Anti Abortion Not Dead in Canada

[scribblet]

No - just legislate non disclosure of sex until after 20 weeks or so when it's too late for an abortion.

This is a new strategy used by the anti choice /pro-lifers to prop up their movement. It won't go away. I wonder though, if f the pro-life people were willing to accept a legislated limit (say 22weeks unless a compelling argument) - quit pushing to take away women's rights alltogether, they might achieve some legislation that very few people would disagree with. It's the continual movement to strip women of all choice sending them to the back alleys with no thought to the woman's health and well being , that destroys any chances for change. Most people know that opening the door to some limits will only result in a push for even more limits on women's rights. T

[guyser]

Guyser, Kenneth made a very good point.

"

Yeah?

Searching for it still.....can ya help me?

[guyser]

Again, its not Anti-Abortion... Its Anti-Sex selection abortion...

Ah the old emotional angle, when ya gots nothing else tug on heart strings.

It is anti-abortion. They are just trying a nicer way to getting the message out.

Besides, they are too stupid to realize it is a cultural issue, not a criminal one.

[guyser]

Someone tell us how anti sex selection legislation would work.... How would it be enforced? Thought-police?

And there in lies the very shallow thinking of the religious and anti's.

New law , "not allowed to know the sex of fetus".......psst , hey Doc, here's a $50 , do I paint blue or pink?

Yea, legislate that

Edited May 10, 2013 by guyser

[Guest Kenneth]

No, leftists think when a wrong is made right, there's no reasons to revisit it. But sure, why not re-open the debate around slavery while we're at it.

Well there are some who would think "terminating" tens of millions of lives per year doesn't constitute a "wrong made right". The whole issue with abortion is that it becomes a slippery slope. People used to believe eugenics was perfectly acceptable, it was a "science" taught in schools. It was seen as a legitimate means of creating a healthier society, and a healthier society is a good thing, right? But look what happened in Germany, for example. There is in fact a direct connection between eugenics and the abortion industry.

If you think you got me with the slavery thing, guess again. Slavery existed because a certain group of people developed a philosophy that devalued human life and legitimized servitude and the bondage of fellow human beings - and it all began with white "indentured servants". Slavery also existed because of "racism" - if you know anything about eugenics, then you'd know that there was a racial aspect to it. So really, the abortion industry, not pro-life, is a legacy of slavery...

[bush_cheney2004]

....and it all began with white "indentured servants". Slavery also existed because of "racism" - if you know anything about eugenics, then you'd know that there was a racial aspect to it. So really, the abortion industry, not pro-life, is a legacy of slavery...

Right...but for the wrong reasons. The driving force(s) behind slavery/indentured servitude and abortions is economics, not racism. Arguably, the single most important social development of the last century was reliable contraception in the way of The Pill, and later, outright abortions on demand.

[Guest Kenneth]

Yeah?

Searching for it still.....can ya help me?

Highly doubt it...

And there in lies the very shallow thinking of the religious and anti's.

New law , "not allowed to know the sex of fetus".......psst , hey Doc, here's a $50 , do I paint blue or pink?

Yea, legislate that

Drug trafficking is rampant in our society, yet there are laws against it - what youre saying is that since in the case of laws against sex selection, because they cant be enforced 100% they shouldn't exist is ridiculous.

[The_Squid]

And there in lies the very shallow thinking of the religious and anti's.

New law , "not allowed to know the sex of fetus".......psst , hey Doc, here's a $50 , do I paint blue or pink?

Yea, legislate that

"Hey Doc... the courts said I have a right to know the sex of my own baby growing inside of MY body"...

Keeping the sex secret will not fly...

Edited May 10, 2013 by The_Squid

[guyser]

Highly doubt it...

So we agree ? LOL ...ok

Drug trafficking is rampant in our society, yet there are laws against it - what youre saying is that since in the case of laws against sex selection, because they cant be enforced 100% they shouldn't exist is ridiculous.

