There's been this sort of long standing mild tiff between the women who ran the local women's center here (before it was shut down by the BC Liars, along with our seniors' care facility. We're trying to re-open them as co-ops, but that's a different rant).

While everyone there has their views on different things, there seems to be two major trends within that group. One is I guess you could call the "secular" feminists, who are ardent supporters of the pro-choice movement and unconditionally support the current Same-Sex Marriage bill in the federal parliament.

The other group also considers itself feminist in some ways, but tends to be more "family-oriented" with some progressive religious women involved (like local Catholics). This group also supports SSM in principle, provided it is recognized in civil unions and that churches should not be forced to adopt it. These women tend to feel that choice ends at conception (except for life-threatening situations).

Don't get me wrong. This is by no means a hair pull. These two groups agree on just about everything else (including sex ed, birth control, etc.) and their differences haven't stopped them from running the center or working on other joint projects with the rest of the community.

But on these two main issues, some of the women of the first group say the others aren't really feminists because of their anti-abortion and conditional SSM position. Many women in the latter group see the many of the women in the first groups as dogmatic and not very realistic.

I'm certainly no wise guy on feminist and related thought. And, as said, this isn't some major rift in the community.

But with some of the stuff I happened to read here about the various waves, it seems that the term “feminism” means different things to different people. I’m just curious about how some people in this forum feel about this difference.

Of the face-off you're thinking about, you write:

quote:

---

The other group also considers itself feminist in some ways, but tends to be more "family-oriented" with some progressive religious women involved (like local Catholics). This group also supports SSM in principle, provided it is recognized in civil unions and that churches should not be forced to adopt it. These women tend to feel that choice ends at conception (except for life-threatening situations).

...

But on these two main issues, some of the women of the first group say the others aren't really feminists because of their anti-abortion and conditional SSM position. Many women in the latter group see the many of the women in the first groups as dogmatic and not very realistic.

---

To me, the position of the second group on SSM is not "conditional." It is entirely ok, and that is the way the law will read. I'm a feminist, but I am also a civil libertarian and a democrat, and so I believe deeply in the separation of church and state, which means I will always defend anyone's freedom of conscience, whether I agree with their funny faiths or not.

No democrat is ever going to force any church to perform SSM against its principles. I just don't think that that is an issue.

For me, though, women's freedom of reproductive choice is a bottom line. I wouldn't say that one can't be a feminist and still be anti-abortion, but I have to tell you that my mind is pretty closed on that issue after all these years.

quote:

---

Don't get me wrong. This is by no means a hair pull. These two groups agree on just about everything else (including sex ed, birth control, etc.) and their differences haven't stopped them from running the center or working on other joint projects with the rest of the community.

---

When setting aside the differences and looking at the good - as mentioned above - how they can get along to work toward a common goal - this to me is the new 3rd wave type of thinking. Each group having strengths and also holding other opinion differently than other people should not take away from the common goal - a better life for women, men, all mankind. My mother (60 yrs old) came from a time of drastic measures - us against them - type of attitude - they needed this thinking in order to be heard. I thank her for doing what she could to make changes and influence me and my 3 sisters. I have had chats with her about feminism, and a host of other things, but what keeps coming back to me is that all groups/generations/'waves' have strength to help, combining our strengths we can achieve our goals. I feel the word feminism does not cover the full expanse of all those strengths, as if we need a new word, created by all 3 waves to help us acknowledge and empower us all.

[ 28 March 2005: Message edited by: Ginger ]

[ 28 March 2005: Message edited by: Ginger ]

Edited to add: I work in various community groups and initiatives, such as our tenants' association and an anti-poverty coalition, with groups and people who aren't necessarily feminist, or anticapitalist per se.

And yes, it is "us" against "them" ... the only problem is how one defines us and them. Most of the younger movement activists I know tend to define it within a broader "altermondialiste", "anticapitalist" or "antiauthoritarian" framework, differing as to how feminism fits into all that. Nothing worth having has ever been won without some kind of fight.

[ 28 March 2005: Message edited by: lagatta ]

After all, abortion serves the selfish version of male libido as well, because if there is no moral barrier to abortion, men can adopt the Alfie lifestyle with no problems.

That said, I'm not a "pro-lifer". My (political and medical) view on abortion is simple: it has always existed and will always exist, no matter what legislation is enacted. I just want it to be safe for all women. I can't attach a moral right or wrong label to it, but I do have concerns about it - concerns that go in both directions.

