Oda not welcome at provincial meeting on women's issues

[normanchateau]

I mostly agree with your points in the above post. Of course someone who work less hours should not receive the same pay as someone who works more hours. But if two people work equal hours and are equally capable and efficient, shouldn't they receive equal pay? That's my interpretation of the feminist position, i.e., equal pay for equal work. Any feminist group that would demand equal pay for less work is unreasonable in my opinion.

Your interpretation is absolutely correct norman. No feminist would even think to demand equal pay for less hours worked no matter the gender of the person, at the same pay rate and position level.

I sometimes wonder whether those who distort the feminist position perhaps feel uncomfortable with the notion of women being equal to men. Women have made considerable progress in obtaining equal rights in recent decades relative to their slow progress in previous millenia, and this has probably created irrational fear discomfort for those who like societal change to be gradual even when it involves human rights.

Sadly women still remain unequal in many parts of the world and even within Canada in many religious institutions. For example, how likely is a Canadian woman to advance in the hierarchy of the Catholic Church? I don't see female archbishops and popes just around the corner.

[jefferiah]

I am a conservative. And in some ways socially so. But I am not campaigning for the prohibition of alcohol. Nor do I think women should be kept locked up in a kitchen, or not allowed to vote. You say, you and I both know. Thats funny, you base it on absolutely nothing, except that you know, apparently. You know what we conservatives are thinking despite what we tell you to the contrary. Lol

[jefferiah]

I mostly agree with your points in the above post. Of course someone who work less hours should not receive the same pay as someone who works more hours. But if two people work equal hours and are equally capable and efficient, shouldn't they receive equal pay? That's my interpretation of the feminist position, i.e., equal pay for equal work. Any feminist group that would demand equal pay for less work is unreasonable in my opinion.

Your interpretation is absolutely correct norman. No feminist would even think to demand equal pay for less hours worked no matter the gender of the person, at the same pay rate and position level.

I sometimes wonder whether those who distort the feminist position perhaps feel uncomfortable with the notion of women being equal to men. Women have made considerable progress in obtaining equal rights in recent decades relative to their slow progress in previous millenia, and this has probably created irrational fear discomfort for those who like societal change to be gradual even when it involves human rights.

Sadly women still remain unequal in many parts of the world and even within Canada in many religious institutions. For example, how likely is a Canadian woman to advance in the hierarchy of the Catholic Church? I don't see female archbishops and popes just around the corner.

You know what Norm. If it was my church women would be allowed to be Priests or whatever. I have no problem with that. I dont agree with the Catholic position that women cant be religious leaders or that priests must be unmarried. But then again, I am not a Catholic. This is their doctrine. Their policy. This is part of Catholicism. If you dont like Catholicism you dont have to go to a Catholic church.

[jefferiah]

I don't think that social conservatism is particularly extreme as a political philosphy. Social conservative's do bring up a reasonable argument as to what government involvement should be with regards to what moral's and virtues a country should have. The problem is that too often they identify faith with politics, which will be considered radical for any Canadian.

The feminist agenda calls for social and economic equality for women. What's wrong with that?

Nothing, except why should my taxdollars go to a pro-choice organization, when I am pro-life. We see the same thing with abortion, these group's will claim to represent all women, when even many women disagree with abortion.

As for social and economic equality, sure. However what does that even mean.

Well, it is nice that you think that, however, history and present day, has proven that social conservatism can be particularly extreme, especially as a political philosophy, after all we would not be in Afghanistan if this were not the case, now would we? It is only a manner of degree.

What is this reasonable argument, you say that social conservatives have with regards to what morals and virtues a country should have? Furthermore, who are social conservatives to denote the morals and virtues in the first place?

Why should my tax dollars go to fund military, and military organizations that I do not agree with, or indeed to any infrastructure or program I do not agree with by the same token? W

Pro-Choice does represent ALL women, what do you not understand about the word choice? Choice is just that, choice to do/think whatever the woman chooses to do or think. Not what some other woman, or man, chooses for them. If a “woman” chooses to be pro-life, that is still her own choice, in the feminist mind. The difference is the impingement on rights. Pro-choice means absolute rights of choice/self determination by the woman but we do not allow others I.e. pro-lifers, neo-cons, the right to self determine ourselves, no one has that right. And this equality of mind and body, is not limited to abortion access, this covers all levels of society, in every situation.

