Justin Trudeau says abortion rights trump MPs' freedom to vote their conscience

[Cannuck]

Right, because women should have the right to kill their baby's.

It's the law.... suck it up. (I bet it sucks to have your own words thrown back at you)

 

[Colpy]

It's the law.... suck it up. (I bet it sucks to have your own words thrown back at you)

Due to the absolute cowardice of the Canadian political class, there is no law.

 

[bluebyrd35]

Right, because women should have the right to kill their baby's.

Actually they are not killing their babies, because they are not babies until they are born. They are like any other part of the body it inhabits.

LOL would you consider a vasectomy, after all you are killing half a baby! You have hair you cut, as well as nails, and they are part of your body. A woman has a womb and she has the right to decide what she wants to keep in it.

How many of the men here would stick by their convictions that all products of conception are worth keeping, if it were possible to implant that tiny mass in their body?? Be honest now. Further consider that by objecting to the abortion, that you under the law were forced to take on the role of child bearer.

 

[pgs]

It is exactly the same. It is the sloughing off of a pregnancy. One method has a little help that is the difference!! As I said when men can be made capable of carrying that fetus to full term and then keep it in food, clothing etc until it is adult enough to look after itself, then they may have an input on whether or not a woman chooses to use her body for that purpose.


Yes there should be a time limit with certain exceptions.....ie, woman's life is in danger. There are a few other valid reasons as well.


That is because even the law, does very little to find missing fathers and forget about child support!! Since I have a niece who's husband did such a disappearing act, I know some men feel no obligation at all. Many years later, he turned up married with a son. Reason for contact?? Needed niece's daughters for babysitting services!! No use relying on laws that are unenforceable.


If a fetus was able to survive outside of the body of a women, it is a baby. It isn't you see, that is the difference.

Now if your argument is based on religion, it becomes even more interesting The Catholic church says life begins at conception but how do they know?? After all early Christians believed the first breath was the time of ensoulment. And how about ensoulment??? Is that what makes a fetus worthy of saving at all costs??

Don't you just wish your niece aborted her baby . Just look at all the trouble it would have saved you and her .

Actually they are not killing their babies, because they are not babies until they are born. They are like any other part of the body it inhabits.

LOL would you consider a vasectomy, after all you are killing half a baby! You have hair you cut, as well as nails, and they are part of your body. A woman has a womb and she has the right to decide what she wants to keep in it.

How many of the men here would stick by their convictions that all products of conception are worth keeping, if it were possible to implant that tiny mass in their body?? Be honest now. Further consider that by objecting to the abortion, that you under the law were forced to take on the role of child bearer.

So what is your take on premature birth and ceasarian section ?

 

[bluebyrd35]

Don't you just wish your niece aborted her baby . Just look at all the trouble it would have saved you and her .


So what is your take on premature birth and ceasarian section ?

NO!! It is always about choice. That is the most important gift life can hold. A choice that is forced on someone does not oblige them in anyway to do what is best for the life they are forced to bear.

How do you figure it was a bother for me. It was her choice you know. She married him, her choice also. Back alley abortions were always available, even now when it is (where I live) a very easy procedure to go through legally.te

The point I was making is that since the law cannot force a father to support and take over the care of their children, SO, why force a woman to do so?? Fair is fair after all.

 

[Cannuck]

Actually they are not killing their babies, because they are not babies until they are born. They are like any other part of the body it inhabits.

People that are pro-life disagree.

...The point I was making is that since the law cannot force a father to support and take over the care of their children, SO, why force a woman to do so?? Fair is fair after all.

In the best interest of the pro-choice movement, I must ask you to cease immediately

 

[Machjo]

NO!! It is always about choice. That is the most important gift life can hold. A choice that is forced on someone does not oblige them in anyway to do what is best for the life they are forced to bear.

How do you figure it was a bother for me. It was her choice you know. She married him, her choice also. Back alley abortions were always available, even now when it is (where I live) a very easy procedure to go through legally.te

The point I was making is that since the law cannot force a father to support and take over the care of their children, SO, why force a woman to do so?? Fair is fair after all.

Question for you.

Now, women have been convicted of assaulting boys and even grown men. In at least one case that I know of, the woman got pregnant, chose to keep the baby, and that's that. There have even been cases of victims of sexual assault then being forced to pay child support.

