be for medical reasons, iow to save the life of the mother. So you're quite possibly talking about creating legislation to address a fraction of 1% of all abortions that happen in Canada, which isn't all that many to begin with. I fail to see how this is a significant issue that requires the time and resources from the government to address. The fact of the matter is that it's practically impossible to find a doctor that will do an abortion on a baby that's viable. Most mothers would be counselled and choose to give the child up for adoption after being induced early.

With the bullying of the opposition and pro-choice activists - those Canadians are without a voice.

Get off the bully bandwagon. You're not bullied because people disagree with you. That's ridiculous.

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.

The NDP did not whip the vote. They all voted the same because they all disagreed with the motion.

cybercoma · 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.

This is so appallingly ignorant that it doesn't even warrant being dignified with an articulated response.

g_bambino · September 28, 2012

The father has rights to the baby and can exercise them if he feels she is thinking of adopting out the baby.

Yes; I was aware that, if the mother decided to give birth but didn't want the baby, the father could take it, if he wanted it. My point, however, is that the consequences to the father are always reliant upon the choices of the mother and, in some of those consequences the father has no choices.

guyser · September 28, 2012

Yes; I was aware that, if the mother decided to give birth but didn't want the baby, the father could take it, if he wanted it. My point, however, is that the consequences to the father are always reliant upon the choices of the mother and, in some of those consequences the father has no choices.

Better clarification so thanks.

However, the mother is not free for obligations of support so in that case it is fair.The only thing the woman has over the man is the carrying part to birth. The same legal obligations exist for both after the fact.

g_bambino · September 28, 2012

If the father should have a choice then why did you cross out the supposed creative part? the crossed out part is part and parcel of the father having a choice.

It was creative because I never said the mother must be compelled to take any percentage of responsibility for the child she chooses to gives birth to. They can choose to take no responsibility at all, and many do. In such a case, the father can choose to take the child for himself or let it go to adoption or foster care.

However, if the mother chooses to keep and take responsibility for the child, the father is compelled by law to also be used to support that child. In that case, he has no choice.

guyser · September 28, 2012

However, if the mother chooses to keep and take responsibility for the child, the father is compelled by law to also be used to support that child. In that case, he has no choice.

And vice versa

g_bambino · September 28, 2012

However, the mother is not free for obligations of support...

Am I completely mistaken in believing a mother can, if she wants to, give her child over for adoption, as a Crown ward, for foster care, or into some other kind of organisation?

g_bambino · September 28, 2012

And vice versa

No. The father can only take full responsibility for the child if the mother gives it up. If she does so, she has no legal obligation to make child support payments.

kraychik · September 28, 2012

There's no such thing as a "late term abortion". As soon as the foetus is viable, its removal from the womb ceases to be an abortion.

Late-term abortion is very real. Unborn children are still legally terminated in the later stages of pregnancy, and sometimes when the fetus is viable.

g_bambino · September 28, 2012

Late-term abortion is very real.

No it isn't, because the very definition of "abortion" is removal of the foetus from the womb before it is viable.

Unborn children are still legally terminated in the later stages of pregnancy, and sometimes when the fetus is viable.

If the foetus is viable, it will survive outside the womb.

kraychik · September 28, 2012

No, not really. If it was a scientifically determinable fact, it would have been determined a long time ago.

I didn't say it was a scientifically determinable fact. I recognise the philosophical component of the question. All I'm saying is that any answer to the question of when life begins will likely have, at least in part, scientifically measurable criteria.

kraychik · September 28, 2012

No it isn't, because the very definition of "abortion" is removal of the foetus from the womb before it is viable.

No, an abortion is a termination of an unborn child/fetus, viable or otherwise.

If the foetus is viable, it will survive outside the womb.

Not if the unborn child's been terminated.

Edited September 28, 2012 by kraychik

kraychik · September 28, 2012

How many abortions are there each year in Canada over 21 weeks that are not done for medical reasons?

Why does the answer to this question matter?

TimG · September 28, 2012

All I'm saying is that any answer to the question of when life begins will likely have, at least in part, scientifically measurable criteria.

A singled celled bacteria is 'living'. Any definition of when 'human life' begins is a purely philosophical question because it stems from the unscientific presumption that human lives are somehow different from the lives of every other biological species.

kraychik · September 28, 2012

You're getting your facts from rabble again I think. Motion 312 is a motion to scientifically decide when human life begins. No ones rights are being taken away by answering that question.

Ministers are MP's and they have a commitment to their constituents in their riding. If she doesn't listen to her constituents she won't be re-elected.

It was a free vote so no one will be sacked.

Smallc and some others are correct. There is no purely scientific answer to the question of when life begins. Further, the intent of this motion is clearly political, to revisit the political issue of abortion in Canada, which perhaps needs to be revisited if current laws are outside of the consent of Canadians, while being in line with constitutional protections.