Now you said above:

radical, basically believing that the only people capable of evil are males

Well, then there can’t be many radials out there, as I have never met 1 woman, in my life, who believes that the only people capable of evil are males. In fact, I have never even heard 1 refer to males as evil in a generality. There are quite a few male feminists you know.

This I totally disagree with. Pro-choice as regards abortion does not represent the views of all women. Many women do not agree with abortion. And I (though I am a higly unqualified man) dont agree with it either. I am not against a woman choosing what she can or cant do with her body, its just that in my opinion when it comes to abortion she is making that decision for another body as well. It is my belief that the fetus is a living thing. We can argue this til the cows come home, and neither of us will satisfy the other. The point is people who are pro-life are not trying to take away the choices of women, but they believe that choice ends where they truly believe another life begins. So the person was asking why should his tax money go to this. To him it is not a woman's issue. It is a question of whether the fetus is a living thing or not. He believes it is.

[jefferiah]

I mostly agree with your points in the above post. Of course someone who work less hours should not receive the same pay as someone who works more hours. But if two people work equal hours and are equally capable and efficient, shouldn't they receive equal pay? That's my interpretation of the feminist position, i.e., equal pay for equal work. Any feminist group that would demand equal pay for less work is unreasonable in my opinion.

Your interpretation is absolutely correct norman. No feminist would even think to demand equal pay for less hours worked no matter the gender of the person, at the same pay rate and position level.

I sometimes wonder whether those who distort the feminist position perhaps feel uncomfortable with the notion of women being equal to men. Women have made considerable progress in obtaining equal rights in recent decades relative to their slow progress in previous millenia, and this has probably created irrational fear discomfort for those who like societal change to be gradual even when it involves human rights.

I sometimes wonder if those who are afraid of honest arguments about the problems that come with socialist policies (one size does not fit all), are so uncomfortable with our arguments against them that they resort to these tactics of calling it bigotry and a fear of equality with complete knowledge of what they are doing.

[jefferiah]

Of course social conservatism can be extreme NOrman. So can feminism. It can be dishonest too. Or perhaps only men are dishonest. And if you dont believe that there are alot of feminists out there with extreme agendas (though not all of them) you are kidding yourself.

[Catchme]

This I totally disagree with. Pro-choice as regards abortion does not represent the views of all women. Many women do not agree with abortion. And I (though I am a higly unqualified man) dont agree with it either. I am not against a woman choosing what she can or cant do with her body, its just that in my opinion when it comes to abortion she is making that decision for another body as well. It is my belief that the fetus is a living thing. We can argue this til the cows come home, and neither of us will satisfy the other. The point is people who are pro-life are not trying to take away the choices of women, but they believe that choice ends where they truly believe another life begins. So the person was asking why should his tax money go to this. To him it is not a woman's issue. It is a question of whether the fetus is a living thing or not. He believes it is.

Pro-choice as regards to abortion does represent the views of all women. Again what do you fail to see about what the word "choice" means? If a woman chooses to be "pro-life" for herself that is her "choice". It means she chooses not to have an abortion. It is her "choice". Please read this over a couple you will get it.

Being pro-life does not give anyone the right to have rights over another person's body or life. Nor does it give the right to anyone to ascribe what they choose in life upon others.

Whatever may or may not happen to that feotus is unknown and unknowable to anyone and cannot be brought into any discussion on rights to self determine.

It is not up for debate, because it cannot be up for debate, if you take away 1 persons right to self determine, you take away all peoples rights to self determination, male or female. Then we all become wards of the state or feudalistic serfs and gentry.

[mikedavid00]

However if you disagree with these people, they will lynch you in the papers as a "bigot" who does not support equality.

Bingo.

[normanchateau]

I sometimes wonder if those who are afraid of honest arguments about the problems that come with socialist policies (one size does not fit all), are so uncomfortable with our arguments against them that they resort to these tactics of calling it bigotry and a fear of equality with complete knowledge of what they are doing.

What socialist policy are you referring to? I've yet to hear of a socialist policy called "one size does not fit all'. Do you view equal rights for women as a socialist policy? How about equal rights for different races...is that a socialist policy? Are all socialist policies bad and fraught with problems?

[scribblet]

However if you disagree with these people, they will lynch you in the papers as a "bigot" who does not support equality.

Bingo.

Bingo again The modern definition of racist (or bigot) is someone who is winning an argument with a liberal

[normanchateau]

However if you disagree with these people, they will lynch you in the papers as a "bigot" who does not support equality.