With all of that in mind, supposing that a woman sexually assaults a man, gets pregnant with his child, and then wants an abortion, but he doesn't want her to have one.

Now let's look at the arguments:

Hers: It's my body so I'lll do what I want with it.

His: One reason I never consented to sex with you was to protect myself from having my child aborted, but you took that right away from me by spiking my drink with a date-rape drug and then straddling me without my consent. Since you stole my sperm without my consent, you therefore have no right to that foetusand will carry it to term unless it is medically necessary for you to abort it.

Now, does a woman have the right to sexually assault a man and then put him in that situation? Even if we presume that a woman has the right to an abortion under normal circumstances, should she still have that right if she commits sexual assault?

Likewise, what if a man refuses to marry a woman or have sex with her unless she guarantees in a marriage contract that she will not get any medically-unnecessary abortion? Again, does she have the right to lie so as to coerce him into marriage and sex only to to get an abortion later even though she had the option of not marrying him in the first place? Or would one argue that a man has no right to force a woman to choose between him and her right to an abortion and therefore has the right to lie to him so as to have him while still maintaining her right to an abortion? How far does a woman's rights go?

 

[pgs]

Question for you.

Now, women have been convicted of assaulting boys and even grown men. In at least one case that I know of, the woman got pregnant, chose to keep the baby, and that's that. There have even been cases of victims of sexual assault then being forced to pay child support.

With all of that in mind, supposing that a woman sexually assaults a man, gets pregnant with his child, and then wants an abortion, but he doesn't want her to have one.

Now let's look at the arguments:

Hers: It's my body so I'lll do what I want with it.

His: One reason I never consented to sex with you was to protect myself from having my child aborted, but you took that right away from me by spiking my drink with a date-rape drug and then straddling me without my consent. Since you stole my sperm without my consent, you therefore have no right to that foetusand will carry it to term unless it is medically necessary for you to abort it.

Now, does a woman have the right to sexually assault a man and then put him in that situation? Even if we presume that a woman has the right to an abortion under normal circumstances, should she still have that right if she commits sexual assault?

Likewise, what if a man refuses to marry a woman or have sex with her unless she guarantees in a marriage contract that she will not get any medically-unnecessary abortion? Again, does she have the right to lie so as to coerce him into marriage and sex only to to get an abortion later even though she had the option of not marrying him in the first place? Or would one argue that a man has no right to force a woman to choose between him and her right to an abortion and therefore has the right to lie to him so as to have him while still maintaining her right to an abortion? How far does a woman's rights go?

That might be a lot for her talking points to handle .

 

[Machjo]

That might be a lot for her talking points to handle .

Nah, she only needs one talking point: It's my body so I'll do whatever I want with it even if I did what I wanted with someone else's body without his consent too. What a woman wants is what a woman gets, right?

 

[bluebyrd35]

Question for you.

Now, women have been convicted of assaulting boys and even grown men. In at least one case that I know of, the woman got pregnant, chose to keep the baby, and that's that. There have even been cases of victims of sexual assault then being forced to pay child support.

With all of that in mind, supposing that a woman sexually assaults a man, gets pregnant with his child, and then wants an abortion, but he doesn't want her to have one.

Now let's look at the arguments:

Hers: It's my body so I'lll do what I want with it.

His: One reason I never consented to sex with you was to protect myself from having my child aborted, but you took that right away from me by spiking my drink with a date-rape drug and then straddling me without my consent. Since you stole my sperm without my consent, you therefore have no right to that foetusand will carry it to term unless it is medically necessary for you to abort it.

Now, does a woman have the right to sexually assault a man and then put him in that situation? Even if we presume that a woman has the right to an abortion under normal circumstances, should she still have that right if she commits sexual assault?

Likewise, what if a man refuses to marry a woman or have sex with her unless she guarantees in a marriage contract that she will not get any medically-unnecessary abortion? Again, does she have the right to lie so as to coerce him into marriage and sex only to to get an abortion later even though she had the option of not marrying him in the first place? Or would one argue that a man has no right to force a woman to choose between him and her right to an abortion and therefore has the right to lie to him so as to have him while still maintaining her right to an abortion? How far does a woman's rights go?

Well, I guess it should go exactly how it has gone over the centuriesI. I would wonder how many males were actually over-powered by the females. I imagine those teen age boys felt their dreams all their sexual dreams had come true. In the case you mentioned, she chose to keep the child. Her choice.

