wow, you are retarded.
you will vote for trump wont you? lol

i can say no, u dont pay 50% tax cause, (in case you didn't read it) IM CANADIAN
i have a job
i pay taxes
i dont lose 1/2 my income

did u get it now? lol

technically, i qualify you as french-CANADIAN.

see, i kinda implied that i might have been incorrect when i stated that you paid 1/2 your income for healthcare, and asked to be corrected, but are you capable of doing that? no, i don't think so. you kinda got the 1/2 assed flaming down, but since you are kinda stuck with being, what a 1/4 quarter french, you just don't have enough passion to be able to get it up without buying some Viagra...

so, how much do you pay for your "free health-care"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_Health_Act

i'll be quoting this and using it to abase your dumb-arse in the future, so please, feel free to step up and deliver anything that you feel is being misrepresented.

how much do you pay for your "free Health-Care"?

This, Bobby, is part of my point; what makes humans so special?

oh, and before condom head attempted to interfer with my thought process, we were going to discuss why women would actually need an abortion if they decided to engage in consentual sex, which is pretty much required in this day and age, since we're not allowed to rape them into pregnancy...

so, essentially, women have the right to refuse sex, women have the technology available to be able to avoid conception in the first place, so, why do they need the right to abort?

No, but I could see from a biological point of view how it could be argued.



My problem with ANTI-ABORTION people is, what is it about a *human* brain that is less powerful than many of our other mammalian relatives that is so special? I'm no vegetarian, but if we can justify killing animals with higher brain functions, why are we so against killing a human brain? (And also, why are we so against eating other humans) (I am also not a cannibal, but these are cultural taboos and biases that exist without much scientific reason)


Best arguments against late-term abortions are the risk to the mother; many doctors won't go for it at that point.


There's also nothing really magical about sperm combining with egg; so we could just as easily ban the wasting of sperm, as potential human life. My skin cells *are* living, and you *could* use their DNA to clone me...


I would go so far as to say genetic screening should be mandatory, and abortions offered for those with debilitating conditions.

Those who are dumb and don't think about it or negate the possibility, or those who get drunk and get knocked up, as well as the rape case (it comes up enough)... Are the offspring of these the people you want populating the country?

And as I mentioned above, genetically screened fetuses which will have debilitating conditions.

$5,452 per person is how much it costs to run our health care system, to answer your question.

The Canada health act doesn't really matter. It is federal legislation and healthcare is provincial jurisdiction. Alls the Canada health act does it stipulate that the Federal government won't contribute money to a province for health care spending unless they meet those conditions. Provinces are in no way forced or obliged to meet those conditions, they can just as easily deviate and forgoe Federal financial assistance.

I call bullfluff on that, souls is a made up concept that is completely impossible for you to PROVE that it exists (same as you cant prove god exists or many other such rubbish).

If you actually watch how a fetus grows in the womb you can even see how we evolved from other animals and very clearly how we at early stages are almost identical to them. Did you perhaps know that the reason you have a cleft under your nose (some people more prominent than others) is because at a previous stage in evolution we were fishes and it becomes a funny looking cleft because of how the human head develops (its the last bit that puts the head together and forms that way due to the previously there having been gills and whatnot in place there as well).

Although I am sure you can read about all these things in biology books of various kinds.

But anywho I digress, souls = rubbish.

:)

Are you trying to infer that women DONT have the right to get "knocked up" if they so wish?
What next are you going to clothe them in burkas and forbid them to show anything but just their eyes?

