Oda not welcome at provincial meeting on women's issues

blueblood · January 17, 2007

What kind of "supposed life bringing" condition do men face that may kill them, or diable them for life? Oh, yes, that would be NONE! Perhaps they should try facing that one? They can't and it is the main reason why anything a male says in regards to pro-choice is waste products, they do not know what it is like to face such a thing, and put their lives and future health on the line for something they did not want and perhap cannot even deal with.

Testicular cancer and prostate cancer, are problems in "man land" that can kill them. Passing kidney stones is a real bitch too. When my tax dollars are on the line because missy got pregnant and she could have prevented it, it is my business. If they don't want to get pregnant I'll say it again abstinence or birth control. That's so selfish bringing an unwanted life into the world or robbing the baby of the chance to live (abortion) because Missy wants a piece of ass. You don't want the responsibility you know what to do.

The asshats that say the women should keep their legs closed need to keep both zippers shut that give access to either of their heads output.

Trust me I keep my pants zipper shut because I don't want an STD or to hand out child support payments. Maybe women should do the same if they don't want an STD or pregnancy. Once again I can say whatever the hell I want, so can you.

jefferiah · January 17, 2007

In one hundred percent of abortions a death occurs.

Complete bullshit. There is absolutely no evidence that there is any life in an embryo prior to the 5th month of gestation and abortions beyond the 3rd month are performed only when the mother's life is in danger. Life prior to the 5th month is a figment of religious fanatics' imagination. But according to them, the earth is also flat and 6000 years old.

Stats show that 5 out of 100,000 women in Canada die from pregnacy related issues, though the medical community says this might be a serious underreporting. That is NOT even considering those who have severely damaged renal systems, cardiac, or other pregnacy related illnesses that last for life. Or even considering those women who have pregnancy related strokes and are disabled forever.

What kind of "supposed life bringing" condition do men face that may kill them, or diable them for life? Oh, yes, that would be NONE! Perhaps they should try facing that one? They can't and it is the main reason why anything a male says in regards to pro-choice is waste products, they do not know what it is like to face such a thing, and put their lives and future health on the line for something they did not want and perhap cannot even deal with.

As I said, and will say again, I support the living, not the potential life that does not start until after the 5 month "quickening".

The asshats that say the women should keep their legs closed need to keep both zippers shut that give access to either of their heads output.

5 out of 100, 000 women die from pregnancy related issues. Good work. But hardly done, since this is not the statistic which is required to make your point. Which percentage of those 5 out 100,000 were women who opted for abortions but were unable to get one.

Catchme · January 17, 2007

What kind of "supposed life bringing" condition do men face that may kill them, or diable them for life? Oh, yes, that would be NONE! Perhaps they should try facing that one? They can't and it is the main reason why anything a male says in regards to pro-choice is waste products, they do not know what it is like to face such a thing, and put their lives and future health on the line for something they did not want and perhap cannot even deal with.

Testicular cancer and prostate cancer, are problems in "man land" that can kill them. Passing kidney stones is a real bitch too. When my tax dollars are on the line because missy got pregnant and she could have prevented it, it is my business. If they don't want to get pregnant I'll say it again abstinence or birth control. That's so selfish bringing an unwanted life into the world or robbing the baby of the chance to live (abortion) because Missy wants a piece of ass. You don't want the responsibility you know what to do.

The asshats that say the women should keep their legs closed need to keep both zippers shut that give access to either of their heads output.

Trust me I keep my pants zipper shut because I don't want an STD or to hand out child support payments. Maybe women should do the same if they don't want an STD or pregnancy. Once again I can say whatever the hell I want, so can you.

You cannot compare testicular cancer or prostate cancer to pregnancy and it's risks to the woman.

When my tax dollars are on the line because some fat lazy middle aged or old man/woman ate their way to 300k + worth of bypasses, it then by the same token is my business and their right to universal health care would be in question, amongst many other "self-inflicted" diseases we tax payers pay for. Did ya never think that women also pay taxes, and are paying for the female petinent service themselves per se? Most women pay way more than 300 a year in taxes. The tax angle won't work, for many reasons and it is illogical when considering universal health care rights and refusing service based upon gender and it being against equality rights.

We have universal health care end of story!

