Yes that is true.
So what does that have to do with the Draconian laws infringing on mens rights, totally in contradiction to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
Who's right to choose, a womans right to choose.
- Thread starter CDNBear
- Start date
So what does that have to do with the Draconian laws infringing on mens rights, totally in contradiction to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
The right in itself is not a choice. She made no more of a choice to be pregnant than he chose to have her be pregnant. There is no requirement to make a decision to remain or not remain pregnant. Her right to remain pregnant is not conditional.
You are making an arguement that looks in all respects to support my assertion.
It is a choice, no matter how many times you say it, it is a choice. A choice that is utilised thousands of times a year by woman that can not or will not subject themselves to the relative slavery of motherhood.
Whether you agree with that or not is irrelavent, it is a choice made legally and without the rights of the mens ablity to sustain fatherhood, being considered. Yet in the reverse, his rights still are not considered.
Do you not see the imbalance in that.? Yes or no?
No I don't see an imbalance. A right in itself is not a choice. No choice is being made to remain pregnant, and she and her child don't give up other rights in our society just because she didn't feel she was going to be a slave or that her and her doctor didn't feel it was medically necessary to terminate a pregnancy.
Bear, you're the one expressing an opinion on how you want the law changed. I'm giving you a perspective on why it doesn't already work the way you want it to. That's not my opinion, it's the way it is.
And there lies the imbalance.
As it stands...
Women three...
Men zero...
Great equality there Kreskin.
The right to an abortion is based on a number of fundamental legal issues. The rersult is not the desire effect; anything but the result would be a license to remove any number of rights from anyone. Look at Roe v Wade. There was an issue of privacy. While intended to be a procedure for medical necessity no one but the mother and doctor can say if it is or not, and they need not consult with others. The entire issue is much deeper than just having a choice to be pregnant or not. The intent of our rights isn't to be a contraceptive. There are historical and legal grounds that create the legal rulings that can't make it a criminal offense. Those conditions aren't scoreboard choices.
But that is exactly how a woman who does not want to be a mother views it, so your opinion is moot. The man(and rightly so) does not have this option if he does not wish to be a father, period. Which is a big part of the point of this discussion, whether you like it or agree with it or not.
It's not a score board or card, it is an infringement on the rights of others by a bias legal system that has interpreted the laws as they stand to favour women to right an unjust bias against. Only to tip the scales of balance against the rights of men.
Still,,,
Women three...
Men zero...
If your keeping score, men are lossing.
Seeing as you seem to think abortion is some evil thing...
What if the woman feels she isn't ready but the man does, but she aborts because she doesn't want to subject herself to pregnancy( a completely natural act)? He has no rights to protect that child, as you seem to be fighting for that child outside the womb, what about the fathers rights to be a father? Hmmm?
That is your opinion ONLY. It is a choice, and for the umpteenth time, utilised thousands of times a year. Without the stats, I would hazzard a guess it is even closer to the hundreds of thousands of times a year.
Our society will not enact laws to encourage actions it tries to outlaw. What some people do with something that can't be officially criminalized isn't a choice at all for everyone, it's a bi-product. See the bigger picture here Bear. Our society does not expect women to have an abortion as a means for contraception so why would it create laws that would suggest it should be? A judge won't deny a child its rights because the mother had the right to do something our society wasn't able to criminalize no matter how hard it tried to. It's still in the Canadian Criminal Code. No one in our society can assist or manipulate her to have one, so why would the constitution allow a governing body to enact a law that promotes it as a solution to the father's situation? Think big picture Bear. What you want has bigger implications that the matter we're discussing. Laws can't discriminate against our basic fundamental rights but you want one that implies that by just having a right our children lose theirs.
I am not, nor is anyone in this thread advocating what you are saying here.
If she is free to make all the choices, then she should be free to bear the burden. Whatever her choice is,seeing as all the choices are hers, do you get that? (I doubt you'll answer that, I'm still waiting for answers to my other questions)
And dispite the facts and evidence, you still want to enforce the enslavement of men to the choice, not laws, of another human being, incontrary to the Charter?
You are free to practise religion. Because you are free to does that mean you should be expected to consider it as an option? You can if you wish but you aren't expected to consider it. No one gets penalized for not chosing to be religious.
Try this on for size, with regards to your first question.
http://forums.canadiancontent.net/i...5-rights-freedoms-responsiblity-all-them.html
It is sad that you see being accountable for your choices as being penalized.
I wish i had thought of that when standing in front of the Judge so mony times and years ago.
The same can be said in reverse, why should the man be penalized then? Because that is exactly how you and others have planted your flags. He spwed sperm, she got pregnant, now he must stand up for his actions. So why can't she?
But I do like your anology. Very good.
I don't the requirement of helping support his own kid and not leaving the burden on the rest of us as rights being taken away or being penalized.
Why do you automatically assume the burden will be placed on the rest of us?
Do you not have enough faith in women to be able to support themselves and their choices?
That's kind of sexist don't you think?
No, not in the slightest. I also don't think a guy should be able to decide to support his child or not based on the mother's religious rights, or her right to free speech whether used or not, or right to life if she died and failed to defend herself. Those rights are fundamental, unconditional, non mandatory and not up for negotiation. She is not required to choose between being pregnant and doing something negative to herself or the baby she is carrying. She could, only because the constitution says it can't be a crime if she does, but it is not a right our society requires her to consider.
What the hell are you talking about?
Try to keep up here Kreskin, try not to baffle us with BS either.
It is a womans right to abort, adopt out, give birth, period. None of your emotion or opinions and attempted religious banter and legaleeze is going to change the very real fact that abortion is being used as a contraceptive, adoption is a valid solution, or bearing the burden you chose to bring forth is your right as well.
This is not a religious wingnut debate, this is not a debate on the laws surrounding abortion, this debate is on the inquality of law, with regards to men. Nothing less and nothing more.
If you wish to argue your faith or your feelings on the religious aspects of the issue feel free to start a thread.
There is the vail of the seperation of church and state for a reason, so no wack job religious zealots can force their Draconian deluded views on the non believers.
You still have not addressed the questions, but for minor tangents on legal garbage and religious issues that bear no weight on a legal issue.
Here's an easy question for you to answer...
Can you argue this point objectively,legally,analytically, without injecting your emotion, opinion or religion?
No is suggesting she has to abort. She can make any choice she wants, such as not sleeping with someone who doesnt' want to be a father.
Its not fair to FORCE a father to support a kid he may not want created. Sure its easy to say he should...and in MOST cases you are right, but how much hell did the guy who's sperm was taken and used to impregnate a woman without his consent have to go through to not have to support a child he in no way consented to even potentially creating.
If someone took a copy of your blood and cloned you, should you be forced to pay for the child until you spend years and thousands of dollars in legal fees to prove you are an exemption?
If people would just do the right thing you wouldn't need laws, its baffling how many people assume women are always doing the right thing, 100% of the time.
Its not fair to FORCE a father to support a kid he may not want created. Sure its easy to say he should...and in MOST cases you are right, but how much hell did the guy who's sperm was taken and used to impregnate a woman without his consent have to go through to not have to support a child he in no way consented to even potentially creating.
If someone took a copy of your blood and cloned you, should you be forced to pay for the child until you spend years and thousands of dollars in legal fees to prove you are an exemption?
If people would just do the right thing you wouldn't need laws, its baffling how many people assume women are always doing the right thing, 100% of the time.