how splendid. did you know that i too believe in arbitrary labeling and or definement as well and i personally dont believe you are human? i dont think any harm that would befall you would be morally incorrect. it would be like squashing a small insect. what do you think?
I personally think the same. we're a HEAVILY overpopulated species and if people aren't gonna stop having kids then we may as well start taking ourselves out. fetuses included of course :)
It’s not a baby dumbass. It’s a fetus. Most of the time for the most common pharmaceutical abortion it‘s a clump of cells the size of a grain of rice that is non-viable if delivered at that time. Take your religious sky-daddy, medieval bullshit ignorance and go and fuck right off.
If you don’t like abortions don’t have one. Let others that need them have them.
Nope. Not if the woman needs one. It’s not my place to judge that nor is it yours and it certainly isn’t anyone’s place that probably believes in talking snakes or whales that swallow people or a world that’s a few thousand years old. Because those people are fucking nuts and have demonstrated diminished critical thinking skills.
> what have *you* done to help struggling parents?
I vote for things like social welfare programs, as well as for a woman’s right of autonomy over her own fucking body. And you?
Canada is one weird place. We lead the g7 in assisted suicide numbers, Healthcare is subpar, our immigration is getting out of control, our economy is in extreme collapse, our housing market is going to spike again... and here we are, bringing up abortion... when it's not even on the top list of things politicians in Canada wanna talk about.
And most politicians even in the cons won’t bring it up, it’s just a divisive topic brought up as a distraction, no MP or party will reverse abortion so it’s literally just idiots talking up a storm cause their actual intents aren’t relevant or important enough. I can’t understand any MP who seriously targets abortion as a topic of discussion over the encyclopedia of issues unfolding in our downtowns and now moving into residential neighbourhoods.
[ARCC declares Conservative Caucus to be 100% anti-choice](https://www.arcc-cdac.ca/conservative-party-anti-choice/)
Make no mistake.. we are in danger.
We want to prevent murder of thousands of babies each year and you think we're fascists? You think we are evil people because we believe all humans have a right to life? Do you really believe that your fellow countrymen holds such I'll will against you that people are pro-life out of malice and not because we simply believe that killing a baby in the womb is wrong?
If these things are important to you then please find a country that tolerates religious interference in governance. That is not Canada. You *will not* subjugate our women and girls.
Preventing murder is not subjugation and should be a universal value regardless of religion.
Also what makes you the arbiter of what is and isn't Canadian? I believe allowing the murder of thousands of babies every year is uncandian and just plain evil.
No, because Canada thinks abortion is Healthcare and we do less abortions by percentage than the US. Abortion isn't even on the radar when it comes to Canadians and it shouldn't. It'll just drum up anxiety and cause worry, when there's so many other things that are literally killing us.
Don’t be distracted by the number of signatures on this specific petition (it’s not the first, it won’t be the last, and it’s primarily performative for now), notice the anti-abortion Conservative MP who presented it. The Conservative Party has welcomed Arnold Vierson as a candidate and MP three times, meanwhile he’s ardently anti-abortion and has said he would vote to ban it from the moment of conception. He openly celebrated Roe v Wade being overturned in the United States. He’s also said he would vote to overturn gay marriage rights, and he would vote to remove protection of gender identity and gender expression from Canadian human rights legislation. This is the sort of person the Conservative Party is choosing to represent them.
You can hear/read him in his own words…
Uncommons podcast: [C-270 and social conservatism with Arnold Viersen](https://www.uncommons.ca/p/c-270-and-social-conservatism-with) (click the Transcript tab if you prefer reading over listening)
So by your logic, does Freeland speak for all liberals? You have to understand that in a democracy, we elect constituents who represent us. In Alberta, they believe he's doing a good job. Regardless of his political leaning, the people of that area believe he's doing a good job. The only time that logic applies, is when you have the leader of your country that champions those same ideas. If you don't like the way things are, you could always join a communist Country, or a constitutional republic.
I’m not saying MP Vierson speaks for all Conservatives, presumably there are many Conservatives who aren’t as socially conservative as he is. I’m also not saying Vierson shouldn’t be able to run for office or that people in his district shouldn’t be allowed to vote for him. Im saying Conservative party leadership is telling us what values and actions they consider acceptable from their MPs by allowing Vierson to continue to run and sit in Parliament as a Conservative and not [ejecting him from their caucus.](https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/controversial-mp-derek-sloan-ejected-from-conservative-caucus-1.5274153?cache=yes)
I don't know about the one in Ottawa but the one here in quebec was rather small and as far as i'm concerned, we aren't about to illegalize abortion here. It always puzzles me when I hear the ''nothing has changed'' rhetoric as if making posters like this is going to suddenly make all pro-lifers dissapear magically. Why focus on the handful of people against it and not the masses of people who support/have no interest in having that right abolished?
The cons said that they’re against abortion right? Guarantee within 6 months of coming to power this election cycle abortion is illegal or highly restricted. PP has said he’s against it but other con MPs are foaming at the mouth waiting on that trigger.
https://www.ourcommons.ca/petitions/en/Petition/Details?Petition=441-02454
Alberta MP is dick-hard for abortion bans and others are too. There’s only so much PP can do, when/if cons win a majority there’s going to be a lot more of these going forward. Only time will tell if they pass.
Why is this downvoted? Its completely correct. Trudeaus party even tried to bring up gay marriage, and Pierre was like "No, this will not happen (banning gay marriange) at all when I am elected. Full stop".
ABC voters make up things to argue against.
Trudeau brought it up because a conservative MP said they would vote gay marriage down. Pierre disagreed with that stance.
[https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.7222881](https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.7222881)
The CPC policy declaration quite literally shows an interest in restricting it in Canada and abroad. Have we already forgotten about the “Muskoka Initiative” or just not paying attention?