Women do do the same you know, what about the little male piss ants who can't keep their zippers shut because their hormones are raging? Hello, you need to get realistic, and come live in the real world. Moreover, 5 out of every 100 women are going to have failure in birth control, each year ending in an unwanted prenancy, end of story.

NO, you have NO right to have a say over my body and my right to self determine action and choice, nor my daughters or granddaughters, aunts, female cousins, friends or acquaintences. Particularily not over 300 dollars worth of taxes that I more than pay myself in a year, say nothing of my daughter's tax rates. :rolleyes:

What is sad you do not even realize how small it makes one yelling about their tax dollars in regards to this.

jefferiah · January 17, 2007

I only advocate abortion in instance of rape.

I advocate that you keep your mouth shut and you respect other people's rights. Apply your view on abortion in your own life but keep it out of others' lives. And missy is most cases is too young to know what the risks are and what she is doing anyway. Parenting is not a business for 15-year-olds.

If you advocate freedom of choice then you should have no problem. Abortion is fully legal. What we are discussing is the subsidization of abortion. The charter says that when a doctor refers a patient to have an abortion then it must be subsidized. If there is no sign of medical complication, you can still get an abortion, but you have to fund it yourself. Given the moral objection to abortion by a substantial segment of society, given the fact that very few women die from pregnancy and most likely a small fraction of those were women who wanted abortions but could not afford them, given the fact that you think people should mind their own business and keep their mouths shut is it not too much to ask you to mind yours when it comes to asking (not even asking, but making a totally selfish respectless demand that it is your right to other peoples money) people who are Pro-life, who are sickened by the idea of abortion to be able to abstain from funding an abortion. We dont perform operations on patients unless they are recommended to surgery. You are saying women die during pregnancy which is an after the fact statistic, as if abortion would have saved all these lives when probably a very minute percentage (those who wanted abortions but couldnt afford them) of a very minute percentage of these women (those who died from pregnancy related causes). If you think people should have their own rights, well I say mind your own business and shut your own mouth and let people who believe in abortions fund their own.

Catchme · January 17, 2007

5 out of 100, 000 women die from pregnancy related issues. Good work. But hardly done, since this is not the statistic which is required to make your point. Which percentage of those 5 out 100,000 were women who opted for abortions but were unable to get one.

You faliled to get my point, I was using that stat showing just one of the decisions, or questions, women face in choice, that men will never face, so could never understand.

I was not using the stat to support abortions at all. They need no support, it is a right.

Catchme · January 17, 2007

I, but making a totally selfish respectless demand that it is your right to other peoples money) people who are Pro-life, who are sickened by the idea of abortion to be able to abstain from funding an abortion... well I say mind your own business and shut your own mouth and let people who believe in abortions fund their own.

Why is it that pro-lifers and neo-cons think they are the only ones that pay taxes? hello, you people are in the minority in Canada, the majority of people in Canada think differently than you. The majority also, pay more taxes than the minority do, think about it.

Here is another news flash, you're not paying for anything to do with me as an individual. We are all paying for our own universal health care costs, your not paying mine and I am not paying yours. Therefore, if you want a say in my health care expenses then you, the minority, had better be prepared for me, the majority, to have a say in yours/ the minority too.

That is such a filmsy fruitless excuse, it is unbelievable to me that someone would even think it would fly.

Perhaps if you the minority people kept your minds out of other peoples bedrooms and personal business you would have more time to think rationally.

blueblood · January 17, 2007

When my tax dollars are on the line because some fat lazy middle aged or old man/woman ate their way to 300k + worth of bypasses, it then by the same token is my business and their right to universal health care would be in question, amongst many other "self-inflicted" diseases we tax payers pay for. Did ya never think that women also pay taxes, and are paying for the female petinent service themselves per se? Most women pay way more than 300 a year in taxes. The tax angle won't work, for many reasons and it is illogical when considering universal health care rights and refusing service based upon gender and it being against equality rights.

lots of fat people are genetically predetermined to being fat, a pregnancy isn't genetically pre-determined. Heart disease can happen to anybody even seasoned atheletes. I will tell you right now that 95% of the time no woman will be paying as much tax as me, I can assure you of that. The tax angle does work as pregnancy abortion is probably the most preventable health procedure there is.

what about the little male piss ants who can't keep their zippers shut because their hormones are raging?