You are walking down a dangerous path if you start this off, one thing leads to another and all of a sudden women are a commodity that you sell for a couple of cows and a donkey...

i typed up a big post on the societal issues of forcing people to have unwanted babies, but i decided that this argument isn't worth taking part in.

the jist was what qz said + a little more: why do you want to force people to have kids that will negatively impact the parents and kid, compared to giving people the option to properly plan their families at the time of their choosing?

the focus should be on better sex education, removing abstinence education (other than stating the obvious: if you don't have sex, you won't get pregnant) and other stuff along those lines that look to solve the underlying problems of unplanned pregnancy

proactiveness > reactiveness

rape isn't exactly consentual sex. my understanding about it, is that it really doesn't have anything to do with sexual activity period.

i don't technically care, if they give me too much crap, i off them in self-defense, otherwise, i don't technically care what they do with the country.

oh, and let me guess, the ability to genetically screen people who are capable of living on this planet was developed in what? the last 100 years, but people have been living and surviving on this planet for how long? i could probably state that your doctors are over-paid and don't have a clue about what it actually takes to survive on this planet and be reasonably accurate about making the statement since they were born yesterday and ain't near a dang one of them over 100 years old. probably put most of them in the 30-50 year old range.

what are you blathering about dibs?

we used to hunt with wooden spears and live in grass huts

that doesn't mean we should still do it that way.

we -- as a species -- advanced, and as we advance as a society, it's important to align our values, beliefs and how we live our lives with the times we live in.

do you still want to go burn some heretics at the stake? how about a good ol' fashioned witch burning too? those are antiqauted notions that were considered to align with the values of society at the time, and we look back on it as a black stain on our history. the abortion debate should be seen in the same kind of context.

if they ever FORCE abortions on people who don't want them, then we have a major problem, but as long as there's a choice, I don't see an issue.

and realistically, you've probably "aborted" more potential children into a kleenex or a toilet than the number of abortions that have been done in the entire 20th-21st centuries :p

*notes that he is pro-choice*

I agree completely Dave, but I have a question for you:

How can we be so sure that future society won't be looking back at our current pro-choice policies as a "black stain" on their history?

i dunno Pang, what are you blathering on about you bloody liberal moron?

women essentially don't need to abort in this day and age, because they have the right to refuse sex, and the technology to avoid conception, so how does abortion figure into a woman's right to control her body? it's not the necessity that it once used to be when women were purely there to cook and clean and bear children. so, basically, how can it be justified that they are allowed to kill, when i ain't? they freely engaged in sexual activity that had the potential to produce a child, why don't they have to suffer the debilitating effect of actually raising that child?

marshall: i expect in the future there will be even more effective short-term contraceptive means and abortions will be at an all time low.

we'll look back at unplanned pregnancies the same way we look back at people who died from a simple infection -- "that's horrible that it happened at all! that would almost never happen today!"

dibs: i'm just not going really going to take part in this with you, since I now remember that you're one of those people who degenerate every debate into namecalling and fighting rather than actually debating the issues, even when you take weirdo tangents about how things were "better back in the day"
I will state, however, I don't think that it's the WOMAN's right to choose, it's both the potential parents' right to come to an agreement on the issue.
you sound like you have "mommy" issues, to be honest.

i don't need a requirement when it comes to calling you a bunch of names, i can do it simply because it's fun.

btw, you spelled half-wit incorrectly in your haste to try to come up with a decent well-worded comeback.

i'm not the one avoiding the issue, i made a logical and correct statement about a woman's right to abort, please feel free to demonstrate why my statement was incorrect.

if a woman has the right to refuse sex, and has the technology available to avoid conception, why is it necessary for her to kill somebody because of her choice to engage in sexual activity?

It isn't necessary, it is simply good public policy.

Canada baby bonus was introduced in Canada following the second world war. A family allowance scheme known as the "baby bonus" made regular monthly payments of $5 to $8 to all parents of children under 16.[7]

In 1988, the Quebec government introduced the Allowance for Newborn Children that paid up to $8,000 to a family after the birth of a child.

yeppar.

yea... marshall hit the nail on the head for my argument as well... it's better for society to have the option available, with the expectation that the VAST, VAST, VAST majority of pregnancies won't even consider the option.

and if you hadn't noticed, most of the developed world migrates towards pro-choice policies as their society matures. america's far right are generally laughed at by the rest of the civilized world for clinging those type of policies :p