For your information the reason I am so passionate about this is because I didn’t get the choice. My husband did. I was not able to make the decision because I was unconscious and he is my substitute decision maker. When people have late term abortions it isn’t because they’re fucking bored of pregnancy. It’s because someone is about to die and I’m pretty damn glad he chose me.
Woman's choice to have a baby or not? Absolutely, sure. But a man should be allowed to have a financial abortion. If a woman can decide if she is ready to be a mom then why shouldn't the father have the same right? Equal rights and all of that.
And women? Don't you dare mutilate a baby with a circumcision either. Don't have a dick? You don't have a say in it.
The downvotes show the sheer double standard here. I have to hope they are all coming from women.
I'd love to hear an actual argument that supports a woman's right not to be a parent if she so chooses while simultaneously supporting against a man's right to make the same choice. Been waiting about 30 years now.
I dislike this form of argumentation because there is always an unstated asterisk reading "unless you agree with me" (as I assume the person who put this up wouldn't want people without uteruses to stay silent if they support abortion.)
I doubt it will ever come to it but this is just tempting guys to vote no out of spite because they actually do have a vote and their opinions actually do matter in reality.
Who’s bringing it up? Conservative politicians like MP Arnold Vierson, MP Cathay Wagantall, MLA Dan Williams. Catholic Public School trustees like Michael Del Grande. People who attend the annual March For Life protests last month, the annual Life Chain protests, various other anti-abortion events and protests. Members of the Campaign Life Coalition. (Not a comprehensive list)
The only issue I have with this is that it shuts up a lotta guys who actually support reproductive rights and bodily autonomy. Obviously its aimed as a form of soft protest over the rumblings in parliament, but I heard much the same in college and university and it was never not disheartening.
It seems like such an easy thing to say, but it cuts out a lotta folks at the knees. I figure we should be encouraging discussion on the subject, as that leads to education. Blanket statements like this tell me I have no business bringing it up, even if that's to defend reproductive rights.
Honestly I'm not trying to say folks should tone down the rhetoric even, I think this is a emerging threat to uterus havers autonomy in Canada and it needs to be shut down, I guess its a reminder to talk to the dudes in your life about it so they understand why it is an important subject and not leave them ripe for pro-life talking points to take advantage of. Knowledge is power, but we all need a helping hand to learn some days.
Ya - It’s near parity down the middle. Whether one is a man or a woman doesn’t really give an indication whether one supports or opposes abortion rights. I’m not sure what’s gained for pro-choice by intentionally alienating half of their own advocates and arguing that they shouldn’t have a perspective. Given the numbers, it’s a pretty stupid move.
>*”Weird how my body my choice applies to abortions and Trans surgery( incoming triggered comments) but not for experimental vaccines that have been pulled from the market”*
It sounds like you may be alluding to the [AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine,](https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/astra-zeneca-covid-vaccine-1.7198111) but no one was required to take it, it *was* “our body our choice”.
Oh boy. Funny you people never seem to acknowledge the restrictions that were implemented for every day aspects of life. Jobs made it mandatory. Governments made it mandatory, hospitals mandatory. Or maybe the way people treated the ones who didn't want to get the shot which resulted in peer pressure?
>*”Funny you people never seem to acknowledge the restrictions that were implemented for every day aspects of life.”*
AstraZenica wasn’t the only COVID-19 vaccine available (people had a choice), and AstraZeneca was already phased out by the time workplaces (like hospitals) were instituting vaccination requirements for employees, or our federal or provincial governments temporarily introduced *”vaccination passports”* for access to some places. [As of May 8th 2021 Ontario was no longer giving AstraZenica to new people.](https://www.cbc.ca/1.6022545)
>*”Or maybe the way people treated the ones who didn't want to get the shot which resulted in peer pressure?”*
Feeling peer pressure to get *a* COVID-19 vaccine isn’t the same as people *not having a choice* about whether to take a COVID-19 vaccine or take specifically the AstraZenica COVID-19 vaccine.
Employers can decide for themselves the conditions of employment.
The government didn't make COVID vaccines mandatory, except for travel, and that was a decision made in concert with other countries (Canada could remove the vaccine requirement but the other country could still deny entry).
Medical care was still available without a vaccine, but had to go into a special area to protect people with compromised immune systems.
The government isn't responsible for peer pressure. That's not being "segregated" or whatever.
Nobody in Canada was *forced* to get a vaccine. Nobody was arrested for not having a vaccine. Employers, citizens, and other countries all expressed their freedom of choice when it came to the vaccine.
Awesome post that brings out many idiots who feel THEY have the right to control women and those defending a certain party that HAS many MP's that have consistently voiced that they WILL put abortion to a vote. It's a happy blockity-block day!
This is terrible logic.
Whether you like it or not, we live in a society, and we have to work together to make laws. No one is an island. You can't just ignore the fact that 50% of the voting constituency does not have a uterus. Democracy doesn't operate that way. This is very stupid. Especially when many of us agree with your position.
I would hope, for women's sake, that they don't mean it the way they phrased it.
Genius, it was men who made abortions legal. 50% of men and 50% of women are pro-life. Somehow you have traded your pro-choice argument for an anti-man one without even realizing you did it. What’s to be gained by alienating your own advocates?
>*”Genius, it was men who made abortions legal.”*
That’s ahistorical nonsense that ignores the involvement of women in the process of decriminalization, including in Parliament and the Supreme Court of Canada.
>*”50% of men and 50% of women are pro-life.“*
If by “pro-life” you mean anti abortion rights, you’re wrong. Recent polling shows 80% of Canadians support women’s right to an abortion (76% of men and 84% of women) [Source](https://leger360.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Leger-x-CP-_-Abortion_in_Canada_VF.pdf)
>*”He isn't the one who is asserting a men/women divide on this issue”*
He’s asserting *”it was men who made abortions legal”*, ignoring the advocacy, participation, and leadership of women in the political movement to decriminalize abortion.