If they don't want an STD or to cough out child support, they should use protection or keep their zippers shut. What about the girl, she has a right to say no doesn't she? The girl is the one who gets pregnant, she makes the final call. She has the final choice in the matter.

Moreover, 5 out of every 100 women are going to have failure in birth control, each year ending in an unwanted prenancy, end of story.

So what, that's still their fault they got pregnant, if they don't want a pregnancy they don't have to have sex. Why should society pay for their selfishness and stupidity? If you use birth control, you should realize it's not 100% effective and be ready to accept the consequences, if your not ready for that, you shouldn't be having sex.

NO, you have NO right to have a say over my body and my right to self determine action and choice, nor my daughters or granddaughters, aunts, female cousins, friends or acquaintences. Particularily not over 300 dollars worth of taxes that I more than pay myself in a year, say nothing of my daughter's tax rates.

I can voice an opinion, that's all I can do. The rest is up to you. By using your logic, a pregnant woman has no say over the rights of the child inside of her, the childs future actions and choices, especially when she could have prevented it in the first place. What do you think of Robert Latimer mercy killing his child then?

jefferiah · January 17, 2007

5 out of 100, 000 women die from pregnancy related issues. Good work. But hardly done, since this is not the statistic which is required to make your point. Which percentage of those 5 out 100,000 were women who opted for abortions but were unable to get one.

You faliled to get my point, I was using that stat showing just one of the decisions, or questions, women face in choice, that men will never face, so could never understand.

I was not using the stat to support abortions at all. They need no support, it is a right.

You are going back and forth. First we try to establish whether all abortion is comparable to a heart transplant in order to establish whether it should be publically funded or not. Just because the law allows something does not mean people have a right to public funding for it. The law allows me to drink a beer, its a right, but I cant tell the government to buy me beer. But we do agree as a society that when something is of urgent need we pool our money to provide it. Abortions are funded already when there is a medical concern. If you have no medical problem you have to fund it yourself. If I was in the hospital and I was on a very expensive drug the government would pay for that. If I wanted to use that drug personally, but unprescripted use was illegal I could lobby the government to allow recreational use, but then it would be quite brass of me to demand that for a situation which is not urgent that the tax payers fund my habit.

Catchme · January 17, 2007

lots of fat people are genetically predetermined to being fat, a pregnancy isn't genetically pre-determined. Heart disease can happen to anybody even seasoned atheletes. I will tell you right now that 95% of the time no woman will be paying as much tax as me, I can assure you of that. The tax angle does work as pregnancy abortion is probably the most preventable health procedure there is.

Now that's hogwash, just try to find proof of that fat is directly realted to eating a small % have hormonal imbalances. And actually no it is not. You telling me right now that 95% of the time you are paying more taxes than women is pretty freaking sexist and nothing but pure speculation. An abortion costs 300 dollars, I think the majority of women pay way more taxes than 300 per year, saying nothing of provincial health care levies. Your tax angle it absolute nonsense.

If they don't want an STD or to cough out child support, they should use protection or keep their zippers shut. What about the girl, she has a right to say no doesn't she? The girl is the one who gets pregnant, she makes the final call. She has the final choice in the matter.

She does and 5 out of every 100 women's birth control fails. And teens who have raging hormones don't have the money so they do it anyway. Just as they always have done.

So what, that's still their fault they got pregnant, if they don't want a pregnancy they don't have to have sex. Why should society pay for their selfishness and stupidity? If you use birth control, you should realize it's not 100% effective and be ready to accept the consequences, if your not ready for that, you shouldn't be having sex.

It's not when people use birth control they took every precaution, it as a failure, and as I said society is not paying, and there is nothing to do with selfishness, they are mistakes, when will you people start to think rationally?

I can voice an opinion, that's all I can do. The rest is up to you. By using your logic, a pregnant woman has no say over the rights of the child inside of her, the childs future actions and choices, especially when she could have prevented it in the first place. What do you think of Robert Latimer mercy killing his child then?

And no by my logic, I am not saying that.

I think nothing about it.

