Yet here in B.C. we pay for Every Woman's Health Service to provide Abortions . Notice it is a private for profit institution , the kind of American style health care we don't want in Canada .
Justin Trudeau says abortion rights trump MPs' freedom to vote their conscience
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
It was not and never hard to be a woman.......UNLESS her destiny is interfered with or her right to choice is interfered with.
The right that those of a biblical mindset claim God gave us and then blamed it's use for the downfall of the whole human race LOL.
Nope. A non-existant being cannot curse me nor give or take away rights. Only self-righteous, religious human types who still believe the writings of tribal barbarians to be truth, are the curse of the human race. You know the type.......those who love to control the thoughts and actions of anyone they cross paths with. I don't have a problem with those, as I can and often do take time to straighten out their thinking on such matters. It amuses me.
Oh no , the province pays the for profit provider for the service . The same kind of for profit Dr. Day wants to avail Canadians .
Yet you want to take away our guns because of your moral superiority .
Now I'm no legal expert, but last I checked, the law relates to the person, not his kind. Just as men do not belong to some Borg collective, neither do women.
Imagine your argument in a courtroom:
"But your honour, I know I sexually assaulted him; but since most perpetrators are men and I'm a woman, you should drop all charges against me."
Now I'm pro-life. But just to entertain you here, let's suppose that, at least under normal circumstances, a woman ought to have the right to an abortion. That still leaves us with the man's right to choose to not engage in sex with a woman. So that still raises the question: should a woman who becomes pregnant after having sexually assaulted a man be allowed to have a medically-unnecessary abortion without his consent? That becomes a matter of victims' rights over the rights of the perpetrator and no longer a question of the rights of the foetus.
Now you mentioned earlier that a man can rape a woman and then take off and not pay child support. I don't disagree that he could do that. But the principle still stands that he can do that, it's still illegal and he will be held to account if caught.
There's another side to this too though. I know of at least one case of a moman sexually assaulting a man and then him finding himself on the hook for child support. Now being pro-life, I would certainly oppose giving even the male victim the right to force the woman to get an abortion. However, it would only be fair that, if he can prove at least on a balance of probabilities that she did sexually assault him, that then he should be let off the hook. Or just to protect her even more, maybe even make it beyond a reasonable doubt. Given how difficult sexual assault is to prove, that would mean that in most cases, the male victim would now have to pay child support. As unfair as that would be to him, I can accept that. After all, a court can only go with the evidence at hand. Even if a judge does believe that that man may be telling the truth, I can still appreciate that he must respect the law and if the law requires that man to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the woman sexually assaulted him, then that's life, unfortunately, and the man will have to pay child support. And I accept that. Do you?
But to say that he should just pay child support even if he can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she sexually assaulted him on the grounds that it's usually the other way around is an absolutely stupid and ridiculous argument. No offence intended.
Now, let's suppose that the law stated that, when a man can prove on a balance of probabilities that a woman sexually assaulted him within the time of her possible conseption, that she cannot get a medically-unnecessary abortion without his consent. This would still leave her with the opportunity to abort long before a ruling is made. Morning-after pill for example or if she can get an appointment with an abortionist within days of the assault. That's the equivalent of a man raping a woman and then taking off and getting away with it. Nothing we can do about people breaking the law and getting away with it.
But the principle still stands that, if for whatever reason she still didn't get her abortion before a ruling is made (maybe she's in two minds about it herself or she's convinced she's not pregnant and the victim is just taking legal precautions in case the perp is pregnant?), would it not be fair to still at least have it in the law so that when he can prove on a balance of probabilites that she did sexually assault him and that she still hasn't aborted yet, that any abortionist can then be prohibited from aborting her foetus for no good medical reason? Right now, there is no law that protects the male victim. And given how difficult it can be to prove even on a balance of probabilties, it would mean that in most cases, the perpetrator can still get an abortion if she's quick enough or if the victim can't prove it.
But again, to say that a male victim should not have any rights because usually the victim is a woman is a very stupid argument. According to that argument, any accusation of racial discrimination by a white man against his black racist employer should be dismissed out of hand just because usually the racism goes in reverse. I hope you see how silly that argument is.
Now of course there may be grey areas. A man pays a sex worker for sex but expects her to use a condom. She suddeenly mounts him with no protection, pins him down, gets to work and it's done in seconds before he even has a chance to react. She then laughs and tells him she'll now be carrying his baby. A friend of mine is actually writing a book on the subject of the sex trade (not porn, but rather a book discussing varyous health, legal, economic, and other aspects). That example supposedly happened to one man, though apparently he never figured out if the woman was joking or not. In the hypothetical situation that he did not want her to have an abortion, even if the proposed law above was in the books, I presume he'd probably be too ashamed to take this to court. Imagine him trying to explain to the judge that he'd paid her for sex!
