Nothing to fear but fear itself

[Guest eureka]

It is good that you like to thin outside the box, JMH. That puts you in a very differnt class than most of the Conservative posters.

Hpwever, you say you have been reading the threads and have not found much. That would indicate that you should try harder to peek inside the box and find out what this is all about before you crow about your superior thinking. And I think you owe Melanie a serious apology.

For whoever it was that said there is no difference between the Conservatives/Liberals of 2004 and today. You also need to look a little deeper. There is a huge difference.

The Liberals of today have been forced to move to the Left and to pay some attention to the needs of the people of Canada. The Conservatives have been forced to hide their not so hidden agenda of 2004.

That it is hidden this time is clear from Harper's statement that, though he has "evolved," his principles have not changed from ten years ago.

This election has more undercurrents and change than any in Canadian history. And it is not boring as someone said it was. It is boring only to the blind, deaf, and dumb: and tot the apathetic who cannot be bothered to see what it is all about and how Canada will be changed by the result of this one as it has not been changed by any one election from the first.

That is whatever party wins. And a Conservative victory is not a foregone conclusion yet.

The sky will fall if the Conservatives do win. You had better just hope that clouds that will smother you are not too heavily laden with moisture. Particularly as the moisture is likely to be as much from Conservative excretions as from raindrops.

[Chimera]

I find it interesting that you seem to feel that this group of religous folks (of witch I am not a member) is bull-dozing the rights of gay people.

i never mentioned rights... i pointed out that this conservative candidate was belittling gays. i see no need for that. nor for belittling women as he did. he is entitled to his own personal views, but perhaps he should explain to the public that those views will not override the wishes of his constituents.

Look, if I step a way from the partisan nature of this debate, how is that comment any more radical than the various comments of Sven Robinson? Tom Wappel and other Liberal candidates, Bev Desjaralais and Ed Schreyer have also said things roughly similar.

Canada is a big country, and our parliament is going to have people with a variety of viewpoints. Many, many Canadians share the views of this Sweet candidate. Chimera, do you mean that such people cannot express their views?

August...

i am using this quote as an example to why many socially liberal canadians (and ontarians in particular) are leery of the conservatives. we see quotes like this in the newspapers and it leads many to believe that it is a widely held view within the conservative party.

one of the ladies at work will not vote conservative because she is afraid that they will remove a womans right to choose (abortion). i believe that many women probably share that view. harper doesn't help the cause either by not explaining his own personal views on abortion.

[August1991]

August...

i am using this quote as an example to why many socially liberal canadians (and ontarians in particular) are leery of the conservatives. we see quotes like this in the newspapers and it leads many to believe that it is a widely held view within the conservative party.

one of the ladies at work will not vote conservative because she is afraid that they will remove a womans right to choose (abortion). i believe that many women probably share that view. harper doesn't help the cause either by not explaining his own personal views on abortion.

Chimera, Harper has stated clearly that abortion will not be on the order paper in this legislature if he is PM.

But to be non-partisan, I understand what you mean. Many Tories are apparently pro-life.

Canada at present has no abortion law whatsoever. Any charge would fall under the Criminal Code, and to my knowledge, this hasn't been tested.

I think Canada should have some kind of abortion law, but I don't know what it would be. For example, it seems to me wrong to say that it is solely a woman's choice when it is expected that a man will share in the consequences of that choice.

I would like a debate about this but for almost 20 years, we have not been capable of any debate. Free votes in the House, and political parties with broad representation may be a start. The NDP argues in favour of PR. Whatever.

For whoever it was that said there is no difference between the Conservatives/Liberals of 2004 and today. You also need to look a little deeper. There is a huge difference.

I agree, eureka.

The sky will fall if the Conservatives do win.

I disagree, eureka.

[eureka, Canadians have survived for several centuries, indeed several millenia. I'm confident they'll manage to survive for a couple of years under Stephen Harper, if they have to. Margaret Atwood believes that the main characteristic of Canadians is survival. So, trust Margaret Atwood.]

