pointless to try and have discussion with anti-choicers

[formergothardite]

I definatly have been brainwashed by the ebil lesbian feminists.

I can haz toaster now? I promise to not marry it.

[Minerva]

I am hoping that if this gets anywhere, my faith in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms doesn't fail me. It's already been determined that a fetus' possibly life does not overrule the mother's right to security of person.

Yeah. A major argument in favour of M-312, and all other whining about Canada's decriminalization of abortion, is that the abortion law was struck down and then the issue was never revisited. Well it has been revisited, and upheld by several different courts.

Meanwhile, Canadian 3rd trimester fetuses are just as safe as 3rd trimester fetuses in countries that have a law. And that's not difficult knowledge to obtain, which is why I maintain that M-312 is only about criminalizing abortion in the 1st and 2nd trimester.

[Eclipse]

It does not remove personhood from the woman at all. Do you accept the law that you must wear a seat belt to protect you in your car or do get a ticket for not wearing a seat belt?Seat belt laws protect you and as a parent you must insist that your children wear a seat belt. A law against abortion wants to protect the unborn who are riding in the "car" - the womb.

That analogy makes no sense. Abortion is a medical procedure and giving some cells personhood is not a safety instrument. Granting those rights to cells will provide it ancillary rights, which will infringe upon a woman's Section 7 Charter rights. It then follows that a man will have stronger rights than a woman, which reduces her personhood.

I know some people are scared that Harper is going to restrict abortion but he's not going to touch it with a 1000 km pole; its too politically volatile and would give the opposition parities way too much support. Harper is too keen a politician to risk his majority government in the next election on this issue because he knows he would lose his parties seats in BC and Ontario, especially in new ones from Toronto. Harper is stomping in Quebec and this issue would decimate his party and strengthen the sovereignist cause as another example of how out of touch Ottawa is with Quebecois values. This motion is from a back bencher and does not any support from the parties that have seats. The Conservative caucus has been urging its members to vote against it in meetings and the Tories Whip is doing the rounds telling them to vote against it. Yes, there are individual MPs who support it, but it won't have the support to pass. Unfortunately, some of those MPs are from other parties too.

That being said, I am still speaking out against the motion because its wrong.

[Rosa]

from the American side: even if Harper won't touch it, they are floating trial balloons to see how much support they have, and will only step things up if it looks like prochoicers are lukewarm or afraid to stand up.

Of course we've been fighting this stuff like our lives depend on it for at least 20 years, what with the few years of intense terrorism against abortion providers in the states in the early '90s bringing out lots of prochoice people into activism, and it doesn't seem to have helped. So it's not like I have a winning strategy to offer.

[RachelB]

from the American side: even if Harper won't touch it, they are floating trial balloons to see how much support they have, and will only step things up if it looks like prochoicers are lukewarm or afraid to stand up.

I agree, based on what the anti-abortion movement has been doing with legislation in the U.S. They try to see what sticks and what's beyond the pale. And legislation doesn't have to pass in order to shift the entire discussion on bodily autonomy rightward.

[Minerva]

I agree, based on what the anti-abortion movement has been doing with legislation in the U.S. They try to see what sticks and what's beyond the pale. And legislation doesn't have to pass in order to shift the entire discussion on bodily autonomy rightward.

Except in Canada's case, literally nothing they throw sticks, despite the fact that they have their tentacles in our publicly funded schools. It's quite satisfying to see them doing their best and still failing miserably, but we HAVE to be vigilant and keep fighting because they certainly will.

[dawbs]

I definatly have been brainwashed by the ebil lesbian feminists.

I can haz toaster now? I promise to not marry it.

Only because I like you did I wade into something horribly confusing on the interwebz to find you this toaster.

(this is the something: thepeoplescube.com/current-truth/wedding-bells-whistles-literally-wedding-them-t1008.html )

And your toaster:

[Frumpalicious]

I had one of those conversations today. The person kept insisting that a fetus was equal to a fully grown human being, so I responded with the following:

So, when a woman has a high risk pregnancy, should we physically tie her to a bed until the baby is born?

Should we do mandatory pregnancy tests each month? If a pregnant woman is found to have miscarried at ANY point during her pregnancy, what should the charges be? She was responsible for that human being inside of her? So she should be charged with negligent homicide, right?