On the other side how many rapists of teenage girls were forced to support those children over the centuries?? If they were caught, that is , they spent a few months in jail or simply disappeared. Of course, the girl who was raped had no choice in the matter. She was ruined, ostracized and in many cases had to resort to making her living on the streets.

If the act is consensual, and abortion is legal, then if they are both agreed on keeping the child they share the upbringing. Until a man can be impregnated and wishes to take on the care of and raising of child, fine, then he can agree or not. But it works both ways, if the female is not agreeable she should not be forced by ANYONE to lend her body and future. It is all about choice. There would be no obligation on either party. BUT understand, marriage is a contract that implies producing a family, unless otherwise stated clearly beforehand.

That might be a lot for her talking points to handle .

Ah a western redneck I see. Me man...you woman....you do as I say. You were born a few centuries too late. Get over it.

 

[Machjo]

Well, I guess it should go exactly how it has gone over the centuriesI. I would wonder how many males were actually over-powered by the females. I imagine those teen age boys felt their dreams all their sexual dreams had come true. In the case you mentioned, she chose to keep the child. Her choice.

On the other side how many rapists of teenage girls were forced to support those children over the centuries?? If they were caught, that is , they spent a few months in jail or simply disappeared. Of course, the girl who was raped had no choice in the matter. She was ruined, ostracized and in many cases had to resort to making her living on the streets.

If the act is consensual, and abortion is legal, then if they are both agreed on keeping the child they share the upbringing. Until a man can be impregnated and wishes to take on the care of and raising of child, fine, then he can agree or not. But it works both ways, if the female is not agreeable she should not be forced by ANYONE to lend her body and future. It is all about choice. There would be no obligation on either party. BUT understand, marriage is a contract that implies producing a family, unless otherwise stated clearly beforehand.


Ah a western redneck I see. Me man...you woman....you do as I say. You were born a few centuries too late. Get over it.

Yes, a man can rape a woman and then disappear regardless of what the law says. In the same way, even if the law prohibited a rapist from getting an abortion without the victim's consent, she could just fly abroad and get an abortion there if let's say she managed to escape arrest.

However, if a man rapes a woman and then tries to escape responsibility, it is illegal. Yes, he can try to escape and he might succeed, but in the law he still would have broken the law. In the example above, if a woman rapes a man and gets pregnant, she can still legally get an abortion even while sitting in prison. So while the man would break the law by trying to excape, the woman would not by getting an abortion.

And if you check your stats, women sexually assaulting men is far more prevlent than you might think:

Why Are so Many Women Raping Boys? Research into female perpetrated sexual violence - Canadian Association for Equality

"43% of high school boys and young college men reported they had an unwanted sexual experience, and 95% reported that a female acquaintance was the aggressor."


Now think of your argument in this context:

Him: You Honour. I did not want to have sex with her one reason being to not put myself in the position of having my foetus aborted. Since she sexually assaulted me and took that right away from me, she should therefore forfeit her right to any medically unnecessary abortion without my consent.

Her: But your Honour. Statistically, it's usually men who rape women and then leave the women to care for the child. And it's been like that for centuries. For that reason your honour, I think he should bear the burden of the sins of his sex and you should forgive my crime and let me go as clemency for all the women who have suffered rape in the past.

That's essentially your argument, is it not? That would be like a black man murdering a white man and then saying: but your honour, given that it's usually the other way around, you should just forgive me and let me go free.

Just as a man who sexually assaults a woman should be required to accept responsibility, so it should apply the other way around too.

Are women discriminated against? No doubt. Is there still a ways to go to achieve equality? No doubt. But that does not give a woman carte blanche over her body if she sexually assaults a man. As you can see from the statistic above, it's not that uncommon.

Also, to presume that a man is just a sexual animal who can't get enough sex is sexist in its own right. Shockingly enough, even some men believe that it is not possible for a beautiful woman to sexually assault a heterosexual man because it is presumed that he must have wanted it. Just as some argue that if the woman reaches orgasm, then he did no rape her, some argue that if the man gets an erection and ejaculates, she did not sexually assault him, even though we know that neither men nor women necessarily have that much control over their sexual functions.

 

[bluebyrd35]

People that are pro-life disagree.



In the best interest of the pro-choice movement, I must ask you to cease immediately

LOl.....I go for pro-choice!!! If there is a" Fair and Decent God"out there somewhere, all person who attempt to impose their will on others will be the ones who lose their choices in the next cycle of existence.