Of course the majority has to rule. And of course that leaves the minority at the mercy of the majority. How could it possibly be otherwise in a democratic state? Because the Charter protects them? Feh! Nonsense!

OMG!

I happen to like sarongs, but I'll admit that in Canada, I'm in a minority on this question. Fortunately, the majority of Canadians don't decide sarong imports for the few of us who like sarongs. A market allows individuals to choose for themselves. God forbid if sarong purchases were decided by majority vote.

But what if sarong imports (yes/no) were decided by majority vote? No sarongs in Canada because the majority doesn't want them.

So, as a sarong wearer, I go to the government and say - please, here's some money, let me import a sarong.

That's the Charter of Rights.

----

Argus, the market is a sophisticated mechanism respecting your minority status of one person in 6 billion.

But a government is a useful dictatorship that ignores you. The Charter of Rights is a way to keep this "dictatorship" in check. The Magna Carta is another. The established traditions of parliamentary democracy are a variation on a theme.

[Guest eureka]

I think Canada should have some kind of abortion law, but I don't know what it would be. For example, it seems to me wrong to say that it is solely a woman's choice when it is expected that a man will share in the consequences of that choice.

That about sums up my thinking, August.

But the sky will fall!

Anyway, back to the real election. Today, I publicly skewered our local Conservative over "issues." I just hope enough people in the riding are informed. It is so easy and I can't understand either Harper or Layton not having done so.

[Hicksey]

I think Canada should have some kind of abortion law, but I don't know what it would be. For example, it seems to me wrong to say that it is solely a woman's choice when it is expected that a man will share in the consequences of that choice.

That about sums up my thinking, August.

But the sky will fall!

And people think the pro-choice people will allow that? Yeah ... right. Its her body and her choice. To them we're sperm donors. Never mind it took two irresponsible parties.

I think if I get a woman pregnant and I want to take the child as my own to raise even though she doesn't, I should be able to compel her to take it to term barring medical complications that would endanger the mother's life. If she decides she wants to have visitation she has to pay me support.

That's equality if I ever saw it.

[justcrowing]

I think Canada should have some kind of abortion law, but I don't know what it would be. For example, it seems to me wrong to say that it is solely a woman's choice when it is expected that a man will share in the consequences of that choice.

That about sums up my thinking, August.

But the sky will fall!

And people think the pro-choice people will allow that? Yeah ... right. Its her body and her choice. To them we're sperm donors. Never mind it took two irresponsible parties.

I think if I get a woman pregnant and I want to take the child as my own to raise even though she doesn't, I should be able to compel her to take it to term barring medical complications that would endanger the mother's life. If she decides she wants to have visitation she has to pay me support.

That's equality if I ever saw it.

I agree with you here but you know equality is a one way street in this instance and the feminists who have a strong hold on the Liberals nor the Liberal government would ever agree to a male ever having a choice other than to pay support or pay emotionally. Senator Ann Cools tried hard to have changes for more equality but it never came to pass.

[Hicksey]

I think Canada should have some kind of abortion law, but I don't know what it would be. For example, it seems to me wrong to say that it is solely a woman's choice when it is expected that a man will share in the consequences of that choice.

That about sums up my thinking, August.

But the sky will fall!

And people think the pro-choice people will allow that? Yeah ... right. Its her body and her choice. To them we're sperm donors. Never mind it took two irresponsible parties.

I think if I get a woman pregnant and I want to take the child as my own to raise even though she doesn't, I should be able to compel her to take it to term barring medical complications that would endanger the mother's life. If she decides she wants to have visitation she has to pay me support.

That's equality if I ever saw it.

I agree with you here but you know equality is a one way street in this instance and the feminists who have a strong hold on the Liberals nor the Liberal government would ever agree to a male ever having a choice other than to pay support or pay emotionally. Senator Ann Cools tried hard to have changes for more equality but it never came to pass.

Therein lies the problem with pandering to special interests. Equality is never enough.

