Motion 312 vote coming soon!

[bleeding heart]

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.

Even as far as this analogy goes (and I don't hink it works well even on its own, conveniently-defined terms), no man is forced to use his body soley for the sake of supporting a child...as is the entire, specific, and only case with a pregnancy.

That is, he would have to work anyway, for his own sake...it's not as if he could live easy, earning zero income, if it weren't for those damned oppressive women with the "unfair" advantage.

An "advantage," not incidentally, which is predicated on biological differences...so it gets silly to lay blame at that point.

[bleeding heart]

Ya I started working on my society-destroying politics in high-school and you know, there really was no going back.

Me too. I realized that there is an entity called "the Left" whose sole purpose is to destroy society, so I thought: hey, gotta get me some a' that.

[cybercoma]

Even as far as this analogy goes (and I don't hink it works well even on its own, conveniently-defined terms), no man is forced to use his body soley for the sake of supporting a child...as is the entire, specific, and only case with a pregnancy.

That is, he would have to work anyway, for his own sake...it's not as if he could live easy, earning zero income, if it weren't for those damned oppressive women with the "unfair" advantage.

An "advantage," not incidentally, which is predicated on biological differences...so it gets silly to lay blame at that point.

Moreover, he doesn't necessarily have to use his body to procure resources for his own survival. He might live off investments, as an example. The point is that a mother and father are required to share their resources with their child. They are not required by law to give their body to their child. Otherwise, a parent could be forced by law to give their child a kidney if it became ill. Is it the right thing to do? Absolutely. Is the parent morally obligated to do so? Absolutely not. Could the government ever make a law forcing a mother or father to give up an organ to their child against their will? No because it's against their constitutional right to security of the person. That the child cannot survive without the organ is terrible, but their right to life cannot morally, ethically, or legally impede on the security of others' bodies before the law.

[Black Dog]

If at first you don't succeed...

A second abortion-related motion proposed by a backbench Conservative MP could trigger a new debate about the parameters of a woman’s right to choose in Canada.

Mark Warawa’s private member’s motion, which asks the House of Commons to condemn the practice of sex-selective abortions, was tabled last Thursday, one day after MPs voted down a separate motion to study whether a fetus should have rights before it is born.

This sums it up for me:

Julie Lalonde, a board member for the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada, said the group maintains that a woman’s right to choose is absolute. “People have the right to be appalled by sex-selective abortion. But we don’t believe for a second that this is a genuine attempt at opposing sex selection in Canada,” she said. “It is anti-choice MPs and anti-choice organizations that seem to be fixated on sex-selective abortions because it is a seemingly touchy subject, so it gets people who are on the fence about abortion to sympathize with their viewpoint.”

I would add that the preference for male children is a cultural problem: banning the practice of sex selection won't change that.

[cybercoma]

As Jessica Valenti writes, "Your 'duh' of the day."

Free birth control leads to fewer abortions

[g_bambino]

This sums it up for me:

How so? Ms. Lalonde just skirts the subject of gender-selective abortion, focusing instead on her villains and the threats she presumes they pose.

[Black Dog]

How so? Ms. Lalonde just skirts the subject of gender-selective abortion, focusing instead on her villains and the threats she presumes they pose.

She points out (rightly IMO) that ex-selection abortion is being a used as a wedge to re-open the debate. As to the issue-itself, I'm not convinced it is one, or at least a significant enough a problem to warrant any limitations on abortions.

[g_bambino]

She points out (rightly IMO) that ex-selection abortion is being a used as a wedge to re-open the debate.

She expresses that suspicion, yes; and it's not without merit. However, there's still an issue of gender-selective abortion. It's not a huge matter and is culture-specific. But, it's a serious matter, nonetheless, and is worthy of investigation and termination (mind the pun). The subject shouldn't be avoided because militant pro-choicers can't square it with their stance on abortion rights.

[Black Dog]

She expresses that suspicion, yes; and it's not without merit. However, there's still an issue of gender-selective abortion. It's not a huge matter and is culture-specific. But, it's a serious matter, nonetheless, and is worthy of investigation and termination (mind the pun).