Catchme · January 17, 2007

5 out of 100, 000 women die from pregnancy related issues. Good work. But hardly done, since this is not the statistic which is required to make your point. Which percentage of those 5 out 100,000 were women who opted for abortions but were unable to get one.

You faliled to get my point, I was using that stat showing just one of the decisions, or questions, women face in choice, that men will never face, so could never understand.

I was not using the stat to support abortions at all. They need no support, it is a right.

You are going back and forth. First we try to establish whether all abortion is comparable to a heart transplant in order to establish whether it should be publically funded or not. Just because the law allows something does not mean people have a right to public funding for it. The law allows me to drink a beer, its a right, but I cant tell the government to buy me beer. But we do agree as a society that when something is of urgent need we pool our money to provide it. Abortions are funded already when there is a medical concern. If you have no medical problem you have to fund it yourself. If I was in the hospital and I was on a very expensive drug the government would pay for that. If I wanted to use that drug personally, but unprescripted use was illegal I could lobby the government to allow recreational use, but then it would be quite brass of me to demand that for a situation which is not urgent that the tax payers fund my habit.

your comments have nothing to do with what I posted that you responded to. besides that you fail to have a rational thought progression in your attempted compares.

Again you are funding nothing except you and your family health care concerns, and if you have more than one child I am more than likely subsidizing you.

jefferiah · January 17, 2007

Catch Me Says "When my tax dollars are on the line because some fat lazy middle aged or old man/woman ate their way to 300k + worth of bypasses, it then by the same token is my business and their right to universal health care would be in question, amongst many other "self-inflicted" diseases we tax payers pay for."

Here I will point out another fallacy in her ridiculous comparisons. The diseases of these people may be self-inflicted, but they are diseases. Given the previous points made about percentage of women who die from pregnancy and the percentage of that percentage who wanted abortions but could not afford them, I dont think you could actually call pregnancy a disease. I dont know too many people who define pregnancy as a disease. So while ill-health conditions and pregnancy are comparable in that they can both be self-inflicted so to speak, they are certainly not comparable in their status as a medical urgency.

Another thing I would like to point out is that in a recent post Catch Me made she asserts on behalf of all Canadians that we pro-lifers are in the minority. First off, given the issue at hand this is the wrong statistic to point to since the question is subsidization of abortion. But just to give the statistics from a 2001 Gallup poll on the subject of abortion itself:

The results showed that 32% of Canadians believed abortion should be legal in all circumstances (down from 37% in 2000), 52% believed abortion should only be legal in certain circumstances and 14% thought abortions should be illegal in all circumstances, (up 9% from 2000).

Now if 52% of the population thought abortion should only be allowed in special circumstances, I think it is safe to say that there is a larger percent of the population which would be opposed to subsidizing all abortion. I do not have a statistic to prove this, but if 52% of the population believe that only certain abortions should be legal, that means that 52% of the people believe that not all abortions should be legal. I think it is safe to say that if they dont approve of all abortions, they dont approve of funding all abortions either. I project the number would go up when it comes to the question of subsidized abortions since I am certain that some of the 32% who believe abortion should be legal in all circumstances do not all feel that people should be forced to fund it. Because unlike Catch Me, some people are not totalitarian socialists.

Either way it seems that Ms. Catch Me feels that her minority should be counted as a majority. I think the term for this is elitism. Furthermore in a National Post article from 2005

http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpos...66-8ba51d2910f1

the results of a poll show that "Only 29% believe that medicare should pay for all abortions"

Catchme · January 17, 2007

Catch Me Says "When my tax dollars are on the line because some fat lazy middle aged or old man/woman ate their way to 300k + worth of bypasses, it then by the same token is my business and their right to universal health care would be in question, amongst many other "self-inflicted" diseases we tax payers pay for."
Here I will point out another fallacy in her ridiculous comparisons. The diseases of these people may be self-inflicted, but they are diseases. Given the previous points made about percentage of women who die from pregnancy and the percentage of that percentage who wanted abortions but could not afford them, I dont think you could actually call pregnancy a disease. I dont know too many people who define pregnancy as a disease. So while ill-health conditions and pregnancy are comparable in that they can both be self-inflicted so to speak, they are certainly not comparable in their status as a medical urgency.