When a woman has an abortion, should she and the doctor be given the death penalty for premeditated murder? If the father (or any other person) knows that the woman wants an abortion, should he (or they) be held accountable if she does go through with it, and they fail to report it to the police?

When a woman's life is in danger, should the doctor be held accountable as a murderer if he or she cannot ensure the safety of the fetus during surgery?

When do we issue the fetus a social security number?

When do we start banning alcohol and potent medicines for women? They might be pregnant, and if the fetus is born with any defects, should we charge the person who sold them the products?

Should women with cancer be banned from chemotherapy, just in case there's a baby in there?

Should women be banned from leaving their homes at all, since something might happen, and there might be a baby in there?

Okay, I know it got a little ridiculous at the end, but the person didn't respond with much of anything.

[PennySycamore]

from the American side: even if Harper won't touch it, they are floating trial balloons to see how much support they have, and will only step things up if it looks like prochoicers are lukewarm or afraid to stand up.

Of course we've been fighting this stuff like our lives depend on it for at least 20 years, what with the few years of intense terrorism against abortion providers in the states in the early '90s bringing out lots of prochoice people into activism, and it doesn't seem to have helped. So it's not like I have a winning strategy to offer.

That idiot, Senator Rand Paul (Ron Paul's son) tried tacking a personhood rider on a bill dealing with flood insurance. He got lambasted by Senate Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid. Rand also said today that the Supreme Court doesn't get to decide what it constitutional after he heard of the SCOTUS ruling on the health care law. No, Senator Paul, that's exactly what the Supreme Court does.

[GeoBQn]

The blogger from homeshalom.blogspot.com posted the 180 video, talking about what good points it makes. I am going to have to physically separate myself from the computer, otherwise I will post an extremely long comment about how that video is offensive to ACTUAL Jews, that ACTUAL Jews have different views on abortion, that the ADL called that video the most offensive exploitation of the Holocaust in years. It might make me feel better to do that, but it will never change her mind. Anybody who posts that video is too far gone already.

[alba]

I know some people are scared that Harper is going to restrict abortion but he's not going to touch it with a 1000 km pole; its too politically volatile and would give the opposition parities way too much support. Harper is too keen a politician to risk his majority government in the next election on this issue because he knows he would lose his parties seats in BC and Ontario, especially in new ones from Toronto.

You mean he's not going to lose all those seats for election fraud, anyway? :roll:

That said, I did read somewhere that he was voting against the motion. Most liberal and NDP MPs will probably vote against it, too, and a lot of the Tory MPs will do the same as the implication is that a vote in its favour is a vote against the PM.

Even so, it scares me that this could be proposed by someone so close to where I grew up. I feel betrayed on behalf of friends who are his constituents but whom he sees as walking incubators.

I had one of those conversations today. The person kept insisting that a fetus was equal to a fully grown human being

This reminds me of a thought experiment/counter-argument on this topic. It goes something like this:

One morning you wake up with tubes attaching you to another person. You recognise her; she's a famous violinist/doctor/[insert the type of person pro-lifers always say aborted embryos could grow up to be]. Someone walks into the room and tells you she's ill, but if you're hooked up to her for the next nine months, sharing your blood and nutrients, she'll recover and walk away, and you'll never have to think of her again. If you detach the tubes, she'll die immediately. Do you have a right to detach the tubes?

ETA: I tend to think that, yes, you do have the right to detach the tubes. I may not be comfortable with it or agree with it, and I may not do it myself, but I think people do have the fundamental right to control their own bodies. This is why I like this one because it means the anti-choicers can't pull the "But it's a baaaybeeee!" argument, as I've already established that I don't care about that.

[B5SnowDog]

Exactly, alba. Look at blood donation - it's far simpler than pregnancy and doesn't tie you to the other person for 9 months, yet we don't force people to donate blood. If I attack someone and they need my blood to survive, I can't be legally required to donate my blood.

[formergothardite]

Only because I like you did I wade into something horribly confusing on the interwebz to find you this toaster.