How does that discount my statement? (directed at Dibs most recent post)

lolololol you make me laugh :p
posting this proves you're not even worth arguing with.... :p
you think that giving incentives to people to grow the population is at all related to abortion?

we wanted to give incentives to people to have children that will be a net gain to society -- are you trying to imply that policy was intended to make people go "well... i wanted an abortion... but... $8000 is a lot of money..." :p

please stop bringing the argument quality on this thread down to the level of CNN.com. if we hit the NFL.com level, I will shut down the forum for re-tooling (ie removing the tools :p)

Maybe in the future we'll simply sterilize people at birth and grow test-tube babies for them when they want a family.

i'm not able to argue on the NFL.com level, that would pretty much require me to hire some kinda Canadian Labor lawyer to speak for me.

and no, i'm pretty much implying that the Canadian government wants you to quit engaging in gay activity and start producing some dang offspring to carry on... i couldn't care less whether you follow the 99% of the species that have become extinct.

So you are saying that you were pointing it out reasons irrelevant to any of the discussion in the thread?

tl;dr

I pay like no taxes, literally... for those talking about Canadian's paying huge taxes.. I own my own company, am able to write down to low income, then my actual taxes are like 15% or some fluff as a coporation, but I collect 13% HST off of gross and only pay it on net income.. means I pay like 2% taxes. hahahaha

take that!

i have already started my bottle or two wine this evening, so i'll keep this short and wait until morning to read more.

"I don't see why people make such a distinction at pre-infant stages of life; if a fetus has less brain power than a cat, why do you have no problems with people putting down cats, but *DO* have a problem aborting the fetus? What part of human cellular matter is so special?"

posted by qzjul.

If I kill a cat do I go to jail for the rest of my life? If I kill a human do I? It should work both ways, no?

"Also, at what point do you draw the line? An early abortion removes a fetus that is less cells than I lose in the shower; should we not ban showers? and what of those precious skin cells you're washing down the drain?"

If the bathing in water ended your life I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be so common place. Try putting a bullet in your brain, see if that catches on with the general public? (rude, but no malice intended, sorry)

"Evidence for a human soul? oh right, there ISN'T ANY!"

then we can kill with no issue at hand? you have no evidence of your soul, so we can kill you no issue at hand? what if the child is ten minutes before literal birth? why not half a minute after birth? As you asked, where do we draw the line?

"i honestly don't care how much you have to cough up in the form of income tax to pay for your "free health care", y'all run around and act like it doesn't cost resources and money for people to provide it."

Dibs, only the fools do. Some of us (read me) understand things cost money, and people need to pay for it. out of pocket before you get the money in your pocket is still your money being spent..

"s, we were going to discuss why women would actually need an abortion if they decided to engage in consentual sex, which is pretty much required in this day and age, since we're not allowed to rape them into pregnancy.."

Because two fifteen year olds, experimenting harmlessly who make a mistake might be in their best interest to set things straight. If you can do this early enough, I do not care. People masterbate, I do not consider this mass murder. I understand their right to choose, and they need to understand their non-right to murder. how do we meet in the middle, i don't know. lets not start killing abortion doctors, though, can we agree on this?

"Are you trying to infer that women DONT have the right to get "knocked up" if they so wish?
What next are you going to clothe them in burkas and forbid them to show anything but just their eyes?"

Vilse, should the mother be allowed to stab herself in the stomach to abort the child? Should she be allowed to 8.5 months into her pregnancy get cold feet and abort the child? Why not a month after birth, drown it in the bath tub? Have the doctor humanely kill the month old child? When do we consider the childs right to be alive supersceding the mothers right to make a decision? and why didn't she decide to safely engage in sex, or why did she go into the sexual encounter desiring a child? surely she understands the birds and the bees.

if she is raped, no, abort until you're blue in the face (but i think it's more efficient if you stop when the baby goes blue?)

"i typed up a big post on the societal issues of forcing people to have unwanted babies, but i decided that this argument isn't worth taking part in."

