g_bambino Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 Some, like the above poster are trying to make the claim. Ah, I see. So they are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 (edited) It educates some new imigrants and beliefs on the CANADIAN standard for life and way of life. Respect for women equally... Isn't that already in the immigration guide for Canada? And aren't we already in the midst of working out how to change the laws governing the line of succession to the Canadian throne so as to discontinue male preference? Regardless, one can't condemn the principle of the motion. [ed.: sp] Edited December 7, 2012 by g_bambino Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 It educates some new imigrants and beliefs on the CANADIAN standard for life and way of life. Respect for women equally... Yes, I'm sure it will carry a lot of weight with people who come from cultures where valuing boys over girls is deeply embedded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiderfish Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 (edited) So? Fact is, I'm betting lots of people abort their babies on the basis of such tests. Should we ban those as well? So...Abortion is not illegal in this country. If the doctor announces that your fetus has 6 out of 18 markers for Downs Syndrome giving it a high risk for being born with Downs, the parent has the choice on whether they wish to abort a potentially healthy baby or not. It's a moral issue that the parents must confront, and the government has no business in that decision under the current laws of the land. Gender selection, however, is a moral issue that Mr. Warawa has indicated he feels should be a matter of the government, and therefore he has contended should be discussed by the government. Edited December 7, 2012 by Spiderfish Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 ^ Huh? Is it not? If an abortion due to sex selection is illegal, then that abortion is illegal. Or am I missing some technicality? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 So...Abortion is not illegal in this country. If the doctor announces that your fetus has 6 out of 18 markers for Downs Syndrome giving it a high risk for being born with Downs, the parent has the choice on whether they wish to abort a potentially healthy baby or not. It's a moral issue that the parents must confront, and the government has no business in that decision under the current laws of the land. Gender selection, however, is a moral issue that Mr. Warawa has indicated he feels should be a matter of the government, and therefore should be discussed. You're going to have to be more clear why the sex of the baby is a greater moral cause than the mental capacity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 How is making it illegal to kill babies based on gender making all abortions illegal? Where does it say "all"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 How is making it illegal to kill babies based on gender making all abortions illegal? Some, like the above poster are trying to make the claim. Didn't you just use the word illegal, in the top sentence? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiderfish Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 (edited) You're going to have to be more clear why the sex of the baby is a greater moral cause than the mental capacity. I'm not saying it is. I think abortion based on mental capacity would be a worthy discussion to have as well. Edited December 7, 2012 by Spiderfish Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 A woman can have an abortion for whatever reason she wants. It's ridiculous to say that she can have one because she caught the dad looking at the nurse during the ultrasound, but not because the baby might have to live with a disability for the rest of its life. Same with sex selection. Or ginger hair. Whatever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evening Star Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 (edited) no issue at all, eh? OK, gunrutz--let's pretend for a moment that you've thought this through--explain to us exactly "there would be no issue at all in making gender selective abortion illegal." All a woman would have to do is not admit this was the reason for the abortion. That's it. So, gunrutz--again, since you've really considered this matter (or else you wouldn't be offering your opinion on it...correct?)...how would the authorities find out if gender selection was the reason? I suppose she could be tortured...no doubt some on the political Right would get little tents in their pants at the thought--but that might be slightly controversial. So...your thoughts? This was more or less my first thought. It seems like it would be very difficult to ascertain people's motives for having abortions and selectively prohibit them based on these motives. However, this motion isn't even trying to do that: it's just 'condemning' sex-selective abortions, which is basically a pointless symbolic action. In India, where sex-selective abortion is a real issue, they simply ban doctors from testing for and informing the parents of the foetus's sex (although enforcement of this policy is hit-and-miss). If we are truly concerned about the issue, this seems like the only logical step to take. Is anyone willing to advocate this? Edited December 7, 2012 by Evening Star Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiderfish Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 (edited) A woman can have an abortion for whatever reason she wants. It's ridiculous to say that she can have one because she caught the dad looking at the nurse during the ultrasound... I truly hope that people facing the decision of terminating a healthy fetus take the situation a little more seriously than that, or we have way bigger societal issues than just the abortion issue. Edited December 7, 2012 by Spiderfish Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 I truly hope that people facing the decision of terminating a healthy fetus take the situation a little more seriously than that, or we have way more societal issues than just the abortion issue. You might, or I might. The point is, they can't be forced to. If abortion is allowed as a right, society