Bingo.

The modern definition of racist is someone who is winning an argument with a liberal

What's racism got to do with feminism? Do you think women belong to another race?

[Catchme]

I sometimes wonder if those who are afraid of honest arguments about the problems that come with socialist policies (one size does not fit all), are so uncomfortable with our arguments against them that they resort to these tactics of calling it bigotry and a fear of equality with complete knowledge of what they are doing.

What socialist policy are you referring to? I've yet to hear of a socialist policy called "one size does not fit all'. Do you view equal rights for women as a socialist policy? How about equal rights for different races...is that a socialist policy? Are all socialist policies bad and fraught with problems?

Oh norman, those that frame their commentary by using "afraid of honest debate", are just throwing up straw men and kicking them down. They don't have a honest bone in their body let alone the desire to allow women to have equality. Perhaps they may not even understand what equality really means, and not just between the genders. You see the opposite of "honest debate" is "dishonest" so they have already framed what they want to talk about as anyone being opposed is dishonest, and thereby they have the default position of "honest". Not true. False premise, dishonest and closed position.

Feminists and progressives quite "honestly" say there is NO debate on equality issues are just that equality rights for all. No one else has the right to debate substantive reasons for having my equality rights taken away, nor anyone else's. They stand as they are, equality always = equality.

Needess to say behind all this, is the fact that once one decides to take away others equality rights their equality rights are equally up for grabs.

The Rights of Equality stand not up for discussion from the position of taking away.

[Canuck E Stan]

Then we all become wards of the state or feudalistic serfs and gentry.

The issue to you is not debateable, but it's okay for Woman's groups to demand money from the state in order to advance their political agenda.

If women want these agendas then it's time for them to provide the sole support for these agendas, and to cut the ties of being a ward of the state.

[normanchateau]

I sometimes wonder if those who are afraid of honest arguments about the problems that come with socialist policies (one size does not fit all), are so uncomfortable with our arguments against them that they resort to these tactics of calling it bigotry and a fear of equality with complete knowledge of what they are doing.

What socialist policy are you referring to? I've yet to hear of a socialist policy called "one size does not fit all'. Do you view equal rights for women as a socialist policy? How about equal rights for different races...is that a socialist policy? Are all socialist policies bad and fraught with problems?

Oh norman, those that frame their commentary by using "afraid of honest debate", are just throwing up straw men and kicking them down.

Yes, I know. That's why I don't anticipate any relevant responses to my questions.

[jefferiah]

Ah it seems you misunderstood my intent by "one size does not fit all". I was not referring to a socialist policy by this remark, I was making my own remark as to why I disagree with socialist policies, that being one size does not fit all. Whenever a policy is enacted or legislation is made there ought to be a very very great demand for it, because no policy can ever be worded to take into account individual situations. I cant remember the statistics, but I think it was a The Status of Women here in NB that found that women were earning 83% of what men do. Having had this statistic challenge on grounds that there could be other factors than discrimination, they had to dig deeper. I commend them for doing so. What they found was that there were definitely some good reasons to account for some of the cases including the amount of hours worked. But still they found through their own research that about 50 percent of this could not be accounted for by the other factors they investigated. They use this 50 percent to indicate the amount of discrimination. Now even this could be very wrong, since we dont know the individual cases. The danger in employing an equity policy is that it does not take into account alot of individual situations. For this reason (even though I am sure there is racism and sexism out there) I dont support a move to legislate equity. If we look at affirmative action (as an illustration), maybe you support it, maybe you dont. But I think it is not unreasonable to say that there are people who have good arguments against it, and that the reasons they dont support it are not because they are bigotted. I think we all are aware of why alot of people disagree with it, and can say that doesnt necessarily mean one is a bigot. Nonetheless I would say that at the time it was implemented, supporters could point to the fact that there was indeed a huge problem with blacks getting jobs or even being able to live in certain neighbourhoods. I think that attitudes have changed a lot since then though and even though racism is not totally eradicated I think that the contra argument has a lot more ground these days. There is an African American show on PBS...American Black Journal I believe. I was watching this show last year and many of the people on that show were talking about the problems affirmative action causes, how it is not fair, does not account for individual situations, and ultimately the speakers on this show found that it was actually "racist". They believed that though racism does exist today, there is reasonable ability for a black person to compete in society and that its racist to employ a policy to help them as if they can't do it on their own. And they also pointed out that it causes a lot of unfair hiring, the same argument people against affirmative action have been making all along.