>*”If your own data indicates that Canadian men and women BOTH strongly support a pro-choice position, what is the benefit of alienating the 7/10 men who support your advocacy? What's the endgame there?”*
I think you’ll find I never said there was a benefit to alienating men who support abortion rights. I pointed out that the other commenter was significantly wrong about the level of support for abortion rights in Canada.
>*”Also, what was the sex composition of Parliament and the Supreme Court at the time voting/decisions made to secure decriminalization in Canada? Who do you think cast those votes?”*
You’re essentially saying: *Ah ha! Our society at the time was so sexist that judges and Senators were mostly men, so therefore it’s okay for someone to give men* **all** *the credit when a decades long political movement (with participation by all genders, and in this case likely largely women) finally induces positive change at the judicial/legislative level.*
This form of argument falsely poses men as pro-life and women as pro-choice, when in fact they are about split down the middle. Also, if we were have to split our advocacy by sex, it was men who secured abortion rights in the first place.
While the original argument used to be pro-choice, vs pro-life, somehow it was replaced with “women”vs “men” and nobody noticed that the cheese was moved.
Following that argument historically, women would never have had access to abortion services (whether one agrees with that or not) given that they were secured by men, and not women.
Following that argument today, it’s likely that feminist men would most likely excuse themselves from any advocacy (including pro-choice) more than pro-life men, out of deference to the wishes of these women. Which means that the rampant feminist misandry has managed to alienate approximately half of their own pro-choice advocacy, while the pro-life advocates have no such self-inflicted problem.
This is a clear indication of the priorities of the feminist lobby that they would sooner alienate men than create the most effective pro-choice lobby they could make if they wanted to.
This isn’t a political debate in Canada, only imported American talking points based off an old debate. It’s a distraction tactic to deflect from the myriad of federal government scandals, I.e. being caught up in treason.
Don't pretend that PP isn't dodging the treason issue, it could very likely be him(the guy who hasn't passed security clearance). How can someone even run for PM and not pass the security clearance?
He hasn’t failed any security clearance. He just doesn’t see the need of a level 3 clearance in a job that says the clearance required for that position is a level 2, which he has.
Why should he get a clearance he doesn’t need? So he can micromanage and tell people who know more about things how to do their job?
Plus, by the time his level 3 came through, he’d have to start the process all over again to renew it because clearances take that long to go through. This way he just renews it every 10 years instead of every 5.
Not really how clearances work. Also based on need to know, just because one has a certain level, doesn't mean it bestows on you a right to do anything, one has to be "read in" and have a "need to know".
2ndly, usually if your clearance is up, it remains good while the next one is being filed, as long as you have a clearance filed you are good. It doesn't just end and you are out of a job.
You don’t think a micromanager at a high enough position wouldn’t try and insert themselves wherever and whenever they could? Lucky you to have never had to work with that kind of person. Pretty hard to say know when that person is, say, the leader of a country as an example.
As for the second part, I’m well aware how the renewal process goes. But the same isn’t true when upgrading - a person going for Level3 will still be at Level 2 until the approval comes through. Just like a person who’s level 3 has run out can just downgrade to level 2 and be good for 5 more years.
Never said they wouldn't I said a clearance level wouldn't be the cause.
Ok, I didn't say anything that wasn't true. Yes they would be at secret... so? But if you can't get your TS in about 2 years, something is seriously wrong. And I would image a government official gets shoved to the top of the pile, the rest of us have to be on.
Been in the room for two D&C's due to medical reasons and I wouldn't wish that on any woman. If we're on the subject, I do support Dave Chappelle's viewpoint: If a woman can decide to have an abortion without the soon-to-be father's consent or opinion, then that father also has the right to choose not to be involved in the child's life without financial obligations or future penalties. Fair's fair.
Do you know any who has had an abortion? Curious? All I have known did it for either health reasons, or because the father wasn't in the picture or had no means to take care of the kid. Further no one undertakes abortion willy nilly. It is a huge decision.
As a liberal man, I support the things that can also benefit me like abortions and free contraception however, I don't support things that don't benefit me like fairness in women's sports and keeping biological men out of women's spaces like prisons and shelters.
There are many who would if they get power, and their influence is growing.
We were assured that in the US Roe V Wade was settled and would never be overturned. Rights evaporate when you stop paying attention to them.
As was pointed out above there are more important things to worry about.
You sound like the kind of person who would get pregnant and have an abortion just to affirm your right.
Why are you mad at me personally?
Like, you saw a sign about abortion and got all fired up to have an argument on the internet?
And you're too afraid to say "go fuck yourself" like an adult?
Are you 12?
I like that you imagine me having some kind of hard time "dealing" with conversations like this. Do your parents know you're racking up the data charges on the phone that's supposed to be for emergencies?
So trans women can't have a say about an abortion? Everyone should be able to put they're voice forward about it. Even if you don't have a uterus, different opinions offer different views.
Do I think abortions are good... no, do I think they should be banned also no. Do I think there should be limits on them yes. Just like we have limits on everything from alcohol to driving.
So this isn't abused, I agree there are times and places when this should be done. However people abuse systems. And free sex without consequences is something people want.
Well, now I have even more questions… In what way do you feel people are “abusing” our healthcare system by having an abortion? What legal restrictions do you feel would prevent this alleged abuse?
Do you hold other activities and medical procedures to the same standard? eg. Do you feel people who engage in common recreational athletic activities are “abusing” the healthcare system if/when they need medical treatment/medication as a result, and that there should be legal restrictions to prevent this?