I'm all in favour of everyone's deepest meditations on her/his own moral choices. But I will certainly fight any attempt to reinstate legislation that imposes someone else's morality in the abstract on anyone else's convictions of conscience, especially on any woman's.

[ 28 March 2005: Message edited by: Amy ]

Maybe it is true that us old grils are angrier on the subject because we know, we remember, what was done to young women in the name of "morality" when we were young, and worse, much worse, in the generations before us.

I think about life and death a lot m'self, and I have no grand theories that I would impose on anyone else -- quite the opposite. I just get more and more confused as I go deeper and deeper.

But I still think it remains a woman's choice to procreate or not (in so far as her biology so permits). That involves a lot of factors - as you know the fight for free or almost-free daycare is a huge one here for parents to be able to have the children they want. But the fight for abortion and contraceptive rights has also been a key rallying point from Morganthaler to Chantal Daigle.

I don't care for "Alfie" types because they are alienated and oppressive, consuming other human beings as commodities. But I don't think it is only men who may be averse to procreating - I certainly never had any desire to, and know several other women who feel the same.

Also know quite a few younger people - women and men - who would like to be parents but whose financial and social situation makes it practically impossible, or would impose great hardship on their progeny.

I'm not really concerned very much about the type of moral issues you raise, but certainly understand that others may be. I've seen people - in "real life" and even on this board - who have gone ahead with rearing children even though they were under conditions I would find appalling, without the social support of a partner or close friends and relatives, and without secure employment.

quote:

---

Originally posted by skdadl:
Maybe it is true that us old grils are angrier on the subject because we know, we remember, what was done to young women in the name of "morality" when we were young, and worse, much worse, in the generations before us.

---

Skdadl, lagatta, I admit this is a big problem - the disconnect between what second wavers see as "the" issue for feminists for all of the excellent reasons, versus the realities faced by women who are now in their 20s and 30s. For us, birth control is just a part of life, as ubiquitous as toothpaste. Not necessarily foolproof, but a given. The bigger problem as it appears to many women in my cohort is - and lagatta expressed it well: am I ever going to be able to do something human like have a baby, and not scuttle my education and career plans?

OK, this might just be another middle-class concern, but the problem is only compounded when there's massive student debt - how many students finish their studies with the equivalent of a mortgage? And often when the graduating students are in a relationship, they receive job offers in completely different locations....

I've also talked to many of my colleagues who are raising small children and whose parents are at the other end of the life cycle, starting to have severe medical problems and issues that require massive care...add to this the fact that they are working in demanding jobs, maintaining a house, and often have parents living several hours away. One of my vet colleagues said to me the other day that one of her biggest fears is that the health care system just won't be there for her family when they need it (her mother suffers from reduced mobility and has contracted a very serious infection from the hospital.)

I live with this anxiety too, somewhat, but thankfully my parents both have a santé de fer. It's not surprising that end-of-life issues are completely eclipsing abortion at this stage. And that having babies is viewed as a luxury rather than a burden.

[ 29 March 2005: Message edited by: brebis noire ]

For those who don't know, GAP is a private American organization that displays huge, blown up pictures of aborted fetus' juxtaposed with pictures of genocides (like Holocaust victims and victims from the recent genocides in Rwanda).

Our Womens' Centre held a counter demonstration type thing of course - couches, cookies, condoms, etc - but it was still terrible for me to know that this organization had gained access to our campus public space because a group of fellow students had invited them. And there was no way to ban them without them resorting to legal action.

Anyway, it was interesting because one of my class mates, who is also a self-described feminist - is also anti-choice because of her strict Catholic upbringing. I couldn't understand how she could claim to be both feminist and anti-choice in one breath. Our discussion of course led nowhere. But, for me,it affirmed my staunch pro-choice position, one that stems from my own struggles as a teenaged parent and single mother. Women who are anti-choice go on and on about the sacredness of life, but where are they when you need someone to babysit your kid so that you can go to a job interview?

Until women don't need abortions, because motherhood is treated with the respect it deserves (meaning we adopt a national childcare plan, a guaranteed minimum income etc etc etc) Choice is essential. Any "feminist" who is anti-choice understands very little about feminism.

[ 29 March 2005: Message edited by: Granola Girl ]

[ 29 March 2005: Message edited by: Granola Girl ]

I am encouraged by the women that are a generation behind me, the issues they bring reflect the changes in the world that I might not be aware of and sometimes where rights that were won are losing ground.