[justcrowing]

I think Canada should have some kind of abortion law, but I don't know what it would be. For example, it seems to me wrong to say that it is solely a woman's choice when it is expected that a man will share in the consequences of that choice.

That about sums up my thinking, August.

But the sky will fall!

And people think the pro-choice people will allow that? Yeah ... right. Its her body and her choice. To them we're sperm donors. Never mind it took two irresponsible parties.

I think if I get a woman pregnant and I want to take the child as my own to raise even though she doesn't, I should be able to compel her to take it to term barring medical complications that would endanger the mother's life. If she decides she wants to have visitation she has to pay me support.

That's equality if I ever saw it.

I agree with you here but you know equality is a one way street in this instance and the feminists who have a strong hold on the Liberals nor the Liberal government would ever agree to a male ever having a choice other than to pay support or pay emotionally. Senator Ann Cools tried hard to have changes for more equality but it never came to pass.

Therein lies the problem with pandering to special interests. Equality is never enough.

Abortion is a touchy subject however, there are few stats, if any, as to why abortions are sought. An area I question is this - is every abortion a threat to a woman's life or it it a rape or are most of them a form of taxpayer funded birth control? When the survey began in late 1969, a woman could only obtain an abortion for health reasons. In 1988, with the removal of abortion from the Criminal Code, a reason for obtaining an abortion was no longer required.

http://www.fotf.ca/familyfacts/analysis/020703.html

Medically Unnecessary

Statistics from Planned Parenthood reveal that only 3% of abortions are performed because the mother has possible health problems [1]. This leaves the clear majority of abortions being performed for reasons other than a physical threat to the life of the mother. This fact was reiterated by Marilyn Wilson, the executive director of the Canadian Abortion Rights Action League (CARAL), in her statement to a House of Commons Finance Committee in October of 2001. She stated that women who seek abortions:

"... do so for socio-economic reasons. Sometimes it is a desire to complete their education and become financially independent. In many cases, couples with children wish to restrict their family size in order to provide adequate financial support. Often, choosing abortion is a conscious decision not to become a socio-economic burden on society."

and

"…the decision to have an abortion is a highly moral decision on the part of women and their families and more often than not it is made because these women and their families do not want to bring children into the world who they cannot adequately support or care for." [2]

Clearly, the issues listed above are not health issues, and consequently, the resulting abortions should not be paid for out of health funds that could be spent to help individuals whose health is genuinely in danger

Nationwide

The support for defunding is clear outside of Alberta as well. The same Leger poll mentioned above found that 51% of Canadians wanted abortion to only be publicly funded in medical emergencies [17]. Only 23% of Canadians wanted all abortions to be publicly funded [18]. A survey carried out by Environics Research in 1995 revealed that 57% of Ontario respondents believed the Ontario Health Insurance Plan (OHIP) should not provide funding for abortions, and 14% believed funding should only be provided in certain cases [19]. The rate of support for delisting abortion among Saskatchewan residents in a 1991 plebiscite was 62.7% [20]. In a New Brunswick poll by Corporate Research Associates in 2001, 58% agreed that abortions performed at private clinics should not be funded by the province, while 31% said they should [21].

Costs

The charge for an abortion at the Kensington Clinic in Calgary for a woman without medical insurance ranges from $480 to $930 [22]. The clinic only performs abortions up to 19 weeks gestation, so it is assumed that abortions performed at later than 19 weeks in a hospital would carry an even higher price tag for the province. In 1999, there were 10,188 induced abortions in Alberta [23]. Multiplying this number by the costs given above produces a figure of millions of dollars, resources which would be better directed towards treating patients with life-threatening concerns.

[Hicksey]

I think Canada should have some kind of abortion law, but I don't know what it would be. For example, it seems to me wrong to say that it is solely a woman's choice when it is expected that a man will share in the consequences of that choice.

That about sums up my thinking, August.

But the sky will fall!

And people think the pro-choice people will allow that? Yeah ... right. Its her body and her choice. To them we're sperm donors. Never mind it took two irresponsible parties.