No fallacy, perhaps I should have said medical condition, as opposed to a disease. The point is we have universal health care for all no gender bias. And you have no way to say they are not medical emergencies, you have no way to know what one will do when faced with the prospect of an unwanted prgnacy, it could be suicide, dumping babies in garbage cans, self inflicted abortions, on top of any physical condition. Just who made you think you know what goes on in the mind of one facing pregnacy that is not wanted, mental issues are medical problems in case you never realized it.

Another thing I would like to point out is that in a recent post Catch Me made she asserts on behalf of all Canadians that we pro-lifers are in the minority. First off, given the issue at hand this is the wrong statistic to point to since the question is subsidization of abortion. But just to give the statistics from a 2001 Gallup poll on the subject of abortion itself
The results showed that 32% of Canadians believed abortion should be legal in all circumstances (down from 37% in 2000), 52% believed abortion should only be legal in certain circumstances and 14% thought abortions should be illegal in all circumstances, (up 9% from 2000).

Um, what don't you get in those statistics? 84% believe in abortions and 14% do not. That is pretty damn clear.

Now if 52% of the population thought abortion should only be allowed in special circumstances, I think it is safe to say that there is a larger percent of the population which would be opposed to subsidizing all abortion. I do not have a statistic to prove this

That is only your personal wishful thinking based upon your misinmterpretation of the stats.

, but if 52% of the population believe that only certain abortions should be legal, that means that 52% of the people believe that not all abortions should be legal.

No I would suggest that that 52% believe in abvortion along the lines of what is currently law, NOT after the first 3 months. To go beyond that point is again wishful thinking and empty speculation.

I think it is safe to say that if they dont approve of all abortions, they dont approve of funding all abortions either.

You have absolutely no way of knowing this and NO you would NOT be safe to say that, it is completely pulled out of your own mind based upon no facts or rational thought.

Because unlike Catch Me, some people are not totalitarian socialists.

Neither am I, in fact I do not believe in abortions after the first 5 months, unless the woman is at risk, just like the majority of Canadians. Again, it is you in the minority who is trying to dictate to my life from a point, and from a position, that you have no right to. You, a totalitarian Christian, represent but 14% of Canadians, if that, depending on margin of error.

On line polls lolololololol are not even linking to let alone clicking to.

Again, nobody subsidizes others minor surgeries, the real health care expenses come from other self inflicted medical conditions. Universal health care again is just that universal access.

Why can't you get it through your head you are subsidizing nothing in regards to my health care, nor anyone elses, unless they are having hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of surgeries?

jefferiah · January 17, 2007

Once again I will point out another fallacy. Totalitarian Christian? I am not preventing people from having abortions. There is no infringement here on my part on what you say is the right to have an abortion. Abortion is legal. OK but lets summarize the progression the argument has taken so far.

You say that free abortion is a right. Nobody has a right to tell a woman what to do with her body, etc.

I say well abortion is legal, so no one is telling a woman what she can or cant do with her body. And I argue that you are not upholding your own standard of free-choice. You say free-choice covers all view points but then when you get your way you say now people who disagree must pay for it. This is insulting to people. There are a lot of rights. Something being a right does not mean that they have a right to public funding for it. We dont fund things simply because they are rights, we need a good reason, to show a need. For instance we dont fund boob-jobs for self-esteem purposes.

So you say well medicare covers other operations.

I say you cant compare an abortion, which in most cases is an unneccessary surgery, to a heart transplant. And I ask you to keep in mind meanwhile that the law is not restricting anyone from having an abortion, and the Charter already states that in cases where pregnancy does constitute a health condition abortion is covered.

You and Norm and Saturn then say that pregnancy results in deaths.

I point out that their are relatively few deaths from pregnancy, all the while asking you to keep in mind that this argument is not infringing on anone's right to go to a clinic and have an abortion. I also point out that its logical to say few of these women probably were women who wanted an abortion but could not access one. I point out that like anything else if surgery for health is deemed necessary or beneficial to the woman then she is entitled to free abortion.

Then your next plan of attack is to go back to "uhm well its a right -no questions asked-who has a right to tell a woman what to do with her body-". Which is your first argument. Thus I said you were arguing in circles. If you go back there, I have to point out again that no one is saying you cant have an abortion. And here we go again---right?