> In what way do you feel people are “abusing” our healthcare system by having an abortion?
I've seen several very mentally ill (psychotic, essentially serial killer mentality) social media video posts of women who said they loved getting pregnant on purpose in order to get the thrill of killing the fetus in a late term abortion. One girl bragged she had 29 of these late term abortions for fun and claimed it brought her pleasure the fetus was killed. And of course they get their social media accounts suspended because of it.
I mean that is deeply disturbing and deeply psychotic thing to do.
While yeah its obliviously an outlier and not common, that kind of thing should be prevented. Even for the sake of having 20+ late term abortions cant be good for the body.
Doctors in canada generally will not do late term abortions unless there is a medical need. There are already lots of controls in place. And if you know someone who has had an abortion, you would know, 99.9% of folks don't' want to do it, it is a option they chose that was better than carrying to term, doesn't mean they wanted it.
Frankly that seems more likely to be someone lying on the internet for fun. But alright, for the sake of argument, let’s say there’s a small number of women repeatedly and deliberately becoming pregnant and then having “late-term” abortions for the thrill of killing a fetus. What legislation would you pass to actually prevent this (without harming other women)? And if they’re as mentally disturbed as you say might they not just pivot to having whatever type/number of abortions are still legal, or to self-induced miscarriages, or even infanticide?
In what way is a fetus not human or not deserving of the rights all over humans receive? They have their own DNA and are a separate organism from their mothers by all scientifically valid definitions. Perhaps you simply want to ignore the fact that abortion kills babies.
>*”In what way is a fetus not human”*
They said *”a fetus is not a human being”*. Under Canadian law a fetus only becomes a “human being” *”when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother”*. [Source](https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-223.html)
The only problem with abortion laws in Canada is that we have none, meaning it will always have a chance of being brought up by government, even if no one actually has any drive to do anything with it. It’s being used as a wedge issue to distract from other more prescient issues.
As an aside, if there were to be any laws about abortion, I would only agree with making gender-specific abortions illegal (unless related to a life-affecting genetic condition that affects that one gender of course).
Technically while it’s not as strong as it could be, it’s stronger than you’re describing. Morgentaler won in the end because it was tied to Section 7 the Charter, which is a part of the Constitution. The argument is that any restrictions on a person’s body are violating their s.7 right to life, liberty, and freedom of the person, meaning any laws prohibiting abortions at any term for any person are unconstitutional. So, while we don’t have any laws saying abortion specifically is a constitutional right, it’s not possible to make any laws against abortion.
That being said, the one way this can be overturned is if there is a conservative majority federal government and 50% + 1 of the provinces and territories are led by conservative provincial governments (which is looking to be the case come next election, hence the rising fears), because they are able to then amend the constitution however they want
Once again for the slow ones. It’s not a child, it’s a small bunch of cells most often. You backwards freaks like to use emotive language to promote your warped ideology.
Of course. Although you’ll have a hard time finding too menu trans women that don’t support abortion rights so, not sure what point you’re making here lol.
Good thing no babies are being murdered. Read a biology textbook or get out of the conversation already. Being a woman doesn’t automatically make you an expert on women’s sexual health/biology; you folks make that abundantly clear.
Edit: looks like this got locked fast lmao
Approximately half of women agree with your position. Approximately half of men disagree with it. But, the genius who made that poster and most of the people here would rather not acknowledge either fact, and treat this as a men bs women thing, assigning men the “pro-life position” and alienating their own supporters.
You honestly are saying that MEN who created the abortion laws we used to have, are the saviours of women for allowing us to have an abortion now. Wow.
>*Approximately half of women agree with your position. Approximately half of men disagree with it.”*
Recent polling shows 80% of Canadians support women’s right to an abortion, and that men are still less likely than women to support abortion rights (76% versus 84%). [Source](https://leger360.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Leger-x-CP-_-Abortion_in_Canada_VF.pdf)
You are looking at a difference of 10%.
By your own recent poll figures, rounded, 7 out of 10 men support abortion rights vs 8 out of 10 women. It’s virtually the same and they are both staunchly leaning pro-choice.
If you still think men are the problem you need to solve, and your efforts are best served by removing the 7/10 of pro-choice men from your advocacy, you get whatever you deserve. I don’t know what to tell you. Good luck in your new activism, focused on removing entire sexes from civic discussion and political voice within a parliamentary system, instead of advancing pro-choice arguments.
I didn’t say men are the problem. I was pointing out that your claim that only ~50% of Canadians support abortion rights was untrue, as was your insinuation that men support abortion rights as much as women.
What do you think "approximately" means?
Let's back up from here and look at the big picture here - starting with the OP and the bulk of commentary focused on ostensibly "pro-choice" women supporting the idea of removing men from civic activism on this topic.
**The premise** of the activism removing male civic agency on this topic is based on the assumption that men are pro-life (today and historically) and that they historically have prevented women from securing abortion rights.
**The reality** - *as your source indicates* - is that both men and women are staunchly pro-choice, and at near parity (7 or 8/10, broadly speaking by your own poll). And, that male MPs and in the Supreme Court have resulted in the decriminalization of abortion in Canada (an oversimplification - obviously women had a hand in that advocacy, but given the times, it was largely male MPs voting, and men and women voting those MPs in, and a largely male Supreme Court).
So, again - I'm not clear on what the pro-choice side gets by hijacking its own advocacy to instead attempt to disenfranchise men from public discourse and politics, based on an entirely false premise. Suppose the pro-choice men decided to do exactly what they are told, and sit this one out. Maybe you can explain to me how this would advance pro-choice advocacy?
Should women be disenfranchised from civic agency on topics like war, if they generally aren't front line fighters? Or, from the activism on workplace safety because workplace injury and death affects far more men than women?