I think if I get a woman pregnant and I want to take the child as my own to raise even though she doesn't, I should be able to compel her to take it to term barring medical complications that would endanger the mother's life. If she decides she wants to have visitation she has to pay me support.

That's equality if I ever saw it.

I agree with you here but you know equality is a one way street in this instance and the feminists who have a strong hold on the Liberals nor the Liberal government would ever agree to a male ever having a choice other than to pay support or pay emotionally. Senator Ann Cools tried hard to have changes for more equality but it never came to pass.

Therein lies the problem with pandering to special interests. Equality is never enough.

Abortion is a touchy subject however, there are few stats, if any, as to why abortions are sought. An area I question is this - is every abortion a threat to a woman's life or it it a rape or are most of them a form of taxpayer funded birth control? When the survey began in late 1969, a woman could only obtain an abortion for health reasons. In 1988, with the removal of abortion from the Criminal Code, a reason for obtaining an abortion was no longer required.

http://www.fotf.ca/familyfacts/analysis/020703.html

Medically Unnecessary

Statistics from Planned Parenthood reveal that only 3% of abortions are performed because the mother has possible health problems [1]. This leaves the clear majority of abortions being performed for reasons other than a physical threat to the life of the mother. This fact was reiterated by Marilyn Wilson, the executive director of the Canadian Abortion Rights Action League (CARAL), in her statement to a House of Commons Finance Committee in October of 2001. She stated that women who seek abortions:

"... do so for socio-economic reasons. Sometimes it is a desire to complete their education and become financially independent. In many cases, couples with children wish to restrict their family size in order to provide adequate financial support. Often, choosing abortion is a conscious decision not to become a socio-economic burden on society."

and

"…the decision to have an abortion is a highly moral decision on the part of women and their families and more often than not it is made because these women and their families do not want to bring children into the world who they cannot adequately support or care for." [2]

Clearly, the issues listed above are not health issues, and consequently, the resulting abortions should not be paid for out of health funds that could be spent to help individuals whose health is genuinely in danger

Nationwide

The support for defunding is clear outside of Alberta as well. The same Leger poll mentioned above found that 51% of Canadians wanted abortion to only be publicly funded in medical emergencies [17]. Only 23% of Canadians wanted all abortions to be publicly funded [18]. A survey carried out by Environics Research in 1995 revealed that 57% of Ontario respondents believed the Ontario Health Insurance Plan (OHIP) should not provide funding for abortions, and 14% believed funding should only be provided in certain cases [19]. The rate of support for delisting abortion among Saskatchewan residents in a 1991 plebiscite was 62.7% [20]. In a New Brunswick poll by Corporate Research Associates in 2001, 58% agreed that abortions performed at private clinics should not be funded by the province, while 31% said they should [21].

Costs

The charge for an abortion at the Kensington Clinic in Calgary for a woman without medical insurance ranges from $480 to $930 [22]. The clinic only performs abortions up to 19 weeks gestation, so it is assumed that abortions performed at later than 19 weeks in a hospital would carry an even higher price tag for the province. In 1999, there were 10,188 induced abortions in Alberta [23]. Multiplying this number by the costs given above produces a figure of millions of dollars, resources which would be better directed towards treating patients with life-threatening concerns.

I think we're on the same wavelength on abortion. I can accept (but not condone nor promote) they're an option, but not a right and as such definitely not taxpayer funded unless medically necessary.

[geoffrey]

Very interesting debate on abortion, some of the most civilized I've ever seen.

Here's my stance on it:

1) It is killing a living being.

2) I could never condone it, never support it, never want anything to do with it (including pay for it taxwise).

3) Who am I to tell other people how to act. I think its murder, but only due to my religious beliefs.

4) A baby is equally a fathers as a mothers.

5) Abortion should come with a sexual education program to anyone that participates.

6) Abortion should be paid for in cash, if you can't afford it, you have to labour for it. Free abortion removes even financial responsibility from one of the most irresponsible acts out there.

7) A father should be able to get a court order to prevent the abortion, if he signs an agreement to support the baby himself.