However, let's suppose none-the-less that he still decided to pursue this. One could argue that though she did tehnically sexually assault him by having unprotected sex without his consent, he did give her his consent to sex none-the-less. With that, one could argue that she could have become pregnant even with a condom, since that does happen sometimes. No protection simply raises the odds a hundred fold, but protection is not fool proof. With that, the judge could argue, even if the victim proves that he did not consent to unprotected sex, that the victim could have impregnated her with protected sex none-the-less, and so with that grant the woman the right to an abortion anyway. If we interpret it that way, then that would mean that not only must he refuse his consent to unprotected sex, but to any sex. If we interpret it that strictly, then only unambiguous victims or minors could exercise his fatherly right. To me, that would be extremely reasonable. I have read of cases of women using date-rape drugs on men. Should a woman be given carte blanche with her reproductive rights, or should the man still be given some choice in the matter at least in those cases in which he is a clear victim. You don't deny that men have been victims of female sexual assault, do you?
Again, though I am pro-life, I'm just entertaining you here with the question of even if we grant that a woman has a right to an abortion under normal circumstances, whether that right ought to be absolute when she violates the freedom of a man to choose?
To be honest, when I'd first read the story of the sex worker sexually assaulting her client, I laughed. As far as I'm concerned, paying for sex is a form of victimization in its own right and ought to be a fineable offence. In that story, she just gave im pay back! No, I'm not condoning her actions anymore than his. However, it's like the thief getting robbed or the murder getting murdered. You can't deny he kind of asked for it.
It amuses you that abortion using botanicals predates the Religion you blame?
How did they feel about it back then?
Now what? Back to blaming men or start accepting that nature designed you and all other female chordates to create life.
We are animals. Where would you be in regards to your mythical Right without Religion?
Ironic that a pro choice PM. doesn't give the same choice to his ministers in voting on the subject....
And the pro choice people in this forum applaud him for it....
And the pro choice people in this forum applaud him for it....
Petros:=
LOL...... nature produces a multitude of other flaws. Try wrapping your mind around one that would not give the individual the right over their bodies sloughing off of unwanted pregnancies.being extended to refusing the right to treating cleft palates, removing extra fingers, the odd extra boobs, undescended testicles, removal of the inflamed appendix, tonsils, **** polyps tending towards cancer etc. There seems to be no objections to treating such flaws. Come on, you wish to pick as choose which improvements in human health and well-being you choose to permit?? Well bully for you!!
We are still animals but luckily we are a bit more creative so far than most.. We are able to make improvements in many life altering deformities, and conditions. Why focus on one particular condition for exclusion??
What mythical right?? You do not feel that one's life choices should be their's alone? Good grief, would you take the right of an abortion away from one of the 83% female infirm who were raped.
Good grief, are you implying that women are the creator's of life and should therefore be thankful for an unwanted pregnancy!! Are you denying men have no responsibilities whatever that creation?
.............
I am sorry Macho, but your post needs to be shorter and more understandable.
LOL...... nature produces a multitude of other flaws. Try wrapping your mind around one that would not give the individual the right over their bodies sloughing off of unwanted pregnancies.being extended to refusing the right to treating cleft palates, removing extra fingers, the odd extra boobs, undescended testicles, removal of the inflamed appendix, tonsils, **** polyps tending towards cancer etc. There seems to be no objections to treating such flaws. Come on, you wish to pick as choose which improvements in human health and well-being you choose to permit?? Well bully for you!!
We are still animals but luckily we are a bit more creative so far than most.. We are able to make improvements in many life altering deformities, and conditions. Why focus on one particular condition for exclusion??
What mythical right?? You do not feel that one's life choices should be their's alone? Good grief, would you take the right of an abortion away from one of the 83% female infirm who were raped.
Good grief, are you implying that women are the creator's of life and should therefore be thankful for an unwanted pregnancy!! Are you denying men have no responsibilities whatever that creation?
.............
I am sorry Macho, but your post needs to be shorter and more understandable.
If a good portion of the MP's were for allowing all thieves, and rapists, and murderers to do their nefarious deeds without punishment, would you be inclines to allow them to vote on the subject??Ironic that a pro choice PM. doesn't give the same choice to his ministers in voting on the subject....
And the pro choice people in this forum applaud him for it....
Last edited:
And killing babies is OK with you and an MP is not allowed to vote according to the will of his constituents....
How liberal of you!!
How liberal of you!!
They aren't babies. Making stuff up to support your argument is clear evidence you have a very silly argument
If they are respecting the wishes of their constituents , yes .
I have a brother who was born premature at seven months , was he not a baby ?
Bluebird thinks it is okay for a woman to kill a fetus at seven months , I cannot in good conscience agree .