can't place conditions on that right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evening Star Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 (edited) deleted Edited December 7, 2012 by Evening Star Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiderfish Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 This was more or less my first thought. It seems like it would be very difficult to ascertain people's motives for having abortions and selectively prohibit them based on these motives. However, this motion isn't even trying to do that: it's just 'condemning' sex-selective abortions, which is basically a pointless symbolic action. In India, where sex-selective abortion is a real issue, they simply ban doctors from testing for and informing the parents of the foetus's sex (although enforcement of this policy is hit-and-miss). If we are truly concerned about the issue, this seems like the only logical step to take. Is anyone willing to advocate this? I thought this practice was already in place in this country. The doctors and ultra sound technicians refused to give out the gender of any of my kids, even when asked repeatedly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 I thought this practice was already in place in this country. The doctors and ultra sound technicians refused to give out the gender of any of my kids, even when asked repeatedly. Not according to my buddy, who went along for his wife's ultrasound last week. They had to refuse the offer of being told the sex. Maybe doctors and ultra sound technicians refuse selectively. That would be dodgy ground though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 This Conservative party has never really been for women, no matter what they say. So now, they are going against pregnant women wishes, if they chose with their doctor to have an abortion. This gender issue is just another way for the Tories to try to change the abortion laws. When it comes to certain issues, this government seems to mix religion with the issue.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fletch 27 Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 This Conservative party has never really been for women, no matter what they say. So now, they are going against pregnant women wishes, if they chose with their doctor to have an abortion. This gender issue is just another way for the Tories to try to change the abortion laws. When it comes to certain issues, this government seems to mix religion with the issue.. THIS must be the hidden agenda!!!!! Or paranoia..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 Yeah, that damn hidden agenda we keep hearing about sure is well hidden... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fletch 27 Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 And taking for-EVER!! At least with the NDP the agenda of full-on Socialism is clear! Damn you Harper! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bleeding heart Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 The only way to legislate against it it would be to ban abortions after the sex is disclosed. So you'd have to legislate that people must learn what the sex is. Furthermore, knowing the sex and wanting an abortion doesn't denote "gender sex selection." You're talking about Nanny State to the extreme here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bleeding heart Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 This was more or less my first thought. It seems like it would be very difficult to ascertain people's motives for having abortions and selectively prohibit them based on these motives. Not difficult. Impossible. However, this motion isn't even trying to do that: it's just 'condemning' sex-selective abortions, which is basically a pointless symbolic action. Sure, I get that. But I was responding to posters who are plainly implying (or stating outright) that making such laws would be a good idea, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bleeding heart Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 I thought this practice was already in place in this country. The doctors and ultra sound technicians refused to give out the gender of any of my kids, even when asked repeatedly. Odd. I've never heard of this. Virtually everyone I've ever known who is pregnant (including my ex-wife) asked and were told. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-TSS- Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 How many abortions are there annually in Canada as against live births? Of course I could find those statistics myself but I just can't be arsed as we have such eager-beavers on this forum doing all the work for us. However, I bet the ratio is not as good as in Finland where we have some of the most liberal abortion laws in the world but still 60,000 live births against 10,000 abortions. So, 1/7 of pregnancies are terminated. Of course, all the anti-abortion people cry out loud that equals to a genocide but I think having only 1/7 of pregnancies terminated is quite a good proportion indicating that there are fewer unwanted pregnancies than elsewhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 (edited) You have to admit there comes a point in the development of the baby when it's no longer just about the woman and her body. You say "no woman does [X]" and "typically [X] happens"; I wonder: how do you know what all women do and don't do, and I know "typically" is not "always". This thread started out on the specific subject of gender-driven abortion. In that context, it's entirely believable that a woman could be, at any stage in her pregancy, either driven by her own beliefs or pressured by a man in her family to abort her baby because its a female. The downside of putting up legislative barriers to abortion far outweigh the unfounded claim that these sex-selectcive abortions are happening. There is no reliable data to show that this is the case in Canada. Even if it were to happen and even if I find the reason repugnant, I don't believe we ought to force a woman at gunpoint to keep a baby inside her body that she doesn't want, regardless of her reasons for not wanting it. Edited December 7, 2012 by cybercoma 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.