[Hicksey]

Very interesting debate on abortion, some of the most civilized I've ever seen.

Here's my stance on it:

1) It is killing a living being.

2) I could never condone it, never support it, never want anything to do with it (including pay for it taxwise).

3) Who am I to tell other people how to act. I think its murder, but only due to my religious beliefs.

4) A baby is equally a fathers as a mothers.

5) Abortion should come with a sexual education program to anyone that participates.

6) Abortion should be paid for in cash, if you can't afford it, you have to labour for it. Free abortion removes even financial responsibility from one of the most irresponsible acts out there.

7) A father should be able to get a court order to prevent the abortion, if he signs an agreement to support the baby himself.

Delete number 6 and we agree. I'm not concerned who pays as long as its not the taxpayer. However, being a service that cannot be rescinded I highly doubt many companies would lend money for one without some kind of guarantee or collateral.

[geoffrey]

Very interesting debate on abortion, some of the most civilized I've ever seen.

Here's my stance on it:

1) It is killing a living being.

2) I could never condone it, never support it, never want anything to do with it (including pay for it taxwise).

3) Who am I to tell other people how to act. I think its murder, but only due to my religious beliefs.

4) A baby is equally a fathers as a mothers.

5) Abortion should come with a sexual education program to anyone that participates.

6) Abortion should be paid for in cash, if you can't afford it, you have to labour for it. Free abortion removes even financial responsibility from one of the most irresponsible acts out there.

7) A father should be able to get a court order to prevent the abortion, if he signs an agreement to support the baby himself.

Delete number 6 and we agree. I'm not concerned who pays as long as its not the taxpayer. However, being a service that cannot be rescinded I highly doubt many companies would lend money for one without some kind of guarantee or collateral.

Ya 6 could turn into some exploitation idea eh. Alright, eliminate 6 it is. If I ever decided to run for office and get elected MP, I'll propose this one...

"An Act to Protect Rights of Fathers and Unborn Children"... brilliant...

Anyways... what about a cap on the number you can get? Like after you've had 10 or 11 is it time the bartender called for your tab?

[Hicksey]

Very interesting debate on abortion, some of the most civilized I've ever seen.

Here's my stance on it:

1) It is killing a living being.

2) I could never condone it, never support it, never want anything to do with it (including pay for it taxwise).

3) Who am I to tell other people how to act. I think its murder, but only due to my religious beliefs.

4) A baby is equally a fathers as a mothers.

5) Abortion should come with a sexual education program to anyone that participates.

6) Abortion should be paid for in cash, if you can't afford it, you have to labour for it. Free abortion removes even financial responsibility from one of the most irresponsible acts out there.

7) A father should be able to get a court order to prevent the abortion, if he signs an agreement to support the baby himself.

Delete number 6 and we agree. I'm not concerned who pays as long as its not the taxpayer. However, being a service that cannot be rescinded I highly doubt many companies would lend money for one without some kind of guarantee or collateral.

Ya 6 could turn into some exploitation idea eh. Alright, eliminate 6 it is. If I ever decided to run for office and get elected MP, I'll propose this one...

"An Act to Protect Rights of Fathers and Unborn Children"... brilliant...

Anyways... what about a cap on the number you can get? Like after you've had 10 or 11 is it time the bartender called for your tab?

I hope you're referring to a drink tab and not the other matter at hand. For the law to work, I don't think that limit can apply. If not, then as long as you get a cab you should be able to get as drunk as you want. you'll be the one paying for it in the morning. If puking is that much fun to you, who am I to stop you so long as you respect the safety of people around you?

[geoffrey]

I hope you're referring to a drink tab and not the other matter at hand. For the law to work, I don't think that limit can apply. If not, then as long as you get a cab you should be able to get as drunk as you want. you'll be the one paying for it in the morning. If puking is that much fun to you, who am I to stop you so long as you respect the safety of people around you?

Definitely talking about the other matter. Why can't their be a limit?

Please excuse my poor choice in examples.