For example:
I am growing alarmed at the current trend in pharmacists to opt out of the Plan B pill, either because they do not want to spend the time counselling a woman or on religious grounds. A couple in northern Manitoba are also refusing to sell birth control. As Plan B becomes available over the counter, I wonder what other hurdles government will put in place to placate the right.

Then there is the religious right, who are developing strategies for the courts to limit or deny a woman's right to contol her body. This way they believe that they can avoid those pesky politicans.

quote:

---

the foetus is worthy of protection, then laws against abortion do not create 'victimless crimes' as laws against homosexual relations between consenting adults do.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
How nice, with the article we get 2 slams for the look of one. In this article- linked above- we get slamming of pro-choice peoples and homosexuals all in one sentence.

---

I think you ought to re-read the article again more carefully.

The quote you puled out of context is missing a VERY important word. That word is "If"

Here is what it sounds like with that simple two letter word re-inserted:

"If the foetus is worthy of protection, then laws against abortion do not create 'victimless crimes' as laws against homosexual relations between consenting adults do."

To avoid further confusion, let me just simply state that Peter Singer (and I) do not agree that "the foetus is worthy of protection". The reference to "victimless crimes" is in quotations because it is refering to a notion that is held in society and not one necessarily held by the author of the article.

I guess I should be more careful about posting links to difficult articles.

[ 31 March 2005: Message edited by: gabong ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anchoress:
After carefully reading the brief article, I am left thinking Peter Singer suggests people defend abortion on the strength of the assertion that being human doesn't confer upon one any special rights?

.

---

Sorry. But you are just not reading it correctly.

In fact, Singer is saying that (in the abortion question)it exactly the question of being human that confers a right to life.

As simply stated as possible: Peter Singer is Not anti-abortion.

All that he is questioning is the value of the label “pro-choice”. He says that "pro-choice" does not address the most cenrtral and important element of the debate.

He states that the central argument against abortion could be phrased as the following syllogism:

(a)It is wrong to kill an innocent human being

(b)A human foetus is an inniocent human being

(c)Therefore, it is wrong to kill a human foetus

Peter Singer’s contention is that premise (B) is false. So, his conclusion would be that it is NOT wrong to kill a human foetus

quote:

---

Originally posted by gabong:
Sorry. But you are just not reading it correctly.

---

Oh, thanks for clearing that up.

quote:

---

Originally posted by gabong:
Peter Singer’s contention is that premise (B) is false.

---

OK, I was thinking of this:

quote:

---

Those who wish to deny the foetus a right to life may be on stronger ground if they challenge the first, rather than the second, premiss of the argument set out above.

If, on the other hand, 'human' is taken to mean no more than 'member of the species Homo sapiens', then it needs to be shown why mere membership of a given biological species should be a sufficient basis for a right to life.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by gabong:
As for the conclusion that Peter Singer is "not a philosopher" but "just a moral relativist", well, that seems rather glib to me.

---

As for Anchoress being 'glib', I always thought she was rather thoughtful.

quote:

---

Originally posted by catje:
What is also troubling about the singer article, as remind pointed out, is the reference to homosexuality as a crime. 'Victimless', but a 'crime'.

---

There is a reson why the phrase "victimless crime" is in quotation marks.

You are mistakenly mixing Singer's analysis of some public opinion with Singer's own personal opinion.

If I had known that this little article would have created such confusion, I would not have posted it.

Anyway, when you want to examine the philosophical foundation of morals, you don't start out with the morals you like and then find ways to prop it up. Instead, you start out by examining the basic premises and then see if then can support your morality.

That is why I think it is a good question to ask: "Is a foetus a human life?"

That question seems to be ignored if we only focus on the label "pro-choice".

If a mother was sick and tired of her 1 year old baby, we would not think it morally acceptable for her to kill it. Why? Because the baby is a human individual with human rights.

Therefore, using the same standard, if a foetus is proven to be a human life, then abortion is wrong. The "free choice" of the woman should not trump the life of another human.

But, this is just an exercise in reasoning. Because (As Peter Singer says) the foetus is not a fully formed human.

I also do not believe that a foetus is a human with human rights. So, I am not anti-abortion.

quote:

---

Originally posted by catje:
What is also troubling about the singer article, as remind pointed out, is the reference to homosexuality as a crime. 'Victimless', but a 'crime'.