The issue is how you deal with the problem. As I said, restricting the practice (if such a thing were even possible) won't change the underlying causes. And given that we're talking about a very small percentage of all abortions, is it worth opening the door to other restrictions?

The subject shouldn't be avoided because militant pro-choicers can't square it with their stance on abortion rights.

Actually it's easily squared with the pro-choice stance on abortion rights. If you believe, as I do, that the choice to abort lies with the individual woman, then you have to accept that you might not always agree with their reasons for making that choice. Pretty simple.

Edited October 5, 2012 by Black Dog

[g_bambino]

Actually it's easily squared with the pro-choice stance on abortion rights. If you believe, as I do, that the choice to abort lies with the individual woman, then you have to accept that you might not always agree with their reasons for making that choice.

That almost sounds like a tolerance of the practice; one that I doesn't seem to be granted to other, less life/existence related choices people make based on the same kind of gender discrimination.

[Bonam]

She expresses that suspicion, yes; and it's not without merit. However, there's still an issue of gender-selective abortion. It's not a huge matter and is culture-specific. But, it's a serious matter, nonetheless, and is worthy of investigation and termination (mind the pun). The subject shouldn't be avoided because militant pro-choicers can't square it with their stance on abortion rights.

There is no way to prevent it. If there is a law against gender-choice abortions, then parents that want to abort a child based on gender will just give some other reason to the doctor to hide their true reasons. You can't read people's minds to check. Nor should the government impose laws that prevent doctors from disclosing to their patients the gender of their child during pregnancy. The overall right of people to have abortions should not be impeded by the primitive cultural leanings of an immigrant minority.

The real solution is to stop bringing in hundreds of thousands of people from primitive cultures that would want to carry out such a practice in the first place.

[Black Dog]

That almost sounds like a tolerance of the practice;

Tolerance /= acceptance, though.

one that I doesn't seem to be granted to other, less life/existence related choices people make based on the same kind of gender discrimination.

For example?

[Black Dog]

There is no way to prevent it. If there is a law against gender-choice abortions, then parents that want to abort a child based on gender will just give some other reason to the doctor to hide their true reasons. You can't read people's minds to check. Nor should the government impose laws that prevent doctors from disclosing to their patients the gender of their child during pregnancy. The overall right of people to have abortions should not be impeded by the primitive cultural leanings of an immigrant minority.

I agree with you up a point, but I don't really see why that wouldn't be a solution. If there's no non-medical reason to disclose the gender of the fetus, why bother?

The real solution is to stop bringing in hundreds of thousands of people from primitive cultures that would want to carry out such a practice in the first place.

Yes, stop immigration because a tiny minority of the minority might practice sex selection. Which cultures are you talking about anyway?

Edited October 5, 2012 by Black Dog

[g_bambino]

Tolerance /= acceptance, though.

True. But tolerance allows perpetuation.

For example?

Well, keeping females under strict patriarchal control while males are allowed far more freedom, for one.

[g_bambino]

I agree with you up a point, but I don't really see why that wouldn't be a solution. If there's no non-medical reason to disclose the gender of the fetus, why bother?

See, that's an interesting possible solution.

[Black Dog]

True. But tolerance allows perpetuation.

But doesn't preclude finding alternate solutions that target the practice while maintaining the woman's right to choose.

Well, keeping females under strict patriarchal control while males are allowed far more freedom, for one.

It's a bit like the burqa/niqab issue in that respect. But as with that, I think what's required is cultural change; again trying to impose a solution won't really solve the underlying problem and may not even solve the problem it is supposed to solve.

[Peter F]

See, that's an interesting possible solution.

except the gender is usually recognized during an ultra-sound not performed by a doctor. The requirement to keep gender secret will be impossible to fulfill or enforce and thus anyregulation will be useless.

Like Blackdog mentioned before, a woman can procure an abortion for whatever reason they desire without need to justify to anyone. Thus no silly useless unenforceable regulation is required.