So therefore the last point was made by me.

You are calling me a Christian totalitarian. I never told women what to do with their bodies. I am not going out and stopping abortions. I am asserting my right to have an opinion, while abortion is fully legal (it seems i must keep reminding you of this point). I am asserting my right to say that medicare should not cover "all" abortion since most of them are not done when pregnancy constitutes, as you call it, "a health condition". And you call me a mysogynist for doing so. When I point out that polls show that relatively few Canadians support medicare for "all" abortion, you deliberately ignore that. Oh those polls cant be right. But then I wonder why you value your own assessment of what all Canadians think above people who actually did research. The question was not about who is or who isnt Christian. Its about subsidized abortion. You make a claim without source that most of Canada supports this and tell us "red necks" and "neo cons" we are basically nothing. Yet why should we believe you anymore than you believe these surveys. Have you discerned the opinions of the majority through your own psychic insight?

madmax · January 17, 2007

Trust me I keep my pants zipper shut because I don't want an STD or to hand out child support payments. Maybe women should do the same if they don't want an STD or pregnancy. Once again I can say whatever the hell I want, so can you.

Your a Virgin?

madmax · January 17, 2007

the results of a poll show that "Only 29% believe that medicare should pay for all abortions"

So? To engage in someone elses stupid comparisions with your own, is just as stupid.

jefferiah · January 17, 2007

the results of a poll show that "Only 29% believe that medicare should pay for all abortions"

So? To engage in someone elses stupid comparisions with your own, is just as stupid.

I was merely responding to her unfounded claim that I am in the minority on this issue.

jefferiah · January 17, 2007

"And you have no way to say they are not medical emergencies, you have no way to know what one will do when faced with the prospect of an unwanted prgnacy, it could be suicide, dumping babies in garbage cans, self inflicted abortions, on top of any physical condition. Just who made you think you know what goes on in the mind of one facing pregnacy that is not wanted, mental issues are medical problems in case you never realized it." Catch Me

You have no way to say they are medical emergencies. Before one can get free chemotherapy for cancer it must be determined that one actually has Cancer. I do not know what goes on in the mind of a pregnant woman. If she does not want her pregnanacy she has a legal right to go to a private clinic. If I want to get my teeth capped of my own assessment on the necessity of it, I cant get public funding for it. And be reasonable again what percentage of women are out there committing suicide because they got pregnant, dumping babies in garbage cans, etc. You make this sound as if women everywhere are forced to do this. People who have gambling debts, and other problems often face the temptation of suicide. I know many people who suffer from the harsh realities of life, and feel suicidal.

I live in rural New Brunswick. If I have a heart attack today I must be transported to a hospital which is a 45 minute drive. Chances are that hospital will send me on to Moncton which is another hour and a half---or in some cases Fredericton or St. John which is even farther. This is a reality of life. This is not the governments fault. I dont go around stamping my feet saying that the government should build fully equipped hospitals closer to me, calling people bigots. Now most pregnancies cannot be compared to a heart attack. Most pregnancies are not a health condition. To say that it can cause depression or fear or distress and that I dont understand it well-----alot of things cause this. You don't understand what other people go through. You can't even objectively say that a woman goes through more mental anguish than a man.

Saturn · January 17, 2007

To say that abortions are too costly is the stupidest argument I've heard so far. Do you have any idea what it costs to go through a pregnancy, give birth and raise a child? Roughly half a million! Now most these children will be born to teen moms, single moms and women who are not ready to emotionally and financially to support a child. Many of those teen moms will end up dropping out of school and will end up on welfare and in the lowest income levels. Kids raised in poor households and especially unwanted children are very likely to end up involved in crime and in jail. And of course conservatives will be the first to scream about welfare payments and crime. So you want to cut your cost of an abortion from $300 to $500K + increasing the number of miserable unwanted children + increased crime rates. You are a dumbass!

jefferiah · January 17, 2007

To say that abortions are too costly is the stupidest argument I've heard so far. Do you have any idea what it costs to go through a pregnancy, give birth and raise a child? Roughly half a million! Now most these children will be born to teen moms, single moms and women who are not ready to emotionally and financially to support a child. Many of those teen moms will end up dropping out of school and will end up on welfare and in the lowest income levels. Kids raised in poor households and especially unwanted children are very likely to end up involved in crime and in jail. And of course conservatives will be the first to scream about welfare payments and crime. So you want to cut your cost of an abortion from $300 to $500K + increasing the number of miserable unwanted children + increased crime rates. You are a dumbass!