[Hicksey]

I hope you're referring to a drink tab and not the other matter at hand. For the law to work, I don't think that limit can apply. If not, then as long as you get a cab you should be able to get as drunk as you want. you'll be the one paying for it in the morning. If puking is that much fun to you, who am I to stop you so long as you respect the safety of people around you?

Definitely talking about the other matter. Why can't their be a limit?

Please excuse my poor choice in examples.

Well, isn't this about fathers' rights? Aren't you responsible for every life you create? We don't put a limit on how many kids you can be held accountable for so why on how many in this case? If you're dad, you're accountable and your right is there to decide.

Though I think it should go a lot like adoption procedings. There must be means and a suitable home in place first.

[normanchateau]

I think if I get a woman pregnant and I want to take the child as my own to raise even though she doesn't, I should be able to compel her to take it to term barring medical complications that would endanger the mother's life. If she decides she wants to have visitation she has to pay me support.

That's equality if I ever saw it.

Sounds like an idea that anti-abortionist Stephen Harper would like...mandatory full-term pregnancy. And I suppose one could enforce this by putting the pregnant woman in jail and monitoring her prison activities so that she's not tempted to self-abort. After all, if she committed the crime of getting pregnant, she must be compelled to serve the time.

What Canada is desparately short of are children unwanted by their mothers.

[quinton]

Well for starters, Steven Harper only cares about Economic Growth.

Why is that bad, well let's see...

Economic Growth = Population Growth * Per Capita Consumption Growth

Population Growth * Per Capita Consumption Growth = Increased Environmental Degradation

Does that sum up for you what a Harper government would be like?

He will probably increase immigration for Economic/Population Growth... so new housing developments will be springing up in all of your greenspace...

...and he'll probably increase consumption, by harvesting Canada's wilderness forests and converting them to monoculture tree farms at an even more unsustainable rate.

Biodiversity and wilderness will be destroyed by a Harper government, likely even worse than it was by the Liberals.

Now do you see why I hate Harper and Conservatives?

I am going to vote the Green Party, even though they support deliberate population growth for economic growth just like all the other parties, I think we need more options.

My worst fear is a "democratic" system like the USA with only 2 choices: red or blue, who are both very similar.

We need issue based politics so that we can vote referendum style on all the issues instead of voting on personalities like Harper, Duceppe, Layton, Harris, or Martin.

[normanchateau]

We need issue based politics so that we can vote referendum style on all the issues instead of voting on personalities like Harper, Duceppe, Layton, Harris, or Martin.

Sure, let's have a referendum a day on ALL the issues. And while we're at it, let's fine those Canadians who fail to vote in a referendum. It could generate a lot of revenue, especially when people are on travelling vacations.

[Melanie_]

Perhaps Robert Mugabe was also once one of your heros?

Given that you have chosen "Harare" as your board name, the suggestion that Robert Mugabe could be anyone's hero is a pretty low blow. But for the record, let me say that, while not overly familiar with the history of Zimbabwe, I can safely say Mugabe is not someone I admire.

JMH - no harm done.

[Hicksey]

I think if I get a woman pregnant and I want to take the child as my own to raise even though she doesn't, I should be able to compel her to take it to term barring medical complications that would endanger the mother's life. If she decides she wants to have visitation she has to pay me support.

That's equality if I ever saw it.

Sounds like an idea that anti-abortionist Stephen Harper would like...mandatory full-term pregnancy. And I suppose one could enforce this by putting the pregnant woman in jail and monitoring her prison activities so that she's not tempted to self-abort. After all, if she committed the crime of getting pregnant, she must be compelled to serve the time.

What Canada is desparately short of are children unwanted by their mothers.

Do have reading comprehension problems? This would merely be an option for the father and only if he signed papers saying he would take full responsibility for the child. The discussion was not abortion, rather fathers' rights. And if you read our comments before you would have seen that we accept that abortion is a choice even if we don't endorse it.

Yet another liberal misconstruing and misrepresenting what a conservative says. What a surprise!