Now, it may have been necessary to enact the interventionist policy at one time because there was such a clear line indicating that discrimination was definite. It is in these situations that I believe interventionism should be employed, and only these. When it is urgent. Because it also causes problems. Alot of the feminist groups point to socialist solutions to their problems. This is what I disagree with. I have no problem with the equality. I think women should earn as much as men or be able to work wherever they want, etc etc. I dont appreciate being labelled anti-female because I dont believe in interventionism. The situation with women is nothing compared to what it was with blacks when affirmative action was implemented. You have pointed out the fact that feminists have changed alot of society's views for the better. Given this, given the trends of change is it necessary to enact policies to help women (that can end up causing greater injustice) when they have a reasonable chance of competing in todays society.

[normanchateau]

Ah it seems you misunderstood my intent by "one size does not fit all". I was not referring to a socialist policy by this remark, I was making my own remark as to why I disagree with socialist policies, that being one size does not fit all. Whenever a policy is enacted or legislation is made there ought to be a very very great demand for it, because no policy can ever be worded to take into account individual situations. I cant remember the statistics, but I think it was a The Status of Women here in NB that found that women were earning 83% of what men do. Having had this statistic challenge on grounds that there could be other factors than discrimination, they had to dig deeper. I commend them for doing so. What they found was that there were definitely some good reasons to account for some of the cases including the amount of hours worked. But still they found through their own research that about 50 percent of this could not be accounted for by the other factors they investigated. They use this 50 percent to indicate the amount of discrimination. Now even this could be very wrong, since we dont know the individual cases. The danger in employing an equity policy is that it does not take into account alot of individual situations. For this reason (even though I am sure there is racism and sexism out there) I dont support a move to legislate equity. If we look at affirmative action (as an illustration), maybe you support it, maybe you dont. But I think it is not unreasonable to say that there are people who have good arguments against it, and that the reasons they dont support it are not because they are bigotted. I think we all are aware of why alot of people disagree with it, and can say that doesnt necessarily mean one is a bigot. Nonetheless I would say that at the time it was implemented, supporters could point to the fact that there was indeed a huge problem with blacks getting jobs or even being able to live in certain neighbourhoods. I think that attitudes have changed a lot since then though and even though racism is not totally eradicated I think that the contra argument has a lot more ground these days. There is an African American show on PBS...American Black Journal I believe. I was watching this show last year and many of the people on that show were talking about the problems affirmative action causes, how it is not fair, does not account for individual situations, and ultimately the speakers on this show found that it was actually "racist". They believed that though racism does exist today, there is reasonable ability for a black person to compete in society and that its racist to employ a policy to help them as if they can't do it on their own. And they also pointed out that it causes a lot of unfair hiring, the same argument people against affirmative action have been making all along.

Now, it may have been necessary to enact the interventionist policy at one time because there was such a clear line indicating that discrimination was definite. It is in these situations that I believe interventionism should be employed, and only these. When it is urgent. Because it also causes problems. Alot of the feminist groups point to socialist solutions to their problems. This is what I disagree with. I have no problem with the equality. I think women should earn as much as men or be able to work wherever they want, etc etc. I dont appreciate being labelled anti-female because I dont believe in interventionism. The situation with women is nothing compared to what it was with blacks when affirmative action was implemented. You have pointed out the fact that feminists have changed alot of society's views for the better. Given this, given the trends of change is it necessary to enact policies to help women (that can end up causing greater injustice) when they have a reasonable chance of competing in todays society.

OK, thanks, that sort of answers my questions.

[White Doors]

It is not up for debate, because it cannot be up for debate, if you take away 1 persons right to self determine, you take away all peoples rights to self determination, male or female. Then we all become wards of the state or feudalistic serfs and gentry.

What about the rights of the unborn female?

DO you believe that you should be able to abort because of the sex of the unborn child say in the third trimester? See how your 'rights' argument is in of itself a strawman?

[Catchme]

It is not up for debate, because it cannot be up for debate, if you take away 1 persons right to self determine, you take away all peoples rights to self determination, male or female. Then we all become wards of the state or feudalistic serfs and gentry.

What about the rights of the unborn female?

DO you believe that you should be able to abort because of the sex of the unborn child say in the third trimester? See how your 'rights' argument is in of itself a strawman?