That is too bad, pang, because I was really looking forward to your answering, what about all the parents who try to have children, but aren't able to, and instead would **love** to adopt this child, and give it a caring and loving and safe home, with a bright promising future to as you later went on to say "..be a net gain to society". adopting, raising and nurturing the child certainly seems like a better way to, what you said, than either abortion or the distribution of federal tax dollars (or provincial, if it happens to work out that way?)

qz again (not meaning to pick on you, i promise :P)
"Maybe in the future we'll simply sterilize people at birth and grow test-tube babies for them when they want a family. "

the nazis tried eugenics. I'm good, thank you. but i have always wanted to join a resistance?

It would appear i went most of the way through. You'll have to excuse any logical fallacies and fluffty grammar, as i mentioned above i had a number of drinks ;)

but you'll also notice i didn't have any unwanted pregnancies, so i won't be murdering any children..

Why do all of your posts only mention one half of the equation? it takes two to tango. I didn't study an elective in femist theory just to successfully hit on hot women. In patriachial societies its very easy to see attitudes towards women that shun any attitudes or behaviours that are not in line with what is traditionally valued.

Why is it up to the woman to decide not to have sex, when there is no consequence for male behaviour. Son go out an act like a bunny, daughter you are evil if you aren't a nun. Quite frankly there will be issues as a result of the conflicting values.

From an evolutionary perspective, the issues stems from jealousy and infidelity. However I won't go into that unless I have to.

Next is the idea of contraception, did you know that female contraceptive devices have a much higher fail rate than male contraceptive devices. Even condomns aren't perfect either.

I am pro early stage abortion, and against late stage abortion. But really I support education.A Good education, not just physical ed, is actually the best way of preventing teen pregnacy. I can through in some references if needed. The reason I am pro abortion at all is because societies in general don't support young mothers.

If you don't want abortion at all, then support young mothers. Most societies will agree that abortion is cheaper. Its unfortunate but true. Though support programs needs to be well designed. Australia's support programs are terrible, teens have babies just to get the support >.<. its terrible, have a baby to pay for the wide screen tv. They are reforming the system now, 10+ years after it was introduced.

I do agree with Braden to some extent about Eugenics, terminating embryos that have a genetic defect is one thing, but terminating or only choosing embyros that have what parents consider 'ideal' designer baby characteristics is a terrible idea. Letting Fate/God decide has been far more successful, going back as far as the human species has existed. Its God's will that humanity is what it is today and what it will be in the future. I really don't trust humans can make a better decisions in this instance.

I would like to start off by saying a few things

1) Dibs, I've never really noticed any of your posts before today, and some of those actually made me laugh. A rare occurrence on this board!

2) I'm pro-choice. Abortion would not be my personal choice and if a woman aborts my baby I will abort her

3) The following statement(s) reflect my current view of society. These statements may change if one day 3 ghosts appear, take me back in time and show me the errors of my ways. Since that probably won't happen, we'll just stick to the fact that society makes me sick, and the government breeds it.


To be honest, the abortion debate has always been fluffed. There are too many variables to legalize, criminalize etc. There are the standard questions - Rape, term length etc but the one that never comes up is - What if we criminalize it?

What would happen if Canada (or the USA) made it illegal to practice abortion? There would be a surge in coathanger sales and women falling down stairs. While that statement may be in bad taste, it's very true.

I know 3 different couples who have had an abortion. Im proud of 2 of them, the 3rd im upset about. 2 of the couples would have been crappy parents who raise welfare kids who feed the system of Welfare/Disability that I so much despise. I see crackheads, heroin addicts, drunks etc etc abuse the Canadian system every single day.

Some people are smart enough NOT to have kids. They were too stupid to have protected sex, but at least they aren't dumb enough to inflict a horrible life on an innocent being. Others can't be said to have the same compassion.

----------------------------------

While procreating is a basic human function available to most, it should be more like applying for a mortgage.