Oh boy.....comparing what people do to what a woman 's private right is.

Yea...still searching .

[The_Squid]

- what youre saying is that since in the case of laws against sex selection, because they cant be enforced 100% they shouldn't exist is ridiculous.

How will they be enforced at all? How will they catch one single person?

And forget the nonsense about keeping it a secret from the mother. THat's pie in the sky. No way that would be allowed.

[Keepitsimple]

It says a lot about Canada that our angry Left has prevented a rational discussion on abortion. Every Western country has had meaningful debate and every one of them - be it Germany, France, Sweden or that bastion of Liberalism, the Netherlands - ALL of them have found cause to enact legislation to protect the unborn after the first trimester - and to some reasonable degree, before then - and of course, you'll never see that theme in the media. Why are the anti-abortion activists not howling their disgust with all THOSE countries?

Edited May 10, 2013 by Keepitsimple

[guyser]

It says a lot about Canada that our angry Left has prevented a rational discussion on abortion.

Yay!

The left wants to preserve a womans right.

[The_Squid]

our angry Left

Who's angry? The left is very content/happy with the state of women's rights in this instance.

[Black Dog]

Well there are some who would think "terminating" tens of millions of lives per year doesn't constitute a "wrong made right". The whole issue with abortion is that it becomes a slippery slope.

"Slippery slope" is a fallacy.

People used to believe eugenics was perfectly acceptable, it was a "science" taught in schools. It was seen as a legitimate means of creating a healthier society, and a healthier society is a good thing, right? But look what happened in Germany, for example.

Yes clearly people used to believe all kinds of things history has subsequently proven to be immoral or wrong. Like denying women access to abortions for example!

There is in fact a direct connection between eugenics and the abortion industry.

Let me guess: Sanger. Yawn. Belief in eugenics was common at the time. I bet you don't have to shake too many trees among the anti-abortion side to have some nasty stuff fall out. Like, say, the last Pope being a Nazi pedophile enabler.

If you think you got me with the slavery thing, guess again. Slavery existed because a certain group of people developed a philosophy that devalued human life and legitimized servitude and the bondage of fellow human beings - and it all began with white "indentured servants". Slavery also existed because of "racism" - if you know anything about eugenics, then you'd know that there was a racial aspect to it. So really, the abortion industry, not pro-life, is a legacy of slavery...

Slavery was justified for hundreds of years on religious grounds (blacks being considered the descendants of Ham and thus inferior). I'm also unclear as to how giving women the freedom to chart their own reproductive destinies is tied to slavery. Finally, I am enjoying being lectured to about race and eugenics by a guy with a Confederate flag avatar. El oh el.

[Guest Kenneth]

So we agree ? LOL ...ok

Oh boy.....comparing what people do to what a woman 's private right is.

Yea...still searching .

If women are going to abuse the ability to determine the sex of a child then it no longer is a "private right". We've already seen what abortion has become - another form of contraception, so commonplace that those who undergo the surgery feel morally justified in doing so. But that's how societies decline. To the Germans of the 1920s and 30s the mass execution of racially inferior people would have been abhorrent - but just add some Nazi propaganda to existing concepts of race and eugenics, and voila down the slope German society slid and suddenly gassing and shooting people in droves becomes perfectly acceptable.

[Black Dog]

If women are going to abuse the ability to determine the sex of a child then it no longer is a "private right". We've already seen what abortion has become - another form of contraception, so commonplace that those who undergo the surgery feel morally justified in doing so.

Yeah imagine feeling justified in taking responsibility and not having your life ruined or health threatened. Crazy!

But that's how societies decline. To the Germans of the 1920s and 30s the mass execution of racially inferior people would have been abhorrent - but just add some Nazi propaganda to existing concepts of race and eugenics, and voila down the slope German society slid and suddenly gassing and shooting people in droves becomes perfectly acceptable.