---

Ummmm, but it says that laws against homosexuality create a "victimless crime". It doesn't say that homosexuality is a crime, it says that when governments make it a crime, by putting it in Criminal Codes, etc, they are creating a criminal offence for which there is no victim.

Also, IMO, Singer's arguments surrounding the need to define what a human being is in order for pro-choice decisions to be valid, is in error. We have a definition. As such, all the superficial wording of his is actually, again IMO, is cleverly stating pro-choice people are/could be wrong in their belief that the host's rights exceed that of the developing potential life.

Singer's words by no means make it clear that he is pro-choice. In fact, I would say quite the opposite.

Also, why would he include homosexuality in a treatise on abortion, the 2 have nothing to do with another?

Gabong asks:
How can you analyze society and/or law without using their words?

Remind said:
If the state makes laws saying that homosexuality is wrong, it is a crime with victims. There is no crime without victims. To me, and I mean to me, it suggests that homosexuals would not be victimized by such a crime.

Gabong replies:
I think you are turning this into a red herring. Singer did not make any judgment on homosexuality. (see post by andrewtgsadler above) To debate this any further is to give credence to a non-existent issue.

Remind said:
Also, IMO, Singer's arguments surrounding the need to define what a human being is in order for pro-choice decisions to be valid, is in error. We have a definition.

Gabong replies:
We have a definition. Yes. We also have definitions of other words such as "justice" and "love". But what is wrong with re-subjecting our definitions to philosophical enquiry? And, obviously the whole world does not share the same definition for human life. So, a rational discussion into the nature of “human life” is not a pointless exercise.

Remind:
As such, all the superficial wording of his is actually, again IMO, is cleverly stating pro-choice people are/could be wrong in their belief that the host's rights exceed that of the developing potential life.

Gabong replies:
Yes, we could be wrong. Though, practically speaking, I doubt it about as much as I doubt the objective reality of my physical body. Though I see not harm in subjecting my beliefs to doubt. Doubt and rational enquiry is what ultimately leads to greater truth. Certainty only leads to ignorance.
Have you every debated with someone who has different politics than you and he/she is so certain of what he/she believes that he/she does not even really listen to another point of view.
The people who are most defensive about their opinions tend not to have thought carefully about them. If an opinion is worth keeping, subjecting it to doubt or investigation can only strengthen it. If the opinion fails to stand up to the test, it was not worth keeping anyway.

Remind says:
Singer's words by no means make it clear that he is pro-choice. In fact, I would say quite the opposite.

Gabong replies:
In fact, in this short little article, he neither states that he is "pro-choice" nor anti-abortion. The purpose of the article is not oratory. But let me assure you, Singer is VERY pro-choice.

Remind says:
Also, why would he include homosexuality in a treatise on abortion, the 2 have nothing to do with another?

quote:

---

Originally posted by catje:
As for Anchoress being 'glib', I always thought she was rather thoughtful.

---

I said that Singer is very "pro-choice". But, it is exactly that phrase that he is questioning.

"pro-choice" vs. "pro-life" seems to frame the debate in a manner than creates bad PR for those who support the right of a woman to have an abortion.

"Pro-choice" seems to ignore the question of life, and the juxtoposition of the two labels seems to suggest that a woman has the right to choose whether she wants to terminate a human life or not. Pointing to this is how "pro-life" people win converts to their belief.

And BTW, neither you, nor Singer, seem to concerned with woman's rights, and definitely do not seem to understand or even support a woman's right to choose to do whatever she wants with her body and life, as she is the one that bears the ultimate responsibility for her actions not anyone else.

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
So, you can take your dribbles about morality, and Singers article and say your supportive of woman somewhere else as far as I am concerned, because you are not IMO.

---

quote:

---

ER- have the internal differences of opinion in your local women's centre come up in any way related to the actions of the centre, or are they simply a regular point of discussion?

---

Hey, Catje. Thanks for asking. Right now, the center is closed. It was shut down last year by the BC Liar regime, just before our long-term seniors care facility was also closed (after the Liars said such things would not happen under their watch).

As far as I know, there were some strong disagreements on various matters relating to the operation of the center. But generally everything seemed to run smoothly and there were no complaints that I had heard.

I know the center offered some counseling services, including for pregnant women. I am told that abortion was discussed as an option, but other options were presented as well, and the women in question were encouraged to consider all aspects and options before making a decision.