1) Do you *BOTH* actually desire to bear children? *(I said both to root out those crazy condom-poking women)*

2) Do you have the necessary monetary funds to provide for this child? This not only includes cash on hand, but a good job to continue to provide

3) Do you have the parenting skills to raise a good-hearted human. Dalmer's are born every day, but hopefully intelligent loving parents can curb that. If not, there's always ECT (you may know it as shock therapy)

4) The most important....If a cat could play connect four, COULD YOU BEAT IT?


If you pass this simple interview/questionnaire, you may have a child.




I would like to end my useless rant/opinion with sending a shout out to my beloved condom companies. While I no longer use them (i don't try for a child, but if it happened with me and Sarah, I'd be game) I love that they protected me from the dirty whores I've slept with in the past. (See H4)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1O_d7wbkYmk

its rare that I agree with MrCharcoal.

"Why is it up to the woman to decide not to have sex, when there is no consequence for male behaviour"

twenty some odd years of financial support?

hahaha good game :P I just got it :)

Abortion
Scrapping the long Gun Registry
Scrapping the Canadian Wheat Board
Major refugee system reforms.


Actually sounds like a very reasonable start. :)

braden, it should be pretty straight forward - the thing that makes us human is our consciousness. There are a fluff ton of living things but until you have human thought you are just another soulless lump of flesh. Studies have found that babies gain consciousness in the third trimester so it shouldn't be hard to say that abortion should be legal in the first two trimesters.

(I don't know Canadian abortion law, maybe that is already the case, but I am speaking to any generic ban on abortions and not necessarily the situation being discussed here... I just have gleaned through brief skimming that braden is somewhat anti-abortion or at least taking that point here)

detmer: Canada's abortion stance is as I stated above: abortion for some, miniature Canadian flags for others.

abortion debates on forums are dumb though -- i feel stupider for having participated in this to the degree I did.

hmmms... why is the gun registry getting removed? It's useful, at least it can be identified as to who shot the guy... if it's illegal.. well.. damn... good luck police, but if it's removed, it's far easier and harder to track whoever shot the bullet isn't it?

*says my frd who's in the GTA's Police*

well, the classic arguement is that only the good citizens register, and anyone with criminal intent won't register. Thus the program is "ineffective"

The main point of the Australian register is to cut down on illegal guns.

Then there are issues of the gun license, which are to ensure that people know proper gun safety and to make it harder for people with criminal records to buy guns.

Look at America, the illegal gun trade involves smuggling guns out of America to Mexico. Its easier to get illegal guns in the US than it is in Mexico. I think thats pretty darn weird.

detmer, i have no solid stance on the issue one way or the other. both sides have good points, and both sides have bad points.

without any medical issues at hand, i find it difficult to believe that birthing the child and giving it up for adoption would be less ideal than aborting. especially considering in this country *any* cost of carrying the child to term will be paid by the government (medical bills, welfare for rent and food if that is the case, etc)

"abortion debates on forums are dumb though -- i feel stupider for having participated in this to the degree I did."

this is simply internet arguing on a whole, no?

the internet is for pron.:P

"without any medical issues at hand, i find it difficult to believe that birthing the child and giving it up for adoption would be less ideal than aborting."

In theory yes. As a tax payer I think that aborting is better because it's cheaper:P

the biggest issue with illegal firearms in Canada is the smuggling of weapons into Canada via the united states. Gun/fire-arm related crimes are not really on the rise in Canada anyway. I believe the whole fire-arm registry thing was done mostly at the request of the RCMP because they say it made their job easier in terms of tracking things down after crimes have happened and mostly relating to organized crime. I think the way it was set up was somewhat ill conceived.