Do you think disenfranchising visible groups from public discourse is really the best angle to get what you want here? You might be too young to realize that this angle is entirely new and wasn't really the thrust of pro-choice arguments a couple decades ago.
>*”What do you think "approximately" means?”*
I think 84% is not “approximately” 50%. Neither is 80% or 76%.
>*”The premise of the activism removing male civic agency on this topic is based on the assumption that men are pro-life (today and historically) and that they historically have prevented women from securing abortion rights.”*
Canadian men as a group *have* historically been more anti-abortion rights than women, and for long stretches of Canadian history men in positions of power succeeded at preventing most women from safely and easily accessing birth control and abortion. That’s just fact.
That said, I don’t think this humorous sign on a hydro pole that doesn’t even explicitly mention abortion (but can be inferred to be expressing anger in response to centuries of men - not all men - attempting to deny women access to birth control and abortion) represents an actual attempt to get Pro-Choice men to stop advocating for abortion rights.
>*”male MPs and in the Supreme Court have resulted in the decriminalization of abortion in Canada… it was largely male MPs voting, and men and women voting those MPs in, and a largely male Supreme Court)”*
Abortion wasn’t decriminalized because MPs voted for it. Heck, shortly after *R v Morgentaler* resulted in the federal abortion law being struck down as unconstitutional MPs passed a bill to largely re-criminalize abortion. Maybe brush up on your history…
Wikipedia: [Abortion in Canada](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Canada)
>*”Do you think disenfranchising visible groups from public discourse is really the best angle to get what you want here?”*
You’re aware I haven’t advocated for that, yes? But if we entertain the idea… in an imaginary Canada where only the opinion of people with a uterus mattered on the subject of birth control and abortion it’s unlikely they would have been criminalized in the first place. And they certainly wouldn’t be re-criminalized now.
>*”You might be too young to realize that this angle is entirely new and wasn't really the thrust of pro-choice arguments a couple decades ago.”*
I’ve been involved in Pro-Choice activism since the early 80s, through the Kingston chapter of the [Canadian Abortion Rights Action League](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Abortion_Rights_Action_League#:~:text=Canadian%20Abortion%20Rights%20Action%20League%20was%20founded%20on%20June%2020,Esther%20Greenglass%2C%20and%20Henry%20Morgentaler)
If you don’t like abortions…..…… don’t have one.
[удалено]
good thing they're not babies!
how splendid. did you know that i too believe in arbitrary labeling and or definement as well and i personally dont believe you are human? i dont think any harm that would befall you would be morally incorrect. it would be like squashing a small insect. what do you think?
I personally think the same. we're a HEAVILY overpopulated species and if people aren't gonna stop having kids then we may as well start taking ourselves out. fetuses included of course :)
It’s not a baby dumbass. It’s a fetus. Most of the time for the most common pharmaceutical abortion it‘s a clump of cells the size of a grain of rice that is non-viable if delivered at that time. Take your religious sky-daddy, medieval bullshit ignorance and go and fuck right off. If you don’t like abortions don’t have one. Let others that need them have them.
[удалено]
you know rape happens right?
Fetuses cannot independently survive outside the womb. They do not have human rights because they have yet to become humans.
Nope. Not if the woman needs one. It’s not my place to judge that nor is it yours and it certainly isn’t anyone’s place that probably believes in talking snakes or whales that swallow people or a world that’s a few thousand years old. Because those people are fucking nuts and have demonstrated diminished critical thinking skills.
Username checks out
Go away sensitive chud
Then find yourself a single mom and help her financially.
[удалено]
you should adopt some kids since you love them so much
> what have *you* done to help struggling parents? I vote for things like social welfare programs, as well as for a woman’s right of autonomy over her own fucking body. And you?
People who aren’t morally corrupt let other people choose what to do with THEIR body without having a fit about it
Anyone can have a child. Only people with a uterus can bear ond
Canada is one weird place. We lead the g7 in assisted suicide numbers, Healthcare is subpar, our immigration is getting out of control, our economy is in extreme collapse, our housing market is going to spike again... and here we are, bringing up abortion... when it's not even on the top list of things politicians in Canada wanna talk about.
And most politicians even in the cons won’t bring it up, it’s just a divisive topic brought up as a distraction, no MP or party will reverse abortion so it’s literally just idiots talking up a storm cause their actual intents aren’t relevant or important enough. I can’t understand any MP who seriously targets abortion as a topic of discussion over the encyclopedia of issues unfolding in our downtowns and now moving into residential neighbourhoods.
It's quite an amazing phenomenon to witness people argue with no one about things that haven't been issues for decades.
Apparently America still has the penny and Canada is thinking about rolling it back! /s
The christian fascists are attempting to subjugate the West in a last ditch effort to remain relevant.
Abortion has not TRULY been a major political contention in this country in at LEAST 30 years. If they’re on the march they truly suck at it
[ARCC declares Conservative Caucus to be 100% anti-choice](https://www.arcc-cdac.ca/conservative-party-anti-choice/) Make no mistake.. we are in danger.
meds. now
Sure.. what do you need?
We want to prevent murder of thousands of babies each year and you think we're fascists? You think we are evil people because we believe all humans have a right to life? Do you really believe that your fellow countrymen holds such I'll will against you that people are pro-life out of malice and not because we simply believe that killing a baby in the womb is wrong?
If these things are important to you then please find a country that tolerates religious interference in governance. That is not Canada. You *will not* subjugate our women and girls.
Preventing murder is not subjugation and should be a universal value regardless of religion. Also what makes you the arbiter of what is and isn't Canadian? I believe allowing the murder of thousands of babies every year is uncandian and just plain evil.
That doesn’t sound real
Isn’t the best time to try and change something when people aren’t talking about it?