Funny thing about slippery slopes. There's usually another side. in this case, if we restrict women's right to abortion in anyway, the slippery slope leads to banning any form of birth control (every sperm is sacred!) and restricting the rights of women in other spheres. Voila: sharia law!

[guyser]

If women are going to abuse the ability to determine the sex of a child then it no longer is a "private right".

Does she decide? Then it is still a right.

We've already seen what abortion has become - another form of contraception, so commonplace that those who undergo the surgery feel morally justified in doing so.

In some cases yup , and ? Still her right but maybe you can show how many use it as contraception. Good luck by the way.

But that's how societies decline. To the Germans of the 1920s and 30s the mass execution of racially inferior people would have been abhorrent - but just add some Nazi propaganda to existing concepts of race and eugenics, and voila down the slope German society slid and suddenly gassing and shooting people in droves becomes perfectly acceptable.

Oh lord thats pathetic.

Comparing the State taking lives to a woman deciding for herself what she wants or doesnt want.

Decline? What decline? Let me guess, uber religious are you?

[justcrowing]

A woman's right to abortion, yes if her life is threatened or that of the baby or raped - then I agree she should have it. To use abortion as a form of birth control, then she should pay for it and not the taxpayer. To abort because the fetus is the not desired gender ... I do not agree and if she chooses to do so, then she should pay for that privilege.

Hypothetical questions?

* Woman wants to abort the child but the male doesn't & would like to keep the child and raise it. Does she still have that right to abort because in essence in order to become pregnant it takes two to tango so she should no longer be a sole decision as another person is now involved.

* The woman wants to keep the child, but the male doesn't for various reasons. She has the baby and he is then made to make child support payments whether he can afford it or not. And she can also deny him visitation or being part of the child's life as her right. Does the male not have any rights outside of the sperm & pocketbook?

If we take equality seriously as is chanted by women activists - where is the equality in this instance? The fact that she permitted a sperm to enter her body she has given up some rights

Your take on these questions will be interesting.

[guyser]

A woman's right to abortion, yes if her life is threatened or that of the baby or raped - then I agree she should have it. To use abortion as a form of birth control, then she should pay for it and not the taxpayer. To abort because the fetus is the not desired gender ... I do not agree and if she chooses to do so, then she should pay for that privilege.

You know some of that I could agree with. Of course low income women wont be able to pay so I hope there is some relief available. Yes that sucks, but it is much cheaper than the alternative

Hypothetical questions?

* Woman wants to abort the child but the male doesn't & would like to keep the child and raise it. Does she still have that right to abort because in essence in order to become pregnant it takes two to tango so she should no longer be a sole decision as another person is now involved.

Her body, hers alone to decide. Yes it sucks, welcome to the one thing women can lord over a male , ya know apart from that parking thing

* The woman wants to keep the child, but the male doesn't for various reasons. She has the baby and he is then made to make child support payments whether he can afford it or not. And she can also deny him visitation or being part of the child's life as her right. Does the male not have any rights outside of the sperm & pocketbook?

Not quite bright.

She may force payments, but not absolutely.

She cannot deny visitation , but she can make it hard. The courts wont agree with her. She does not have any right to do so

The male has lots of rights.

If we take equality seriously as is chanted by women activists - where is the equality in this instance? The fact that she permitted a sperm to enter her body she has given up some rights

She has huh? Like what?

She didnt give up any rights at all.

[August1991]

No, leftists think when a wrong is made right, there's no reasons to revisit it. But sure, why not re-open the debate around slavery while we're at it.

No, leftists think like fashionistas - they don't want to revisit last year's colour.

Leftists once believed in eugenics and residential schools - such policies were considered "progressive". It was the US Republican Party, not the Democrats, that favoured abolition of slavery. Leftists once believed that the government should control the "commanding heights" of the economy. Americans such as John Read and Alger Hiss admired the Bolshevik revolution. To right a wrong of poor housing, leftists in America and western Europe in the 1950s promoted large-scale government-financed housing projects. I think that it is correct to say that the result is far worse than the original wrong.

