Pro Life? Then Don't Run Under Liberal Banner

[Wayward Son]

If a woman can find out she is having a girl and is still within that ethical period and decided to get an abortion, how will you prove she is having it because her baby will be female?

Simple, allow the government to read the thoughts of every woman who is of reproductive age. It is really a small price to pay to end this practice that is clearly weighing heavily on the minds of a few men.

[cybercoma]

It also opens up the opportunity for doctors to accuse someone of gender-selection when that may not be why they're doing it. Take a racist doctor that thinks all Indian women that want an abortion are doing it for sex bias. They could arbitrarily deprive the woman of an abortion based on their racist assumptions. Moreover, even when these abortions are banned, you will see female infanticide rise. We see this happening in Asian countries where there's a male preference for children. You cannot stop it. Not with legislation anyway. And depriving women of the ability to make deeply personal and complicated decisions, which are extremely time sensitive, can lead to their deaths as doctors struggle with the legislation.

[segnosaur]

It also opens up the opportunity for doctors to accuse someone of gender-selection when that may not be why they're doing it. Take a racist doctor that thinks all Indian women that want an abortion are doing it for sex bias. They could arbitrarily deprive the woman of an abortion based on their racist assumptions. Moreover, even when these abortions are banned, you will see female infanticide rise. We see this happening in Asian countries where there's a male preference for children. You cannot stop it. Not with legislation anyway. And depriving women of the ability to make deeply personal and complicated decisions, which are extremely time sensitive, can lead to their deaths as doctors struggle with the legislation.

Who said any sort of anti-gender selection law would involve doctors making decisions based on race?

I can think of a few things that could be done:

- Limit elective abortions to 18 weeks, before Ultrasounds (one of the most common methods) can determine gender. After that, require more stringent rules. Oh, wait, that would bring Canada in line with Sweden, which we've already determine is a misogynistic hell-hole

- Improved funding for abortion services across Canada (so that if a woman does want one, she can get one early enough without running into the 18 week deadline.)

[segnosaur]

So, what you're saying is that you have no problem with gender-selective abortions. Got it.

I take it you are no longer even trying to take this discussion seriously?

Its hard to take anything seriously here, given the fact that so many people are entrenched in their own little political world, and generally bring very little to to the table other than petty taunts.

Let me summarize much of the interaction between me and cybercoma:

C: "Why should Trudeau's actions matter"

S: (insert description about how it illustrates problems with potential leadership)

C: "I don't see why it should matter".

[On Guard for Thee]

It also opens up the opportunity for doctors to accuse someone of gender-selection when that may not be why they're doing it. Take a racist doctor that thinks all Indian women that want an abortion are doing it for sex bias. They could arbitrarily deprive the woman of an abortion based on their racist assumptions. Moreover, even when these abortions are banned, you will see female infanticide rise. We see this happening in Asian countries where there's a male preference for children. You cannot stop it. Not with legislation anyway. And depriving women of the ability to make deeply personal and complicated decisions, which are extremely time sensitive, can lead to their deaths as doctors struggle with the legislation.

It also opens up the opportunity for doctors to accuse someone of gender-selection when that may not be why they're doing it. Take a racist doctor that thinks all Indian women that want an abortion are doing it for sex bias. They could arbitrarily deprive the woman of an abortion based on their racist assumptions. Moreover, even when these abortions are banned, you will see female infanticide rise. We see this happening in Asian countries where there's a male preference for children. You cannot stop it. Not with legislation anyway. And depriving women of the ability to make deeply personal and complicated decisions, which are extremely time sensitive, can lead to their deaths as doctors struggle with the legislation.

If you could stop it with legislation then why is it that the abortion rate tends to be quite a bit higher in countries that have some form of law, such as most of Europe?

[segnosaur]

If you could stop it with legislation then why is it that the abortion rate tends to be quite a bit higher in countries that have some form of law, such as most of Europe?

I don't think you can really draw any sort of conclusions regarding legislation and abortion rates.

Abortion rates will will depend significantly on culture, availability of alternative contraception, practicality (e.g. canada doesn't have a law, but the system from a pragmatic point of view acts as one).

[Bob Macadoo]

You all dragged this discussion into the absurd.

JT didn't ban internal debate, nor rip up any catholic's member card he is enforcing a party platform in the candidates he is to lead into parliament. I'm sure a general would love to have a pacifist charge over the hill with him.

Apprently "open" nominations has been defined as any nutjob who shows up and says any wingbat thing no matter how it conflicts with the current party platform so long as some far off riding association likes him. Why have a party platform then? To me "open" means the rules of the game are clear not hidden in backroom power broking. If that is what is really going on here then I have an issue. However if the rule is clear "No anti-abortion candidates" then thats what it is. Get involved and change the rule.......don't piss and moan that the rule is too restrictive for your sensibilities.

[Wayward Son]

Its hard to take anything seriously here, given the fact that so many people are entrenched in their own little political world, and generally bring very little to to the table other than petty taunts.

Let me summarize much of the interaction between me and cybercoma:

C: "Why should Trudeau's actions matter"

S: (insert description about how it illustrates problems with potential leadership)

C: "I don't see why it should matter".

Here is my summary of the passage I quoted.

C: I oppose "A" and think it is disgusting, but I don't see how it could be legislated.

S: So you support "A". Got it.

You made not even the most minimal attempt to look at his position or assess it.

[Argus]

you can take from this that I'm asking someone to clarify their interest in internal Liberal politics. I don't see why this is important at all.