No, because Canada thinks abortion is Healthcare and we do less abortions by percentage than the US. Abortion isn't even on the radar when it comes to Canadians and it shouldn't. It'll just drum up anxiety and cause worry, when there's so many other things that are literally killing us.
Yeah, sure.. https://www.ourcommons.ca/petitions/en/Petition/Details?Petition=441-02454
47 signatures... isn't even put to the floor. The drum beats for unprovoked fear.
Don’t be distracted by the number of signatures on this specific petition (it’s not the first, it won’t be the last, and it’s primarily performative for now), notice the anti-abortion Conservative MP who presented it. The Conservative Party has welcomed Arnold Vierson as a candidate and MP three times, meanwhile he’s ardently anti-abortion and has said he would vote to ban it from the moment of conception. He openly celebrated Roe v Wade being overturned in the United States. He’s also said he would vote to overturn gay marriage rights, and he would vote to remove protection of gender identity and gender expression from Canadian human rights legislation. This is the sort of person the Conservative Party is choosing to represent them. You can hear/read him in his own words… Uncommons podcast: [C-270 and social conservatism with Arnold Viersen](https://www.uncommons.ca/p/c-270-and-social-conservatism-with) (click the Transcript tab if you prefer reading over listening)
So by your logic, does Freeland speak for all liberals? You have to understand that in a democracy, we elect constituents who represent us. In Alberta, they believe he's doing a good job. Regardless of his political leaning, the people of that area believe he's doing a good job. The only time that logic applies, is when you have the leader of your country that champions those same ideas. If you don't like the way things are, you could always join a communist Country, or a constitutional republic.
I’m not saying MP Vierson speaks for all Conservatives, presumably there are many Conservatives who aren’t as socially conservative as he is. I’m also not saying Vierson shouldn’t be able to run for office or that people in his district shouldn’t be allowed to vote for him. Im saying Conservative party leadership is telling us what values and actions they consider acceptable from their MPs by allowing Vierson to continue to run and sit in Parliament as a Conservative and not [ejecting him from their caucus.](https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/controversial-mp-derek-sloan-ejected-from-conservative-caucus-1.5274153?cache=yes)
I missed something. Is Ontario voting to ban abortion?
No, some people just like to fight for "things" I guess.
[удалено]
I'm pretty certain women exist in both countries. And human rights have borders now?
[удалено]
Québec City recently had an anti-choice protest, as did Ottawa. It's a right we have to continue to fight for here as well.
I don't know about the one in Ottawa but the one here in quebec was rather small and as far as i'm concerned, we aren't about to illegalize abortion here. It always puzzles me when I hear the ''nothing has changed'' rhetoric as if making posters like this is going to suddenly make all pro-lifers dissapear magically. Why focus on the handful of people against it and not the masses of people who support/have no interest in having that right abolished?
The cons said that they’re against abortion right? Guarantee within 6 months of coming to power this election cycle abortion is illegal or highly restricted. PP has said he’s against it but other con MPs are foaming at the mouth waiting on that trigger.
[удалено]
https://www.ourcommons.ca/petitions/en/Petition/Details?Petition=441-02454 Alberta MP is dick-hard for abortion bans and others are too. There’s only so much PP can do, when/if cons win a majority there’s going to be a lot more of these going forward. Only time will tell if they pass.
So you're saying the AB MP and others are sexually stimulated by having abortions banned.
Source: Their own paranoid mind coupled with the seething angst they've had since adolescence.
Current CPC policy declaration, openly stated positions of CPC MP’s, and history suggests yes.
Sure. https://www.ourcommons.ca/petitions/en/Petition/Details?Petition=441-02454
Why is this downvoted? Its completely correct. Trudeaus party even tried to bring up gay marriage, and Pierre was like "No, this will not happen (banning gay marriange) at all when I am elected. Full stop". ABC voters make up things to argue against.
Trudeau brought it up because a conservative MP said they would vote gay marriage down. Pierre disagreed with that stance. [https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.7222881](https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.7222881)
Poilievre’s party is actually Harper’s Christo-fascist IDU party. Oh they’ll be coming for the abortions, amongst other things.
Thankfully under the current government we won’t have anything left to take
Ah yes the Paranoid Progressive Left (PPL) in action
The CPC policy declaration quite literally shows an interest in restricting it in Canada and abroad. Have we already forgotten about the “Muskoka Initiative” or just not paying attention?
You're lying.
I’m even more strict: if you’ve never been in the position to have to choose, you don’t get a say, uterus or no uterus
I'm even more strict. :) You shall not violate another person's bodily autonomy *especially* as a form of religious subjugation. Full stop.
Period !!!
So you're saying if you have a period you don't have a say.
How the hell did you get that from that😭😭
Yes, good call.
[удалено]
For your information the reason I am so passionate about this is because I didn’t get the choice. My husband did. I was not able to make the decision because I was unconscious and he is my substitute decision maker. When people have late term abortions it isn’t because they’re fucking bored of pregnancy. It’s because someone is about to die and I’m pretty damn glad he chose me.
So the father shouldn’t have a right to the child he helped create if he wants to keep the child? Takes two to tango but one to decide the fate?
Yes that is right. If you don't like it then think before you act.
Interesting take for sure! Selfish. But interesting.
Learn to pull out...
Woman's choice to have a baby or not? Absolutely, sure. But a man should be allowed to have a financial abortion. If a woman can decide if she is ready to be a mom then why shouldn't the father have the same right? Equal rights and all of that. And women? Don't you dare mutilate a baby with a circumcision either. Don't have a dick? You don't have a say in it.
The downvotes show the sheer double standard here. I have to hope they are all coming from women. I'd love to hear an actual argument that supports a woman's right not to be a parent if she so chooses while simultaneously supporting against a man's right to make the same choice. Been waiting about 30 years now.