-----

IMHO, when you look back at any surviving social change, one quickly sees that it had little to do with any activism (leftist or not) and far more to do with the simple fact that individuals became wealthier and had more choices, usually through technological change.

Modern Leftists typically say that unions may have been needed in the past but now they are an anachronism. (A wrong made right, as you would put it BD - so why do they still exist, largely in the public sector.) Well, I would argue that unions did little to help the common man.

====

BD, you are severely misinformed if you think that society always "moves forward", and once an issue is resolved, society will never go back to "revisit it".

In 1960 Russia, Soviet society had supposedly "moved forward". Mao made a great leap forward. Who believes that Castro's Cuba will not soon "revisit" certain questions?

Private-sector labour unions in North America were once common; now they're not. People shacking up is now common; I suspect that it will be less so in the future.

As to the abortion question, I can easily imagine restrictive federal legislation in the next 20 years. The angle of sex-selection hits too many hot buttons.

Edited May 10, 2013 by August1991

[justcrowing]

Her body, hers alone to decide. Yes it sucks, welcome to the one thing women can lord over a male , ya know apart from that parking thing
Quote

Okay I buy that but if she chooses to keep the child why does the male suddenly have responsibility? After all it is her body and her right then so should the child she brings into this world. If the male is not considered when it comes to abortion as it is her right & right alone .. then same should apply when she alone decides to keep the baby. Is this not a double standard?

[Guest Kenneth]

Yeah imagine feeling justified in taking responsibility and not having your life ruined or health threatened. Crazy!

Funny thing about slippery slopes. There's usually another side. in this case, if we restrict women's right to abortion in anyway, the slippery slope leads to banning any form of birth control (every sperm is sacred!) and restricting the rights of women in other spheres. Voila: sharia law!

Your arguments will always be fail for at least two undeniable reasons:

1) Abortion is the termination of a human life.

2) A woman's pregnancy (and "choice" to abort it in some cases) is not a private matter - it has wider implications for society.

[August1991]

Her body, hers alone to decide. Yes it sucks, welcome to the one thing women can lord over a male , ya know apart from that parking thing

This argument has always bothered me.

If a woman supposedly has complete control over her body, then why can the State take part of her labour? If a woman is working 8 hours at Burger King, then why can the State "take" even 2 hours of her body's efforts?

Presumably, the (leftist) argument is that if she chooses to live in a civilized society with such taxation, then she accepts that the State has the power to take her body for two hours each day.

And how is that different from saying that she accepts to live in a civilized society where she cannot abort a child?

----

Justcrowing (and others), I do not object to taxation, and nor do I object to abortion. I object to the moral incoherence.

If Leftists argue that women own themselves, and must be free to decide how to use their own resources/whether to abort, then Leftists should also oppose State taxation.

Justcrowing, if your argument opposing abortion is based on a woman owning her body, then why is my body taxed over half of my effort?

=====

IMHO, the "sustainable" argument in favour of abortion has nothing to do with a woman's control of her body.

Edited May 11, 2013 by August1991

[Guest]

That's nonsense.

If it's not, send me all your money.

[Keepitsimple]

I'll ask again - where is the outrage against the rest of the civilized world - and how they have stripped women of their rights? Every single Western country has had meaningful debate and every one of them - be it Germany, France, Sweden or that bastion of progressiveness, the Netherlands - ALL of them have found cause to enact legislation to protect the unborn after the first trimester - and to some reasonable degree, before then. If Canada's "progressives" believe so deeply in their cause - why don't we hear their disgust for all these Western countries. But the big question continues to be - why does our media shield us from these facts? Why do they not frame the issue as Canada not falling in line with other "progressive" countries? Why are we the only one?

Edited May 11, 2013 by Keepitsimple