No that is not a strawman in the rights argument. You have pre-supposed an answer and then kicked it down, your own strawman actually.

Pro-Choice means self determination on the part of the female, if the woman's personal choice is being manipulated by anyone, or any type of religious social desire/belief such as boys are more important than girls, then it is not free choice is it? It is imposed externally.

However, what you talk about is more to the point of discussing whether or not the sex of the feotus should not be known until born. As opposed to woman's equal rights to self determine in ALL things.

They are not the same thing. One can be discussed the other cannot.

[jefferiah]

I sometimes wonder if those who are afraid of honest arguments about the problems that come with socialist policies (one size does not fit all), are so uncomfortable with our arguments against them that they resort to these tactics of calling it bigotry and a fear of equality with complete knowledge of what they are doing.

What socialist policy are you referring to? I've yet to hear of a socialist policy called "one size does not fit all'. Do you view equal rights for women as a socialist policy? How about equal rights for different races...is that a socialist policy? Are all socialist policies bad and fraught with problems?

Oh norman, those that frame their commentary by using "afraid of honest debate", are just throwing up straw men and kicking them down. They don't have a honest bone in their body let alone the desire to allow women to have equality. Perhaps they may not even understand what equality really means, and not just between the genders. You see the opposite of "honest debate" is "dishonest" so they have already framed what they want to talk about as anyone being opposed is dishonest, and thereby they have the default position of "honest". Not true. False premise, dishonest and closed position.

Feminists and progressives quite "honestly" say there is NO debate on equality issues are just that equality rights for all. No one else has the right to debate substantive reasons for having my equality rights taken away, nor anyone else's. They stand as they are, equality always = equality.

Needess to say behind all this, is the fact that once one decides to take away others equality rights their equality rights are equally up for grabs.

The Rights of Equality stand not up for discussion from the position of taking away.

I think that is a very shallow view of things. The method of employing equality that many groups seek is one of (as I think I said before) evening out the end result of everything. This means we have to have even numbers across the board. Now if we assume that in an ideal society where people did not discriminate numbers would magically pan out this way, then it would make sense. But I think it is highly unlikely. Not because either men or women or better. To put it another way, the same logic assumes that where numbers are uneven there must be discrimination. There is no other explanation. So in order to fix the problem we even out the numbers.

A friend online was telling me that his IT company has a quota for so many women. But relatively few are applying for the job. Meanwhile many men are applying but have to be turned down. I dont know why fewer women are applying. But meanwhile lots of qualified men are coming in first and not getting served. By the same token, this could conceivably backfire against women as well. The problem with this equality thing is conceptualization of groups. First off we have the problem of discrimination in the first place which is based on conceptualizing groups. Then we are proposed with solutions which do the very same thing. The men applying for the job I mentioned above, are being denied jobs because they belong to a certain group, men. It is not discrimination in the usual sense I will admit, but I dont see why a company can't staff itself with what qualified people are being made available. This is one of the problems with legislation to create equal numbers. I am not saying there are cases where discrimination against women does not exist. I am sure you could find some very horrifying ones. But I really believe that in today's society most of us see things differently. I have no problem with women being in politics or no problem voting for a woman, but I certainly dont support the idea of gender parity in parliament. Can you understand why without resorting to calling me a bigot? How would such parity be enacted? If you made a move to legislate that every party has to have an equal number of women running in ridings as men, this would not guarantee parity. Because it could happen that either more women end up getting elected or more men end up getting elected. So what then. How do you rectify this? Do you supercede the votes of certain ridings? Also what if a greater number of men or a greater number of women vying for a political spot in a party are more qualified for the job than others. What if reasons for choosing one over the other in some cases have to do with a real assessment of the individual, rather than being based on sex. My family is Conservative. So I can tell you that if a conservative woman was running against a Liberal man they would vote Conservative. And not just because they feel its the lesser of two evils, which will definitely be your next accusation. This is because we vote Conservative, male or female.

[mikedavid00]

What about the rights of the unborn female?

I consider that baby to be a person who is entitled to their own rights as an individual regardless if it's in or out of the stomach. If the mother does not want to care for the child, then the state shall and take the baby away where it can be cared for by loving parents.

[jefferiah]

It is not up for debate, because it cannot be up for debate, if you take away 1 persons right to self determine, you take away all peoples rights to self determination, male or female. Then we all become wards of the state or feudalistic serfs and gentry.

What about the rights of the unborn female?