Ah...you are putting words in my mouth. I never said abortions were too costly. I said people object to funding them, and that they have a good argument to defend that right, since as I pointed out the vast majority of abortions cannot be said to be necessary due to a medical condition, and probably a minute amount of the the already small amount of women who die from pregnancy wanted an abortion in the first place. The issue of cost is Catch Me's concern since she feels it so unfair that she has to pay for a "fatty" to have necessary surgery. I feel it is unfair and an insult to people who are pro-life to have the government say you must fund all abortion (even those which are unneccessary).

Now teen moms can abort remember. But if the situation is not necessary then I say they should fund it. And also they can put the child up for adoption. Now I find it interesing that you would say unwanted children will very likely end up in crime or in jail. I dont think you are basing this on anything at all except your own prideful attempt to grasp at straws in this argument. For instance show me a statistic that shows unwanted kids are likely to end up in jail. Any statistic you show is likely to be from a questionable source since I highly doubt there is any criteria out there to judge what is an unwanted kid. Show me a statistic that says how many kids are unwanted.

jefferiah · January 17, 2007

"Kids raised in poor households and especially unwanted children are very likely to end up involved in crime and in jail." Saturn

This combined with Catch Me's sentiments about giving fatties necessary health care. Hmmmmmm.......I am a bigot for saying a disagree with funding all abortion. But yet these ideas are not far from those of the Nazis.

blueblood · January 17, 2007

Trust me I keep my pants zipper shut because I don't want an STD or to hand out child support payments. Maybe women should do the same if they don't want an STD or pregnancy. Once again I can say whatever the hell I want, so can you.

Your a Virgin?

Worse, I'm divorced. I'm not going through that shit show again.

blueblood · January 17, 2007

lots of fat people are genetically predetermined to being fat, a pregnancy isn't genetically pre-determined. Heart disease can happen to anybody even seasoned atheletes. I will tell you right now that 95% of the time no woman will be paying as much tax as me, I can assure you of that. The tax angle does work as pregnancy abortion is probably the most preventable health procedure there is.

Now that's hogwash, just try to find proof of that fat is directly realted to eating a small % have hormonal imbalances. And actually no it is not. You telling me right now that 95% of the time you are paying more taxes than women is pretty freaking sexist and nothing but pure speculation. An abortion costs 300 dollars, I think the majority of women pay way more taxes than 300 per year, saying nothing of provincial health care levies. Your tax angle it absolute nonsense.

If they don't want an STD or to cough out child support, they should use protection or keep their zippers shut. What about the girl, she has a right to say no doesn't she? The girl is the one who gets pregnant, she makes the final call. She has the final choice in the matter.

She does and 5 out of every 100 women's birth control fails. And teens who have raging hormones don't have the money so they do it anyway. Just as they always have done.

So what, that's still their fault they got pregnant, if they don't want a pregnancy they don't have to have sex. Why should society pay for their selfishness and stupidity? If you use birth control, you should realize it's not 100% effective and be ready to accept the consequences, if your not ready for that, you shouldn't be having sex.

It's not when people use birth control they took every precaution, it as a failure, and as I said society is not paying, and there is nothing to do with selfishness, they are mistakes, when will you people start to think rationally?

I can voice an opinion, that's all I can do. The rest is up to you. By using your logic, a pregnant woman has no say over the rights of the child inside of her, the childs future actions and choices, especially when she could have prevented it in the first place. What do you think of Robert Latimer mercy killing his child then?

And no by my logic, I am not saying that.

I think nothing about it.

if women can afford more than 300 dollars in tax payments, they can afford the 300 dollars for the abortion. The property tax on 2000 acres of land plus a yard, the GST and PST on farm inputs and the income tax from my gross income is safe to say I pay more taxes pound for pound than 95% of women. If missy knows there is a slight chance that she can get pregnant from birth control and doesn't want the responsibility she can keep her legs shut hormones or not, that is thinking rationally.