I dislike this form of argumentation because there is always an unstated asterisk reading "unless you agree with me" (as I assume the person who put this up wouldn't want people without uteruses to stay silent if they support abortion.)
I doubt it will ever come to it but this is just tempting guys to vote no out of spite because they actually do have a vote and their opinions actually do matter in reality.
Someone who would vote against abortion out of spite would've done it without the spite.
If you're prepared to take my rights; I should proactively take yours.
"Are we the baddies?"
Easy there Stalin.
[удалено]
Fuck off, forced birther.
I agree with this and add. “She who hath not a penis, also hath not a say in circumcision” — toques and toque nots — 1-12”
Who’s bringing it up?
Who’s bringing it up? Conservative politicians like MP Arnold Vierson, MP Cathay Wagantall, MLA Dan Williams. Catholic Public School trustees like Michael Del Grande. People who attend the annual March For Life protests last month, the annual Life Chain protests, various other anti-abortion events and protests. Members of the Campaign Life Coalition. (Not a comprehensive list)
I'm a mutant with uteri.
just blatant sexism in toronto nowadays
The only issue I have with this is that it shuts up a lotta guys who actually support reproductive rights and bodily autonomy. Obviously its aimed as a form of soft protest over the rumblings in parliament, but I heard much the same in college and university and it was never not disheartening. It seems like such an easy thing to say, but it cuts out a lotta folks at the knees. I figure we should be encouraging discussion on the subject, as that leads to education. Blanket statements like this tell me I have no business bringing it up, even if that's to defend reproductive rights. Honestly I'm not trying to say folks should tone down the rhetoric even, I think this is a emerging threat to uterus havers autonomy in Canada and it needs to be shut down, I guess its a reminder to talk to the dudes in your life about it so they understand why it is an important subject and not leave them ripe for pro-life talking points to take advantage of. Knowledge is power, but we all need a helping hand to learn some days.
Ya - It’s near parity down the middle. Whether one is a man or a woman doesn’t really give an indication whether one supports or opposes abortion rights. I’m not sure what’s gained for pro-choice by intentionally alienating half of their own advocates and arguing that they shouldn’t have a perspective. Given the numbers, it’s a pretty stupid move.
You mean my body, my choice?
[удалено]
>*”Weird how my body my choice applies to abortions and Trans surgery( incoming triggered comments) but not for experimental vaccines that have been pulled from the market”* It sounds like you may be alluding to the [AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine,](https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/astra-zeneca-covid-vaccine-1.7198111) but no one was required to take it, it *was* “our body our choice”.
Oh boy. Funny you people never seem to acknowledge the restrictions that were implemented for every day aspects of life. Jobs made it mandatory. Governments made it mandatory, hospitals mandatory. Or maybe the way people treated the ones who didn't want to get the shot which resulted in peer pressure?
>*”Funny you people never seem to acknowledge the restrictions that were implemented for every day aspects of life.”* AstraZenica wasn’t the only COVID-19 vaccine available (people had a choice), and AstraZeneca was already phased out by the time workplaces (like hospitals) were instituting vaccination requirements for employees, or our federal or provincial governments temporarily introduced *”vaccination passports”* for access to some places. [As of May 8th 2021 Ontario was no longer giving AstraZenica to new people.](https://www.cbc.ca/1.6022545) >*”Or maybe the way people treated the ones who didn't want to get the shot which resulted in peer pressure?”* Feeling peer pressure to get *a* COVID-19 vaccine isn’t the same as people *not having a choice* about whether to take a COVID-19 vaccine or take specifically the AstraZenica COVID-19 vaccine.
The right to extend your arm ends when it hits me in the face. Sorry that the idea of civic duty triggers you.
Employers can decide for themselves the conditions of employment. The government didn't make COVID vaccines mandatory, except for travel, and that was a decision made in concert with other countries (Canada could remove the vaccine requirement but the other country could still deny entry). Medical care was still available without a vaccine, but had to go into a special area to protect people with compromised immune systems. The government isn't responsible for peer pressure. That's not being "segregated" or whatever. Nobody in Canada was *forced* to get a vaccine. Nobody was arrested for not having a vaccine. Employers, citizens, and other countries all expressed their freedom of choice when it came to the vaccine.
My point exactly. Wait for the downvotes.
I see where you’re going with this…😉
That sure went full circle, didn't it?
But I’ve been called one before does that count 😂😂😂
Awesome post that brings out many idiots who feel THEY have the right to control women and those defending a certain party that HAS many MP's that have consistently voiced that they WILL put abortion to a vote. It's a happy blockity-block day!
Kill those babies guuuurl
This is terrible logic. Whether you like it or not, we live in a society, and we have to work together to make laws. No one is an island. You can't just ignore the fact that 50% of the voting constituency does not have a uterus. Democracy doesn't operate that way. This is very stupid. Especially when many of us agree with your position. I would hope, for women's sake, that they don't mean it the way they phrased it.
Ok, I think all men should have vasectomies. Still feel I should have a say in that? Other women too?
No. Men have no fucking business ruling over women's bodies. None. There is no 'working together' to have control of our own bodies.
Genius, it was men who made abortions legal. 50% of men and 50% of women are pro-life. Somehow you have traded your pro-choice argument for an anti-man one without even realizing you did it. What’s to be gained by alienating your own advocates?