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
My issue with the "victimless crime" statement was the fact that "victimless" was used. If the state makes laws saying that homosexuality is wrong, it is a crime with victims. There is no crime without victims. To me, and I mean to me, it suggests that homsexuals would not be victimized by such a crime.

---

Consenting homosexuals are victimized?!?! Count that among the things I never expected to read on babble.

Your last sentence here is precisely the point. Consensual homosexual sex between adults doesn't have victims. Calling it a crime doesn't change that. (Just like not calling something a crime doesn't mean there isn't a victim.)

Your second last sentence here is wrong. You can argue that there should be no crime without victims. But crime is defined by what the politicians right in criminal codes, not by whether or not there is a victim, making it possible to have crimes without victims.

So, I will try again, though the spirit of it may have lost its perspective for.

My point was that; making homosexuality a crime, when there are 2 consenting adults undertaking the freedom of living actions, is actually the crime being committed in my opinion. Not by those chosing to do what they have a right to do, but a crime by those who legistlate it as being a crime. As such, the 2 consenting adults have been victimized by those who are saying they are engaged in a criminal act when they are not.

So,it is not a victimless crime.

Perhaps this will help

Crime: An act committed or omitted in violation of a law forbidding or commanding it and for which punishment is imposed upon conviction.

For example, reading foreign newspaper is a crime in North Korea. That is a fact that has notjing to do with my sense of morality.

I think the idea you have in mind would be better expressed by "immorality". But, you have already told me that the question of abortion has nothing to do with morality, so I cannot imagine that it is a word you have any use for.

[ 02 April 2005: Message edited by: gabong ]

Your snipping at me by way of saying I have no use for morality has exposed you.

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
My point was that; making homosexuality a crime, when there are 2 consenting adults undertaking the freedom of living actions, is actually the crime being committed in my opinion. Not by those chosing to do what they have a right to do, but a crime by those who legistlate it as being a crime. As such, the 2 consenting adults have been victimized by those who are saying they are engaged in a criminal act when they are not.

So,it is not a victimless crime.

Also, I feel there cannot be a crime committed unless there are victims. No victims, means no crime was committed.

---

You're agreeing with the point Singer was making, then. (Well, not the point he was making about abortion, but the underlying premise about homosexuality -- that one reason it shouldn't be criminalized is that the act doesn't have a victim.)

The only way your last sentence makes sense is by saying that the perpetrators of victimless crimes are the victims of the criminalization of their act. That isn't what is generally meant when people call a crime "victimless" -- they aren't referring to the criminalization of the act being victimless, but to the act that has been criminalized being victimless.

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
As I thought gabong, you are not supportive of a woman's right to chose. You only feel you have a more clever way of expressing how wrong you personally feel it is.

Your snipping at me by way of saying I have no use for morality has exposed you.

Now piss off and leave me alone.

---

Yes, I am supportive of a woman's right to chose to have an abortion or not. What I have been trying to clarify is why I am supporive of that choice.

I support the right to chose abortion because I do not think that abortion is the killing of a human life.

I am just making it clear that I am not pro-abortion because I think that "choice" is the essential element of the debate. Clearly, it is not morally sufficient that a person has a right to do something because she/he has an inate right to "choose" what ever damn well pleases him or her.

Can you see the distinction?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anchoress:
gabong, what do you think abortion has to do with morality?

---

Its a moral question. The answer is not found in epirical observation of facts, nor of performing arithmetic with numbers. It is a moral question just like the question of capital punishment, deciding to eat meat, etc. etc.

Why would it not be a moral question?

I think that perhaps I am convoluting this issue by applying unbiased philosopical scrutiny to the terms.

Perhaps I have mistaken the purpose of this forum. Perhaps this forum is not the place to use doubt and inquiry to strengthen moral postions. Perhaps this forum is just a place to rally around unquestionable principles.

As a final point, let me again make it clear that I am completely for a woman's right to chose abortion. So, I do find it odd to see someone accuse me of the opposite without a shred of evidence.

[ 02 April 2005: Message edited by: gabong ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by gabong:
Its a moral question. The answer is not found in epirical observation of facts, nor of performing arithmetic with numbers. It is a moral question just like the question of capital punishment, deciding to eat meat, etc. etc.