(this is the something: thepeoplescube.com/current-truth/wedding-bells-whistles-literally-wedding-them-t1008.html )

And your toaster:

:clap:

[CanadianHippie]

I know some people are scared that Harper is going to restrict abortion but he's not going to touch it with a 1000 km pole;

And it's not just conjecture either. Harper said in 2008 that he wasn't going to revisit the abortion debate after one of his own party members tried to pass a bill that would make harming a fetus a crime.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/200 ... on-mp.html

Also... Canadian attempt to create an analogy for abortion (not Harper's words): "In Canada you can't remove your kidney, and put it on eBay and auction it off. That is illegal. Whereas you actually can end a beating heart of an unborn child the second before it's delivered. Most Canadians would agree that is truly a poor bioethical position for our country to be in."

Because we all know abortion is the same as harvesting and selling organs.

[Minerva]

And it's not just conjecture either. Harper said in 2008 that he wasn't going to revisit the abortion debate after one of his own party members tried to pass a bill that would make harming a fetus a crime.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/200 ... on-mp.html

Also... Canadian attempt to create an analogy for abortion (not Harper's words): "In Canada you can't remove your kidney, and put it on eBay and auction it off. That is illegal. Whereas you actually can end a beating heart of an unborn child the second before it's delivered. Most Canadians would agree that is truly a poor bioethical position for our country to be in."

Because we all know abortion is the same as harvesting and selling organs.

And you can't get an abortion the second before you give birth either. :doh: All the unfounded panic created by this "issue" could put to much better uses.

[CanadianHippie]

http://o.canada.com/discussions/abortion/

The part that gets me about this is that Canadians are so into fighting abortion that a major news network (and I have no clue what canada.com did to their page, but I'm pretty sure I don't like it) had to go all the way down to the US to get a photo of an anti-abortion protester!

[Minerva]

http://o.canada.com/discussions/abortion/

The part that gets me about this is that Canadians are so into fighting abortion that a major news network (and I have no clue what canada.com did to their page, but I'm pretty sure I don't like it) had to go all the way down to the US to get a photo of an anti-abortion protester!

Young hip anti-choicers are not exactly a Canadian speciality. The Canadian ones are mostly creepy, frumpy, gloomy-looking elderly Catholics. The young ones they do have are thrust at the head of the movement to make it look less pitiful, and then they have Catholic high schools bribe their students into attending the anti-choice march in Ottawa every year. (Without which there would only be a couple hundred elderly people at the march plus the Knights of Columbus and they would be outnumbered by the pro-choice counter-protest that shows up every year.)

[2xx1xy1JD]

I had one of those conversations today. The person kept insisting that a fetus was equal to a fully grown human being, so I responded with the following:

So, when a woman has a high risk pregnancy, should we physically tie her to a bed until the baby is born?

Should we do mandatory pregnancy tests each month? If a pregnant woman is found to have miscarried at ANY point during her pregnancy, what should the charges be? She was responsible for that human being inside of her? So she should be charged with negligent homicide, right?

When a woman has an abortion, should she and the doctor be given the death penalty for premeditated murder? If the father (or any other person) knows that the woman wants an abortion, should he (or they) be held accountable if she does go through with it, and they fail to report it to the police?

When a woman's life is in danger, should the doctor be held accountable as a murderer if he or she cannot ensure the safety of the fetus during surgery?

When do we issue the fetus a social security number?

When do we start banning alcohol and potent medicines for women? They might be pregnant, and if the fetus is born with any defects, should we charge the person who sold them the products?

Should women with cancer be banned from chemotherapy, just in case there's a baby in there?

Should women be banned from leaving their homes at all, since something might happen, and there might be a baby in there?

Okay, I know it got a little ridiculous at the end, but the person didn't respond with much of anything.

The thing is, this list ISN'T far-fetched.

For example, methotrexate is a common chemotherapy drug, which is known impair fetal development. Cancer is the uncontrolled reproduction of cells, so a drug which stops cells from multiplying is going to stop fetal cells from multiplying as well. Doctors won't prescribe it to a pregnant woman unless she first has an abortion.

Romania had a forced birth policy until the government was overthrown in 1989. It included mandatory pregnancy testing and medical exams for women, to detect if anyone may have tried to abort. Women basically had to prove that any miscarriage was natural.

There have been cases about whether pregnant women can be forced into addiction treatment - which basically means locking them up 24/7 even if they are doing things that would not be illegal if they were not pregnant.