DO you believe that you should be able to abort because of the sex of the unborn child say in the third trimester? See how your 'rights' argument is in of itself a strawman?

No that is not a strawman in the rights argument. You have pre-supposed an answer and then kicked it down, your own strawman actually.

Pro-Choice means self determination on the part of the female, if the woman's personal choice is being manipulated by anyone, or any type of religious social desire/belief such as boys are more important than girls, then it is not free choice is it? It is imposed externally.

However, what you talk about is more to the point of discussing whether or not the sex of the feotus should not be known until born. As opposed to woman's equal rights to self determine in ALL things.

They are not the same thing. One can be discussed the other cannot.

You are deliberately ignoring the fact the Pro-Life supporters believe that there is another "self" involved in what you call self-determination. That the woman choosing to abort is making a choice not only for herself but for an unborn child as well. While we dont agree on this issue can you at least concede that our intent is not to restrict women from choosing how to live, simply that we believe there is another life there. Abortion is legal and I am not out bombing clinics. But I dont support subsidization of abortion. This is what Mike is referring to. Why should he have to pay for it?

[blueblood]

What about the rights of the unborn female?

I consider that baby to be a person who is entitled to their own rights as an individual regardless if it's in or out of the stomach. If the mother does not want to care for the child, then the state shall and take the baby away where it can be cared for by loving parents.

You are right for the most part as far as the baby's rights go, but I have concerns. If the mom does not want to care for the child and wants to terminate the pregnancy should the state be performing C-sections on women during their first trimester, I think the woman wouldn't like being forced into surgery or being forced to give birth. If a woman doesn't want to care for a child she should take appropriate measures to combat that like abstinence and birth control. Then again there is rape which refutes the previous point.

[jefferiah]

The rape argument is powerful. But is rape the determining factor in the vast majority of abortions.

[mikedavid00]

You are right for the most part as far as the baby's rights go, but I have concerns. If the mom does not want to care for the child and wants to terminate the pregnancy should the state be performing C-sections on women during their first trimester, I think the woman wouldn't like being forced into surgery or being forced to give birth. If a woman doesn't want to care for a child she should take appropriate measures to combat that like abstinence and birth control. Then again there is rape which refutes the previous point.

Well you don't have to force the child out, she can carry the baby full term where she can decide whether she wants the baby or not and let the state take over the care for the child. I feel that the killing a person with rights is completely wrong.

If the woman is raped, then she can give the child away if she doesn't want it.

And besides, don't people pay around $100,000 per child for adoption?

[Catchme]

It is not up for debate, because it cannot be up for debate, if you take away 1 persons right to self determine, you take away all peoples rights to self determination, male or female. Then we all become wards of the state or feudalistic serfs and gentry.

What about the rights of the unborn female?

DO you believe that you should be able to abort because of the sex of the unborn child say in the third trimester? See how your 'rights' argument is in of itself a strawman?

No that is not a strawman in the rights argument. You have pre-supposed an answer and then kicked it down, your own strawman actually.

Pro-Choice means self determination on the part of the female, if the woman's personal choice is being manipulated by anyone, or any type of religious social desire/belief such as boys are more important than girls, then it is not free choice is it? It is imposed externally.

However, what you talk about is more to the point of discussing whether or not the sex of the feotus should not be known until born. As opposed to woman's equal rights to self determine in ALL things.

They are not the same thing. One can be discussed the other cannot.

You are deliberately ignoring the fact the Pro-Life supporters believe that there is another "self" involved in what you call self-determination. That the woman choosing to abort is making a choice not only for herself but for an unborn child as well. While we dont agree on this issue can you at least concede that our intent is not to restrict women from choosing how to live, simply that we believe there is another life there. Abortion is legal and I am not out bombing clinics. But I dont support subsidization of abortion. This is what Mike is referring to. Why should he have to pay for it?

Respectfully, I am not deliberatly ignoring anything, what they choose to believe is up to them, they are not my responsibility. It is their "choice". They have no right to impose their choice in beliefs upon me, and my person.

I have already stated what would, will could happen to a feotus prior to birth is unknown and unknowable. But again Pro-choice cannot be discussed from that position, it is simply a right to self determine just as anyone else has.

Why should I have to pay for a triple or quadruple bypass that some person needs because of their inability to eat right? Something that costs X100 more in fact.

It cannot be discussed on those grounds either though, we have universal medical care access. It is our right as a Canadian! You take 1 universal access away you take them all.