---

OK, in a previous post you said it was enigmatic to think abortion has nothing to do with morality. I asked you how you saw abortion as being moral, and your answer is that it is a moral question. That doesn’t enlighten me as to your views on how abortion is a moral question.

quote:

---

Originally posted by gabong:
Why would it not be a moral question?

---

Answering a question with a question is not the same as answering a question with an answer.

quote:

---

Originally posted by gabong:
I think that perhaps I am convoluting this issue by applying unbiased philosopical scrutiny to the terms.

---

No, you’re not.

quote:

---

Originally posted by gabong:
Perhaps I have mistaken the purpose of this forum. Perhaps this forum is not the place to use doubt and inquiry to strengthen moral postions. Perhaps this forum is just a place to rally around unquestionable principles.

---

?? Now who's being glib?

quote:

---

Originally posted by gabong:
As a final point, let me again may it clear that I am completely for a wman's right to chose abortion. So, I do find it odd to see someone accuse me of the opposite without a shred of evidence.

---

You have just equated abortions as being equal to capital punishment and eating of meat. And state that is why it is a question or morality. All nicely tidied up with assurances ad naseum that you are supportive of a woman's right to chose.

None of your statements show any support for a woman's rights to chose, let alone any understanding of what a woman feels/perceives about it.

As I said before, IMO you feel you have a new and clever way of showing woman they have NO right of choice and would like tio direct the discussion into a position that morals, or lack thereof, have something to do with it.

quote:

---

I do not think that abortion is the killing of a human life

---

This and other statements, like

quote:

---

a woman's freedom over her own body

---

are a bit too absolute. Apparently, even some women need to be taught about the fact, that in the third trimester the thingy they are carrying around is already a BABY; no stupid rhethoric changes this fact.

The unforgivable mistake of the Liberals (and of the NDP) to rule out categorically any regulation of abortion in federal law gives only fuel to the religions bigotry's machinery, which uses the "baby" argument rightfully for certain situations, and generalizes this - they want a total ban on abortion.

quote:

---

Probably many people do not know, that factually there are no late-term abortions in Canada (except for medically justified cases), due to provincial regulations. Accordingly, to limit the legal abortions to some periods of the pregnancy (for example unlimited in the first trimester, limited to whatever reasons in the second and outlawed in the third) would not change anything on the current praxis, but it would take the wind from the bigotry's sail.

---

Apparently, gCato, you condescending twit, you "need to be taught" that MOST feminists certainly already knew that there are no "late-term" abortions in Canada except for medically justified cases, and FURTHERMORE that the whole issue of "partial-birth" abortions is a propaganda ploy of the extreme right and Christian fundamentalists to scare people into thinking that pro-choicers are just aching to murder viable babies.

Why would we need to legislate against something that is no more than a paranoid fantasy, or a cynical red herring?

quote:

---

Apparently, gCato, you condescending twit, you "need to be taught" that MOST feminists certainly already knew that there are no "late-term" abortions in Canada except for medically justified cases

---

Apparently you need to be taught to comprehend posts at least to that degree, that you know what you are responding to.

You are referring to MOST feminists; I mentioned
Probably many people do not know. I am very lucky to tell you, that MOST people are not feminists (and more and more become disgusted with the so-called feminist attitudes).

quote:

---

The only bigotry that needs exposing is that of condescending twits who believe that women "need to be taught" about their own autonomy by condescending twits

---

It obviously needs some uncommonly high brain-power to realize, that unqualified statements (i.e. those without any restriction), like I do not think that abortion is the killing of a human life are just the proof, that some women do need to be taught on this area.

quote:

---

Why would we need to legislate against something that is no more than a paranoid fantasy, or a cynical red herring?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by gCato:
Here I have to mention another implication: because of the lack of this law, a doctor performing a late-term abortion in his kitchen could not be prosecuted for any criminal activity.

---

*I suspect, however, that the physician might be exempt of this in the case that it was established that the pregnant woman's life was in immediate jeopardy and access to proper medical facilities could not be obtained.

[ 03 April 2005: Message edited by: Dex ]

[ 03 April 2005: Message edited by: Dex ]

quote:

---

the doctor would be subject to prosecution for medical malpractice

---

I don't think it would be an issue of medical malpractice, except if complications would arise and the woman would sue the doctor.

However, I think the doctor would risk his/her license, comparable to cases, when doctors write prescriptions for people they never saw.

This is not a forum for intelligent discussion. You are a man, and thus you will always be an ignorant twat who secretly hates women and wants to stop all abortion.