Oddly abortion debates on AT result is very huge threads. My argument on the issue in Canada is generally that we have more important things to deal with and this shouldn't really be very high up on the agenda to begin with.

because she's the one in charge of killing the baby and has the right to refuse sex or it'll be called rape and they throw the man in jail.

meh, it used to be pretty routine for Mickster, Raves, or Patience to balete me every other day or so, so you would have had to have been really active to even notice that i was there.

kinda think that you should have noticed a few posts of mine, since your name kinda qualifies you as a color, but maybe those posts got baleted before you read the board, or i imagined making them. dunno.

don't technically know about your resolve to kill a woman that might've aborted your baby, since there seems to be a fair amount of baby killing done by males of different species of mammals in nature. cats having been one of the species that have been observed in killing every single male born from the previous leader of the pride, or so it's been told.

It is psychologically very traumatic for many women to give up a baby for adoption. Also, I hear that squeezing a bowling ball through your genitals is a lot of fun.

A woman who can not afford to care for a child though has the choice of abortion, adoption or not being able to provide for the child (even if your government will foot the bill while she is pregnant apparently). Her choices have no consequences (or if potentially could be considered murder in the third trimester), psychological trauma and physical ordeal, and dooming a child to a life of poverty. Given those choices one of them seems like by far the best option if the mother can't keep the child.

For medical reasons it seems like a no-brainer. We could trade the life of a person with a family and friends for that of a fetus which knows nothing and no one, wouldn't have a mother and might not survive anyways or we could save the mother's life.

Here is my thoughts on abortion. Basically I cannot bring myself morally to approve of abortions even in the case of rape and incest unless they could permanently infirm or kill the mother.

qzjul makes the argument that we kill animals with higher brain functions. While that is true it IS illegal to kill almost any animal with a higher brain function for the sake of killing it. These fall under animal cruelty laws. It is illegal for you to kill your dog because it is inconvenient for you to keep it for instance. But moreover the argument that humans are different then animals and thus should be treated differently essentially holds true. There aren't any other animals that are self-aware or have the higher functions of humans. If another species gained sentience there's no question that they also would deserve every right humans have.

Ultimately we as society have to be the voice of beings and people who are incapable of standing up for themselves and unfortunately for the mother this would be the baby. I do not want to force any woman to do anything she doesn't want to do but unfortunately the woman is not the only human who's rights are in the equation here and quite frankly we are talking about life and death vs financial hardship/whatever other reason and in my opinion the former should trump the latter. I guarantee you the babies that would grow up to choose non-existence over a hard life would be extremely small.

You can legally cull animals in Canada, so long as it is done humanely. Remember this thread is about Canadian politics :P

On the micro level I agree with you completely Orkin, but I think most of the strong arguments to be made for pro-choice are seen on the macro level.

Some are talking about classifying what a human is via consciousness or whatnot, I think that is a delicate argument. If grandma is suffering some dementia, is she fair game? What about Mr. Car Accident victim in a coma...

I would classify myself as pro-life as I feel much as Orkin on the matters at hand, but I can see the other side. If humans have no soul and there is no afterlife, what is a human after all? I personally cannot see a religious person being pro-choice as they would feel a soul is there, but a secular person, what's it to them?

It does bring into question much deeper philosophical questions about the point of life, but why discuss that eh?

+1 for bonus points!

For rape and incest, I dont get punishing the baby for the crimes of the rapist. I'd be much more in favor of aborting the rapist then the baby...

If macro level arguments are made...should we off the homeless for the betterment of society? Should we sterilize those with IQ's below 80 because they have a higher chance at creating another like themselves? Humans that have a tendency towards addictions would likely pass it on to their offspring, wouldn't it be better for society to rid their gene-pool of that deficiency?

Macro level arguments don't really hold much water to me because that isn't the issue at hand. Any argument can be made in that fashion and something like what the Nazi's did would be classified as a macro level argument for ridding the world of Jews.

It does come down to the issue of what life is worth. Is a fetus actually a human? Do humans have souls? Is it murder to have an abortion?

These are the moral arguments that are the stop gap for this issue, not macro level arguments.

That is why we have living wills.



I am religious (Christian) and I am pro-choice for the first six months. By everything we know about people, there is no basis to consider a fetus to be a human until the third trimester. Caterpillars are not butterflies. Sperm are not fetuses are not babies.