[Mr.Canada]

I pretty much don't know why people bothering bringing up abortion anymore. The law will never change, it's hopeless. If people want to kill their babies, that's their business. They won't be bale to kill them legally once they're born. if people want to kill their babies because they don't like the sex. Who cares? It's legal for them to do so, let them kill all the babies they want.

Want to kill the baby you're carrying and you're nine months pregnant? No problem come to Canada, that's our motto. No longer want your baby and it's due tomorrow? No problem it's legal to kill it in the womb in Canada with no time limits.

You wanted a boy and it's a girl but you found out when the baby growing inside you was eight months old? That's no problem any clinic or hospital will abort that baby for you. No coat hangers needed...it's completely legal!

Want to speak out against or criticize Islam in Canada? Oh no you can't do that, that's racist. Welcome to Canada.

[Bonam]

I agree with you up a point, but I don't really see why that wouldn't be a solution. If there's no non-medical reason to disclose the gender of the fetus, why bother?

Because the patient may want to know, and has every right to, and the government has no right whatsoever to keep that information from someone. Any state that takes upon itself the power to compel a doctor not to disclose to a patient information about their own body is a loathsome tyranny.

Yes, stop immigration because a tiny minority of the minority might practice sex selection. Which cultures are you talking about anyway?

Clearly this is an issue for other threads, but certain cultures do not mesh well with our own, and no one has yet to show has it is for the benefit of Canadians to bring in people from primitive cultures with values at odds with our own, by the hundreds of thousands.

[login]

The debate would have been when does a fetus become a "human being" equal at law to everyone else.

It is indeed that they have minor satus when they are in the woom,and they are human beings between 5 and 8 weeks but are in full custody equivolent to siamese twins - however the mother speaks and holds the rights of the baby until between age 12 and 16.

Generally abortions should only happen if there is a threat to life, to one of them, as doctors would nlt allow a surgical detachment of a siamese twin if it was certain one would die--- however since euthenasia is legal, the mother can actually decide for the child , but the mothers right to gaurdian status could be challenged if there were grounds for mental incompetence, or clear damage.

The case for abortion has been heard, the idea remains good abortion vs. selfish abortion.

that is largely culture though.

I think it is the womans choice but men should step in or others if they feel the would be mother is mentally unsound.

http://www.duhaime.org/LawMag/LawArticle-1285/A-Common-Law-Tragedy-Life-Death-and-Siamese-Twins-Rosie-and-Gracie-Attard.aspx

it is horrific but mother at times have various reasons, unless the government wants to fund solutions to those problem they don't have the moral authority.

I do think abortion is far to liberally carried out

but it is impossible for a man to know what pregnancy is

but these are complex situations.

It is up until the second trimester more or less just tissue biologically, afterward the nervous system and brain are developed.

If this world wern't so limited greedy insane and corrupt and hellish more people would carry babies to term.

do you want women who would kill their kills raising their kids cause they couldn't bear using a coat hanger?

what about the crack babies, the aids babies, the defect babies that will see them dead in 3 years at 2 million dollars in omedjcal clsts, the vain list goes on and on

if god is so right and holy why does he make these things only to die in pain after a short life.

I am personally pro life a d socially pro choice but the situation does have humanitarian grounds in some cases.

give people better lives, eradicate poverty and people will be more confident in actually bring more people into this issued world.

even god called for fruit first.

Edited October 6, 2012 by login

[cybercoma]

The debate would have been when does a fetus become a "human being" equal at law to everyone else.

If a fetus is considered a legal person at conception, it does not make one bit of a difference.

[Smallc]

If a fetus is considered a legal person at conception,

It's not a fetus then....

[cybercoma]

It's not a fetus then....

If a zygote is considered a legal person just after conception.....

Better?

[Smallc]

I was joking....but it is an embryo for the first few months.

[cybercoma]

I was joking....but it is an embryo for the first few months.

I know you were.

It's a zygote before it's an embryo, btw.