Saturn · January 17, 2007

Ah...you are putting words in my mouth. I never said abortions were too costly. I said people object to funding them, and that they have a good argument to defend that right, since as I pointed out the vast majority of abortions cannot be said to be necessary due to a medical condition, and probably a minute amount of the the already small amount of women who die from pregnancy wanted an abortion in the first place. The issue of cost is Catch Me's concern since she feels it so unfair that she has to pay for a "fatty" to have necessary surgery. I feel it is unfair and an insult to people who are pro-life to have the government say you must fund all abortion (even those which are unneccessary).

There are people who object to medication and medicine altogether. To claim that we shouldn't fund medical services because it would be unfair and insulting to them is bull. If you are insulted by the rights of others, you are a dumbass and that's your problem.

Now teen moms can abort remember. But if the situation is not necessary then I say they should fund it. And also they can put the child up for adoption. Now I find it interesing that you would say unwanted children will very likely end up in crime or in jail. I dont think you are basing this on anything at all except your own prideful attempt to grasp at straws in this argument. For instance show me a statistic that shows unwanted kids are likely to end up in jail. Any statistic you show is likely to be from a questionable source since I highly doubt there is any criteria out there to judge what is an unwanted kid. Show me a statistic that says how many kids are unwanted.

Right now, there are 70,000 kids up for adoption in Canada and they are not being adopted. Add 100,000 to that list every year and well end up with close to a million parentless children within a decade. Romania ring a bell? You don't think that I am basing my claims on anything because you are clearly clueless and uninformed. This info is widely available and you ought to inform yourself before forming an opinion (which is obviously not based on facts) and getting into a discussion with someone where you end up claiming nonsense.

Catchme · January 17, 2007

To say that abortions are too costly is the stupidest argument I've heard so far. Do you have any idea what it costs to go through a pregnancy, give birth and raise a child? Roughly half a million! Now most these children will be born to teen moms, single moms and women who are not ready to emotionally and financially to support a child. Many of those teen moms will end up dropping out of school and will end up on welfare and in the lowest income levels. Kids raised in poor households and especially unwanted children are very likely to end up involved in crime and in jail. And of course conservatives will be the first to scream about welfare payments and crime. So you want to cut your cost of an abortion from $300 to $500K + increasing the number of miserable unwanted children + increased crime rates. You are a dumbass!

Oh, I know it is absolutely mind boggling, and all it is is uneducated and irrational blathering.

You are quite correct, when you say that these children will be born to teen moms, single moms and women who are not ready to emotionally and financially to support a child and in your commentary where they will end up. Here is just 1 study on poverty and crime rates, and google shows over a million hits about it, not that they will ever actually read it and inform themselves, as they want to hold their false doctrine close to their hearts even when proven wrong over and over again.

Just a quick google on adoption stats in Canada showed that there are approximately 134,000 children in foster care in Canada waiting for adoption and that there is another 22k or so in orphanages also waiting. Another google search showed me that it costs 40k per year to keep a child in foster care. Now don't get me wrong, I am certainly not advocating abortions as a cost savings to the taxpayer. I am merely pointing out the sheer nonsense, and hypocrisy of those who want to wage a war against a woman’s right to self determine based upon tax savings, and saying that all children are wanted and/or there is no way to prove how many born children are unwanted.

Likening any talk of associated costs to caring for an unwanted child to Nazi philosophy is beyond reprehensible, as they were the ones who were trying to frame the debate around cost savings to the tax payer in the first place.

A woman's right to self determine and to have equal access to universal health care are unquestionable rights.

Those who would seek to erode individual and human rights, based upon personal beliefs and mythology must be disregarded from having any input, just have they have been historically in regards to the same said reluctance to abolish slavery, and to stop denoting woman and non-whites as not being human or should not have the right to vote.

jefferiah · January 17, 2007

How many of these cases were from women who wanted abortions but could not afford them? How many of this projected 100, 000 a year will be from women who want abortions but cant afford them. If you think this number is too many, and with the availability of abortion already, I think it is safe to say that relatively few of them would be from cases where an abortion was opted for but there was no access. Then are you suggesting we should abort after the fact? Or that we should start telling women who dont even opt for abortion that they must abort?