Pro-lifers, can keep as many fertilized eggs as they wish.......but they have no right to impose THEIR beliefs on others. That in my opinion is attempted enslavement. AND attempting to limit my right to free speech is not legal.

 

[petros]

It's unfair God made you a woman?

 

[lone wolf]

Odd how a party that courted (and was supported by) the Catholic Church, and a PM who was elected because he was a good Catholic boy would take the tough stance for abortion. Sort of makes one wonder who else is in line for his two-faced gaze....

 

[petros]

If abortion were a Right, they might be on to something. It has only been decriminalized. It's not a Right.

 

[bluebyrd35]

Yes, a man can rape a woman and then disappear regardless of what the law says. In the same way, even if the law prohibited a rapist from getting an abortion without the victim's consent, she could just fly abroad and get an abortion there if let's say she managed to escape arrest.

However, if a man rapes a woman and then tries to escape responsibility, it is illegal. Yes, he can try to escape and he might succeed, but in the law he still would have broken the law. In the example above, if a woman rapes a man and gets pregnant, she can still legally get an abortion even while sitting in prison. So while the man would break the law by trying to excape, the woman would not by getting an abortion.

And if you check your stats, women sexually assaulting men is far more prevlent than you might think:

Why Are so Many Women Raping Boys? Research into female perpetrated sexual violence - Canadian Association for Equality

"43% of high school boys and young college men reported they had an unwanted sexual experience, and 95% reported that a female acquaintance was the aggressor."


Now think of your argument in this context:

Him: You Honour. I did not want to have sex with her one reason being to not put myself in the position of having my foetus aborted. Since she sexually assaulted me and took that right away from me, she should therefore forfeit her right to any medically unnecessary abortion without my consent.

Her: But your Honour. Statistically, it's usually men who rape women and then leave the women to care for the child. And it's been like that for centuries. For that reason your honour, I think he should bear the burden of the sins of his sex and you should forgive my crime and let me go as clemency for all the women who have suffered rape in the past.

That's essentially your argument, is it not? That would be like a black man murdering a white man and then saying: but your honour, given that it's usually the other way around, you should just forgive me and let me go free.

Just as a man who sexually assaults a woman should be required to accept responsibility, so it should apply the other way around too.

Are women discriminated against? No doubt. Is there still a ways to go to achieve equality? No doubt. But that does not give a woman carte blanche over her body if she sexually assaults a man. As you can see from the statistic above, it's not that uncommon.

Also, to presume that a man is just a sexual animal who can't get enough sex is sexist in its own right. Shockingly enough, even some men believe that it is not possible for a beautiful woman to sexually assault a heterosexual man because it is presumed that he must have wanted it. Just as some argue that if the woman reaches orgasm, then he did no rape her, some argue that if the man gets an erection and ejaculates, she did not sexually assault him, even though we know that neither men nor women necessarily have that much control over their sexual functions.

Here are the Canadian Stats. Sexual Assault and Rape Statistics, Canada

You realize of course, that a major proportion of male rape is done by other men? Take a good look also at how many women report rapes to the authorities,in contrast to how many were actually done. Furthermore take a look at the rape stats of disabled women.....83%.!!

I do know that many woman who have had unprotected sex go to their family doctor for the day after pill. Saves a lot of problems, and unless there was physical damage, generally, it is given without a lot of questioning and certainly never reported as a rape.

Isn't rape generally an expression of hatred??

 

[petros]

Why is it so hard to be a woman?

 

[JLM]

LOl.....I go for pro-choice!!!

There's one little, tiny problem with that - the subject of the situation doesn't get to choose!

 

[bluebyrd35]

It's unfair God made you a woman?

Are you kidding?? I love being female, and have children & grandchildren. I learned early how to avoid sticky situations and was a good judge of people. Of course there were inappropriate touchings. I was very lucky, most were under conditions where it was possible to avoid, the worst. Very few women have not had inappropriate suggestions and moves put on them.

There's one little, tiny problem with that - the subject of the situation doesn't get to choose!

Both parties have a choice. If you are talking about a fertilized egg, it is not an individual, being unable to exist outside the womb.

 

[petros]

Very few women have not had inappropriate suggestions and moves put on them.

Any idea how many times I've had my balls cupped or cock side of my inner thigh stroked?

Ask a few men if they've experienced similar.