I am under an illusion too (I have been informed). I used to think that I was pro-choice. But I have been set straight by the good ladies of Babble who have explained to me that I am just a man who secretly hates abortion.

(2) Hm. All of this is immaterial, because, uh, wasn't your logic for legislating against late term abortions "To silence those, who use the lack of the legislation as argument for their purposes."

quote:

---

So, we should criminalize something that only takes place as a heroic measure to save a person's life?

---

Actually, even the struck-down abortion law contained the exception

has by certificate in writing stated that in its opinion the continuation of the pregnancy of the female person would or would be likely to endanger her life or health

i.e. not only for saving the life of the woman, but for not endangering her health otherwise.

quote:

---

the Supreme Court found unanimously (9-0) in 1991 that the fetus was not a person

---

It is an important decision. If the fetus were a person, the abortion even in case of life-threatening situation for the mother would pose a problem.

Nevertheless, it is irrelevant re the abortion in general. An animal is not a person either, still it is protected.

Another example: objects are not persons, but their theft is a criminal activity.

Many activities not involving persons except those committing the action are criminalized.

quote:

---

And yet it's the pro-choice people who need an eduction?

---

I fail to see any logical reasoning in the above.

quote:

---

It seems to me that you and the fundies are the ones in need of an education

---

quote:

---

All of this is immaterial, because, uh, wasn't your logic for legislating against late term abortions "To silence those, who use the lack of the legislation as argument for their purposes."

---

It may be immaterial for you. Good for you.

quote:

---

Look at those goal posts shift

---

The shifts are only in your mind, for you fail to comprehend what is said. Perhaps you don't even try to, because you need a pre-conceaved opinion to discuss with.

quote:

---

What you're doing here is trying awfully hard to cover up your real motivation for the legislation. Come on, let's not be ashamed of our own opinions!

---

LOL, that's really good.

quote:

---

I can assure you that I am not

---

quote:

---

Now, you have been scolded. So you really ought to piss off

---

I saw the warning above the entry:

Discuss feminist issues from a pro-feminist point of view

quote:

---

quoth OJ's limo driver:
Actually, even the struck-down abortion law contained the exception

has by certificate in writing stated that in its opinion the continuation of the pregnancy of the female person would or would be likely to endanger her life or health

i.e. not only for saving the life of the woman, but for not endangering her health otherwise.

---

quote:

---

if the fetus is not to be afforded protection as a human, what other animal would you suggest it be treated as? True, we have laws regarding the humane treatment of animals, but you are dissembling

---

The examples I provided have nothing to do with abortion. I showed, that parliament may outlaw even such actions, which don't cause any harm to "persons". If the mentioned examples were too deceiving for you, think of the criminal law re "common bowdy-house".

In other words, no matter if the foetus is a person or not, the abortion can be outlawed. However, it has to happen in a manner, which preserves the rights and dignity of the affected women.

If a woman has sufficient time and opportunity to terminate her pregnancy, then it can not be said, that denying her a late-term abortion violates her rights too much.

Btw, the heaven for neo-socialists, Sweden, sets this limit at 18 weeks (meaning 16 weeks pregnancy).

quote:

---

What you're emphasizing is how the legislation will change absolutely nothing about abortion as it is practiced today

---

According to my memory and to my post above, I explained, that the legislation would criminalize carrying out such abortions, which are not carried out today doe to provincial regulations, but which could be carried out otherwise.

quote:

---

that it is nothing more than a ruse that will be used as a wedge from which people like you will endeavor to further undermine legal access to abortions

---

Yeah, the "slippery slope". It is plain bullshit. As of now, the pro-life side keeps repeating, that Canada is one of only a very few countries (maybe only two?) on the world without abortion regulation - and they are right.

quote:

---

I am not familiar with the proposed legislation

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by skdadl:
Ethical Redneck wrote:

This group also supports SSM in principle, provided it is recognized in civil unions and that churches should not be forced to adopt it. These women tend to feel that choice ends at conception (except for life-threatening situations).

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

To me, the position of the second group on SSM is not "conditional." It is entirely ok, and that is the way the law will read.

---

SSM recognized in civil unions is not marriage at all, and that's not what the law will provide for. Civil unions are not in federal jurisdiction. They are, by definition, a second-class institution whose intention is to perpetuate and codify discrimination against gays and lesbians, unless they are also open to opposite sex couples and offered in addition to marriage, not instead of it.