Shady Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 Would Thomas Mulcair endore abortions if the fetus was deemed from a ceterist or right leaning family? Where would he stop? This sort of mentality was seen in the 40's.... Just wait until they can test for homosexuality, and people start aborting their gay babies. You'll see the NDP suddenly have a scientific awakening. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 Just wait until they can test for homosexuality, and people start aborting their gay babies. You'll see the NDP suddenly have a scientific awakening. Shady: are you still supporting racist speech? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 Just wait until they can test for homosexuality, and people start aborting their gay babies... Equally likely is the test for conservatism leading to the aborting of conservative babies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fletch 27 Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 Just wait until they can test for homosexuality, and people start aborting their gay babies. You'll see the NDP suddenly have a scientific awakening. True... I can believe that Thomas Mulcair would open this can of worms. WTH was he thinking...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 Having abortions because it's determined that the fetus has an undesirable trait is simply Eugenics. If you can test for any number of potential problems you're goal is to have an ideal child. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 True... I can believe that Thomas Mulcair would open this can of worms. WTH was he thinking...... Quote, cite? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 Having abortions because it's determined that the fetus has an undesirable trait is simply Eugenics. If you can test for any number of potential problems you're goal is to have an ideal child. You can do tests to determine is your child has Downs Syndrome or spina bifida for example. Should we ban abortions in those cases too? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fletch 27 Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 Quote, cite? For WHAT??? He's objecting to this discussion in parliament.. This is common knowledge... Hes inciting this... Duh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 For WHAT??? He's objecting to this discussion in parliament.. This is common knowledge... Hes inciting this... Duh For your claim Mulclair supports sex-selection abortions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlin Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 I don't see a connection between wanting to eliminate sex selection(killing female babies) and making abortion illegal. One has nothing to do with the other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fletch 27 Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 Is he not objecting to the Back-Benchers motion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 I don't see a connection between wanting to eliminate sex selection(killing female babies) and making abortion illegal. One has nothing to do with the other. Why would it make a difference? Are you saying only male babies should be killed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 Is he not objecting to the Back-Benchers motion? Probably. And? I'll spell it out for you: being in favour of allowing something is not the same thing as endorsing the action in question. As an example: I don't support the views of neo-Nazis, but I support their right to express them. According to your logic, supporting freedom of speech means you are endorsing the views of neo-Nazis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiderfish Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 You can do tests to determine is your child has Downs Syndrome or spina bifida for example. Should we ban abortions in those cases too? These tests are not conclusive, they merely test for "markers" that are associated with these conditions. I don't see this motion that was brought up by Mr. Warawa as an attempt at openinga debate on the abortion issue as much as I see it as an attempt at opening a debate on gender selection and the obvious moral issues that surround it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 I don't see a connection between wanting to eliminate sex selection(killing female babies) and making abortion illegal. One has nothing to do with the other. Its placing limits on a womans choice. Her body, her call, the rest of us can just F off. Pretty easy, but go ahead and try to muddy the water, some are good at that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fletch 27 Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 Probably. And? I'll spell it out for you: being in favour of allowing something is not the same thing as endorsing the action in question. As an example: I don't support the views of neo-Nazis, but I support their right to express them. According to your logic, supporting freedom of speech means you are endorsing the views of neo-Nazis. "First they came for my neighbor, and I said nothing. Then they came ... ".... Sound familiar? Indeed... Shame on Mulcair Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 These tests are not conclusive, they merely test for "markers" that are associated with these conditions. So? Fact is, I'm betting lots of people abort their babies on the basis of such tests. Should we ban those as well? I don't see this motion that was brought up by Mr. Warawa as an attempt at openinga debate on the abortion issue as much as I see it as an attempt at opening a debate on gender selection and the obvious moral issues that surround it. Since it's a motion about abortion, then yeah, it's about abortion rights. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 "First they came for my neighbor, and I said nothing. Then they came ... ".... Sound familiar? Indeed... Shame on Mulcair You are the worst at this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 "First they came for my neighbor, and I said nothing. Then they came ... ".... Sound familiar? Indeed... Shame on Mulcair Maybe they just came to take him out for a pint. What exactly is the relevance of that quote? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 I don't see a connection between wanting to eliminate sex selection(killing female babies) and making abortion illegal. You probably don't see the connection because nobody's tabled a proposal to make abortion illegal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 You probably don't see the connection because nobody's tabled a proposal to make abortion illegal. Making abortions due to sex selection illegal is making abortions illegal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fletch 27 Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 ^ Huh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 Well, the motion is to "condemn" sex selection abortions. So it's a motion that is redundant and has no practical implications. Good use of time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fletch 27 Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 Well, the motion is to "condemn" sex selection abortions. So it's a motion that is redundant and has no practical implications. Good use of time. It educates some new imigrants and beliefs on the CANADIAN standard for life and way of life. Respect for women equally... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlin Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 Making abortions due to sex selection illegal is making abortions illegal. How is making it illegal to kill babies based on gender making all abortions illegal? You probably don't see the connection because nobody's tabled a proposal to make abortion illegal. Some, like the above poster are trying to make the claim. Its placing limits on a womans choice. Her body, her call, the rest of us can just F off. Pretty easy, but go ahead and try to muddy the water, some are good at that. Yes, swearing at people is a great way to help the dialogue along. We put limits on many things in society so why not this? It seems to be the same thing to me. 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.