You don't? If a guy beats his wife and kids, you don't think that reflects on his character? If a party leader is so arrogant he makes important decisions without even bothering to inform his caucus about them, never mind discussing them, you don't think that's an indication of what kind of prime minister he'll be? If a party leader decides that a wildly unsettled issue is 'settled' and no one is allowed to hold a different opinion than him you don't think that reflects on what kind of a tolerance he has for different opinions?

[Argus]

It's got to be abortion on demand in Canada or it's going to be Harper's government's way. And all that is necessary now if for Harper's cronies in gov to be coaxed into the debate. Then next the guns come out and the crazies start hunting down Canadian doctors.

Like they do in Sweden?

Your hysterical hyperbole on this issue is of no real value to the discussion.

[Argus]

Yes, monty16 seems to be bordering on troll-like activity... posting inflammatory remarks, and then when challenged he runs away, or reposts the same crud.

I wonder if he understands that he is actually tarnishing the image of the "left wing" by such childish behavior?

It's possible that's his intent.

[Argus]

It's really simple, guys. Show that the law is necessary.

Again, I don't know that it is. But that is NOT what the subject of this discussion is about. It's about Trudeau unilaterally making important issues of who can and cannot be in his party. It speaks of arrogance, and it speaks of an attitude which you people have all been bitching and whining about for ten years with regard to Harper. Suddenly, you don't care if a leader simply dictates things to his MPs. Quelle surprise!!

[Bob Macadoo]

If a party leader is so arrogant he makes important decisions without even bothering to inform his caucus about them, never mind discussing them, you don't think that's an indication of what kind of prime minister he'll be? If a party leader decides that a wildly unsettled issue is 'settled' and no one is allowed to hold a different opinion than him you don't think that reflects on what kind of a tolerance he has for different opinions?

Only that's not the situation, just your hyperbolic view of it.

[Argus]

Only that's not the situation, just your hyperbolic view of it.

Really? So it was my imagination that Liberal MPs and senators learned about his decision to boot all the senators from caucus from the media? It's my imagination Liberal MPs learned about his abortion decision in the media?

[Bob Macadoo]

Really? So it was my imagination that Liberal MPs and senators learned about his decision to boot all the senators from caucus from the media? It's my imagination Liberal MPs learned about his abortion decision in the media?

Again......he didn't make an abortion decision......he made a enforcement decision. I don't know if its in your imagination or to who he initially informed.....I just saw John Mackay, the guy out on the ledge by himself, being stunned.....that may have been the wrong way to communicate it, but the decision is logical.

[cybercoma]

Again, I don't know that it is. But that is NOT what the subject of this discussion is about. It's about Trudeau unilaterally making important issues of who can and cannot be in his party. It speaks of arrogance, and it speaks of an attitude which you people have all been bitching and whining about for ten years with regard to Harper. Suddenly, you don't care if a leader simply dictates things to his MPs. Quelle surprise!!

You know he's not dictating anything to his current MPs, your hysterics aside. He's saying going forward candidates will be expected to vote pro-choice, if there's ever a situation where a bill is presented in the commons. His current MPs are not affected by this decision.

[Keepitsimple]

You know he's not dictating anything to his current MPs, your hysterics aside. He's saying going forward candidates will be expected to vote pro-choice, if there's ever a situation where a bill is presented in the commons. His current MPs are not affected by this decision.

What's your point? He only has 35 current MPs - assuming they all run again. There are 308 ridingds.....so he'll be dictating his ultimatum to all 273 candidates running in the next election..

[Peter F]

First of all, who said we actually need a law? We're condemning Trudeau for dragging up an issue that would probably be best left alone, in a way that makes us question his leadership skills. That's different than us arguing "We need a law".

If we did have a law, it would simply be one codifying what happens now in common practice... abortion on demand in the early stages, but with restrictions for late terms. Want a reason? Go back and look at my earlier posting where I pointed to gender-selective abortions... They do happen. Its an ugly byproduct of allowing abortion on demand. And while some steps can be taken (such as limiting non-essential ultrasounds) you can never totally eliminate the chance a parent will find the sex of a fetus.

So any restriction would be that one cannot abort because of the sex of the fetus.

That wouldn't work. It would be completely useless.

So to be of some use, the restriction would have to be that NO abortion after x weeks for whatever reason except medical reasons as approved by some board or other. Right - all to stop theoretical possibly maybe might be gender abortions.

Your fix causes more problems than not fixing. See Cybercoma's point about infanticide.

[Bob Macadoo]

What's your point? He only has 35 current MPs - assuming they all run again. There are 308 ridingds.....so he'll be dictating his ultimatum to all 273 candidates running in the next election..

Thats the point....."open" & clear......not ultimatums.

[WestCoastRunner]

From all these posts that are against abortion and want to tighten up laws, how many are from men? How many are from women?

[On Guard for Thee]

I don't think you can really draw any sort of conclusions regarding legislation and abortion rates.

Abortion rates will will depend significantly on culture, availability of alternative contraception, practicality (e.g. canada doesn't have a law, but the system from a pragmatic point of view acts as one).

Exactly. That is why legislation is a waste of time.

[WestCoastRunner]

I really do get sick and tired of white men trying to control women's bodies.

[On Guard for Thee]

I really do get sick and tired of white men trying to control women's bodies.

I'm not sure I quite get that. Go to Afghanistan for instance and you will see a lot of non white men controlling women's bodies.

[WestCoastRunner]

I'm not sure I quite get that. Go to Afghanistan for instance and you will see a lot of non white men controlling women's bodies.

I am speaking about this forum. And in general, about men in North America trying to control women's rights to their own bodies.

[On Guard for Thee]

I am speaking about this forum. And in general, about men in North America trying to control women's rights to their own bodies.

Actually after I posted that I had a bit of a "duh" moment. I do get your point. I'm OK now, I think. Damn hockey game is distracting me.