[Montgomery Burns]

As a society, the vast majority of Canadians fall into the "social liberal- fiscal conservative" realm.

Unfortunately, it seems that many of the conservative candidates are far from socially liberal:

G&M article

I particularly like this quote:

Mr. Sweet is a former president of Promise Keepers Canada, an evangelical Christian organization that believes homosexuality is a sin.

In a November, 2001, edition of Christian Week magazine, he wrote: "[M]en are natural influencers, whether we like it or not. There's a particular reason why Jesus called men only. It's not that women aren't co-participators. It's because Jesus knew women would naturally follow."

Wow. belittling homosexuals AND women at the same time. There's social progress for you.

I think it is time for a change to a FISCALLY conservative gov't, however, many Canadians are afraid of the social conservatism baggage that appears to be coming along for the ride.

What's your take on the highly controversial (and a thief) Svend Robinson standing right beside Jack Layton today at their rally in BC?

[Hydraboss]

Svend Robinson is a thief. Out the political door, I say. Off with you now.

Politicians have enough problems with corruption and perceived corruption. They do not need a CONFIRMED criminal muddying the waters.

Svend, go away or I shall be forced to taunt you again.

[justcrowing]

I think if I get a woman pregnant and I want to take the child as my own to raise even though she doesn't, I should be able to compel her to take it to term barring medical complications that would endanger the mother's life. If she decides she wants to have visitation she has to pay me support.

That's equality if I ever saw it.

Sounds like an idea that anti-abortionist Stephen Harper would like...mandatory full-term pregnancy. And I suppose one could enforce this by putting the pregnant woman in jail and monitoring her prison activities so that she's not tempted to self-abort. After all, if she committed the crime of getting pregnant, she must be compelled to serve the time.

What Canada is desparately short of are children unwanted by their mothers.

Do have reading comprehension problems? This would merely be an option for the father and only if he signed papers saying he would take full responsibility for the child. The discussion was not abortion, rather fathers' rights. And if you read our comments before you would have seen that we accept that abortion is a choice even if we don't endorse it.

Yet another liberal misconstruing and misrepresenting what a conservative says. What a surprise!

Let me see, is this is how the system works?? ....

* Woman gets pregnant - it's his fault.

* Woman gets pregnant, wants child - he must pay child support and fight for visitation privileges [a weekend daddy if he is lucky or harrasses him out of the child's life].

* Woman gets pregnant, doesn't want child, he does. It's her body, her choice and he cannot have the child even if he agrees to raise the child. Will the Court ask her to pay child support or enforce it in the same manner as it is enforced upon men - probably not.

* End result - Canadian equality the Liberal way.

[scribblet]

I disagree that a woman should be compelled to take it to term and I've never heard Harper say anything about compelling a woman to do so.

I also have to wonder why socialists are so against private clinics of any kind, except publicly funded abortion clinics.

I don't like abortion but its not my business what another woman does, although I would like to see limits on late term abortions - (only for the life of the mother.)

As far as 'anti-abortionist Harper' I don't consider that to be derogatory at all, Paul Martin and all the other RC members are also anti abortion, but take the same path as Harper - that is, no legislation. If one admires Martin for not putting his personal views first, then by the same token, one should admire Harper for doing the same thing. Funny how it doesn't work both ways though isn't it.

http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Election/2006/...404414-sun.html

Sat, January 21, 2006

Abortion vote flip-flopMartin says he'll let Grit backbenchers choose freely on issue

By STEPHANIE RUBEC, SUN MEDIA

ST. JOHN'S -- After championing himself as the protector of women's rights and slamming Stephen Harper for failing to clear up his intentions regarding abortion, Paul Martin says he'll allow backbenchers to vote their conscience on the controversial issue.

Who's your daddy now eh!

[justcrowing]

Why is abortion even brought into the discussion? Surely there are more priorities that have been left on the back burner long enough. Women are getting their abortions paid for by the taxpayer - so what else is there to discuss other than that if abortion is used as a form of birth control heaven forbid they have to pay for their own & take responsibility.