Sleipnir Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 (edited) OTTAWA - Opposition parties are slamming a Tory backbencher's motion against sex-selective abortion as a cynical bid to re-open the abortion debate. But Tory backbencher Mark Warawa argues it's about protecting girls from "the worst form of gender violence - gendercide". The motion, tabled by the B.C. MP in September, reads: "That the House condemns discrimination against females occurring through sex-selective pregnancy termination." NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair said Wednesday his caucus will vote against M-480 and wouldn't be "duped" by what he saw as Warawa's sleight-of-hand attempt to get abortion on the agenda. "The context of this particular motion is that is was presented within minutes after the last one (M-312) was defeated." http://www.torontosu...abortion motion Edited December 7, 2012 by Sleipnir Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 So the NDP is in favor of sex selective abortion? What about race selective abortion? They should be ashamed of themselves. They're an embarrassment to Canada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 So the NDP is in favor of sex selective abortion? I bet they rape babies too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 I bet they rape babies too. I highly doubt that. But apparently if you want to abort an unborn baby simply because it's female, the NDP and that utter embarrassment Tom Mulcair gives it an enthusiastic thumbs up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleipnir Posted December 7, 2012 Author Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 (edited) So the NDP is in favor of sex selective abortion? What about race selective abortion? They should be ashamed of themselves. They're an embarrassment to Canada. The bill only applies to protecting females, nothing about protecting males, disables, colours or anything for that matter. It is clear that the bill is for no other reason than to reopen the failed abortion debate. Edited December 7, 2012 by Sleipnir Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 The bill only applies to protecting females, nothing about protecting males, disables, colours or anything for that matter. It is clear that the bill is for no other reason than to reopen the failed abortion debate. Yes, it's clear to a complete radical pro-abortionist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleipnir Posted December 7, 2012 Author Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 (edited) Yes, it's clear to a complete radical pro-abortionist. you're a complete radical pro-abortionist? Edited December 7, 2012 by Sleipnir Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlin Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 We have laws in Canada in that you cannot have an abortion past 24 weeks of gestation - I think it should be pulled back to 20 weeks (more than long enough to decide whether to keep it or not). So much for being a complete radical pro-abortionist There are no such laws in Canada. It's perfectly legal to have an abortion in Canada in the last trimester. There is no law against it, no restriction whatsoever. Anytime anyone brings it up people scream, so the result is that we're one of the only nations to have ZERO restrictions on abortion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleipnir Posted December 7, 2012 Author Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 so the result is that we're one of the only nations to have ZERO restrictions on abortion. China and Vietnam has no limit also. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlin Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 China and Vietnam has no limit also. This is a source of pride for the left? To be mentioned in the same sentence as those two wonderful nations, those bastions of freedom? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
login Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 (edited) The abortion debate in Canada has been a long time in developing. Its an offshoot of the womens rights movement. End of the point is, its your body do what you want with it. The problem of course it that there are human rights involved with a human being trapped inside another human being. The cases are pretty representative and it is pretty straight foward issue, women should have equal access to abortion, and it should be their decision not doctors decision because people have the right of consent or should have the right of consent to medical practice performed on them, or on their request. I don't think this is a place for the government though, unless the government opts to extend human rights to unborn children. Currently the law is problematic because it doesn't even address the requirement for doctors to perform a csection/extraction when a mother dies and the child is still alive inside. People are greatly disadvantaged by not having their babies lives protected by law. They were protected in anglo saxon times at half a wergeld. Edited December 7, 2012 by login Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlin Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 I see nothing wrong with having some limits on abortion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
login Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 (edited) I see nothing wrong with having some limits on abortion. Women's Lib has issues with you having limits on women. Edited December 7, 2012 by login Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlin Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 Women's Lib has issues with you having limits on women. So you're ok with women aborting a baby, killing it, at 8 or nine months pregnant? This is acceptable to you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 (edited) Women's Lib has issues with you having limits on women. Cartman's Mom might have been pushing those limits when she went for her abortion. Edited December 7, 2012 by bcsapper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleipnir Posted December 7, 2012 Author Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 (edited) The problem of course it that there are human rights involved with a human being trapped inside another human being. Which is the exactly the reason why I have no firm position on either pro-choice or pro-life. Though I feel that perhaps abortion should not be permitted past the 17th week - to balance the right for both woman and the developing mass of life within the mother. I mean, 17 weeks should be plenty of time for the carrier to decide whether to keep it or not right? Edited December 7, 2012 by Sleipnir Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 Not in Canada, land of the Magic Vagina that transforms a totally expendable fetus into a protected newborn citizen. It's a miracle! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayward Son Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 Though I feel that perhaps abortion should not be permitted past the 17th week - to balance the right for both woman and the developing mass of life within the mother. I mean, 17 weeks should be plenty of time for the carrier to decide whether to keep it or not right? Few abortions are performed past 12 weeks. Very few past 16 weeks. For those that are they are generally performed due to health of the mother, significant problems with the fetus, or due to women facing significant barriers to access to abortion. There are areas of this country where for women to get an abortion they have to travel significant distances (The northern territories, northern parts of provinces like Ontario and don't expect it to be easy in provinces like PEI, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia either). Overcoming those barriers is hardest on women who are young or poor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 StatsCan surveys in 2006 reported that about 12% of induced abortions were performed after 12 weeks gestation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayward Son Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 StatsCan surveys in 2006 reported that about 12% of induced abortions were performed after 12 weeks gestation. Yeah, so 88% are performed in the first 12 weeks. 97% - 98% in the first 16 weeks. Most of those after 16 weeks are from wanted pregnancies where something has gone wrong. Therefore, I see Sleipnir's proposal of a ban after 17 weeks as pretty pointless, especially as access to abortion in Canada is incredibly unequal across regions and therefore such legislation would only further disadvantage rural and isolated women in terms of access to health care. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bleeding heart Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 This is a source of pride for the left? To be mentioned in the same sentence as those two wonderful nations, those bastions of freedom? Yeah...we should restrict abortion, so we can be more free...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 In my view, this "abortion" issue is replacing the gun registry issue, to keep their supporters, especially women. Its also a way to back door the whole abortion issue. You can't deal with "gender " abortion without dealing with abortion as a whole and that has already been dealt with years ago but we are talking about the Harper Tories and they want their way, one way or another. I see now some churches are getting involved now too. This will get ugly down the road. Leave it up to the woman, the doctor and God. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 I see nothing wrong with having some limits on abortion. The vast majority of Canadians feel the same way, in terms of partial birth and late term abortions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 Not in Canada, land of the Magic Vagina that transforms a totally expendable fetus into a protected newborn citizen. It's a miracle! Exactly, and in a matter minutes. I wonder when the baby is half out, if it's recognized as half a citizen! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 (edited) I highly doubt that. But apparently if you want to abort an unborn baby simply because it's female, the NDP and that utter embarrassment Tom Mulcair gives it an enthusiastic thumbs up. Great logic A+ stuff here. #Shadylogic: if you support freedom of speech, then you are a neo-Nazi sympathizer. Edited December 7, 2012 by Black Dog Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.