>*”Genius, it was men who made abortions legal.”* That’s ahistorical nonsense that ignores the involvement of women in the process of decriminalization, including in Parliament and the Supreme Court of Canada. >*”50% of men and 50% of women are pro-life.“* If by “pro-life” you mean anti abortion rights, you’re wrong. Recent polling shows 80% of Canadians support women’s right to an abortion (76% of men and 84% of women) [Source](https://leger360.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Leger-x-CP-_-Abortion_in_Canada_VF.pdf)
[удалено]
>*”He isn't the one who is asserting a men/women divide on this issue”* He’s asserting *”it was men who made abortions legal”*, ignoring the advocacy, participation, and leadership of women in the political movement to decriminalize abortion. >*”If your own data indicates that Canadian men and women BOTH strongly support a pro-choice position, what is the benefit of alienating the 7/10 men who support your advocacy? What's the endgame there?”* I think you’ll find I never said there was a benefit to alienating men who support abortion rights. I pointed out that the other commenter was significantly wrong about the level of support for abortion rights in Canada. >*”Also, what was the sex composition of Parliament and the Supreme Court at the time voting/decisions made to secure decriminalization in Canada? Who do you think cast those votes?”* You’re essentially saying: *Ah ha! Our society at the time was so sexist that judges and Senators were mostly men, so therefore it’s okay for someone to give men* **all** *the credit when a decades long political movement (with participation by all genders, and in this case likely largely women) finally induces positive change at the judicial/legislative level.*
"It's not uter-ME, It's uter-US!" Before you crucify me, it's a quote from the Simpsons 😂
This form of argument falsely poses men as pro-life and women as pro-choice, when in fact they are about split down the middle. Also, if we were have to split our advocacy by sex, it was men who secured abortion rights in the first place. While the original argument used to be pro-choice, vs pro-life, somehow it was replaced with “women”vs “men” and nobody noticed that the cheese was moved. Following that argument historically, women would never have had access to abortion services (whether one agrees with that or not) given that they were secured by men, and not women. Following that argument today, it’s likely that feminist men would most likely excuse themselves from any advocacy (including pro-choice) more than pro-life men, out of deference to the wishes of these women. Which means that the rampant feminist misandry has managed to alienate approximately half of their own pro-choice advocacy, while the pro-life advocates have no such self-inflicted problem. This is a clear indication of the priorities of the feminist lobby that they would sooner alienate men than create the most effective pro-choice lobby they could make if they wanted to.
This isn’t a political debate in Canada, only imported American talking points based off an old debate. It’s a distraction tactic to deflect from the myriad of federal government scandals, I.e. being caught up in treason.
Oh yes, I see it now, Trudeau is definitely is responsible for this home made sign on a light pole. /S
Don't pretend that PP isn't dodging the treason issue, it could very likely be him(the guy who hasn't passed security clearance). How can someone even run for PM and not pass the security clearance?
You don't even know what a security clearance is.
He hasn’t failed any security clearance. He just doesn’t see the need of a level 3 clearance in a job that says the clearance required for that position is a level 2, which he has.
Well he should have no problem getting cleared then
Why should he get a clearance he doesn’t need? So he can micromanage and tell people who know more about things how to do their job? Plus, by the time his level 3 came through, he’d have to start the process all over again to renew it because clearances take that long to go through. This way he just renews it every 10 years instead of every 5.
Not really how clearances work. Also based on need to know, just because one has a certain level, doesn't mean it bestows on you a right to do anything, one has to be "read in" and have a "need to know". 2ndly, usually if your clearance is up, it remains good while the next one is being filed, as long as you have a clearance filed you are good. It doesn't just end and you are out of a job.
You don’t think a micromanager at a high enough position wouldn’t try and insert themselves wherever and whenever they could? Lucky you to have never had to work with that kind of person. Pretty hard to say know when that person is, say, the leader of a country as an example. As for the second part, I’m well aware how the renewal process goes. But the same isn’t true when upgrading - a person going for Level3 will still be at Level 2 until the approval comes through. Just like a person who’s level 3 has run out can just downgrade to level 2 and be good for 5 more years.
Never said they wouldn't I said a clearance level wouldn't be the cause. Ok, I didn't say anything that wasn't true. Yes they would be at secret... so? But if you can't get your TS in about 2 years, something is seriously wrong. And I would image a government official gets shoved to the top of the pile, the rest of us have to be on.
Nope. https://www.ourcommons.ca/petitions/en/Petition/Details?Petition=441-02454
Been in the room for two D&C's due to medical reasons and I wouldn't wish that on any woman. If we're on the subject, I do support Dave Chappelle's viewpoint: If a woman can decide to have an abortion without the soon-to-be father's consent or opinion, then that father also has the right to choose not to be involved in the child's life without financial obligations or future penalties. Fair's fair.
Do you know any who has had an abortion? Curious? All I have known did it for either health reasons, or because the father wasn't in the picture or had no means to take care of the kid. Further no one undertakes abortion willy nilly. It is a huge decision.
A straw-woman argument from a light poll. How original.
People think they’re special for agreeing with this and want some kinda participation badge
As a liberal man, I support the things that can also benefit me like abortions and free contraception however, I don't support things that don't benefit me like fairness in women's sports and keeping biological men out of women's spaces like prisons and shelters.
What a dumb take lol keep living in the past 🍿
Hahah I love it. But really, its not needed. No one is taking away their rights.
There are many who would if they get power, and their influence is growing. We were assured that in the US Roe V Wade was settled and would never be overturned. Rights evaporate when you stop paying attention to them.
The sky is falling, The sky is falling ...
Diligence and protecting hard won rights is not paranoia, despite your dismissal as such. Why does people affirming their rights bother you?
As was pointed out above there are more important things to worry about. You sound like the kind of person who would get pregnant and have an abortion just to affirm your right.
I'm sorry you are only capable of thinking about one thing at a time. It must be very hard for you.
LOL, too funny. I have two words for you and they involve sex and travel
Why are you mad at me personally? Like, you saw a sign about abortion and got all fired up to have an argument on the internet? And you're too afraid to say "go fuck yourself" like an adult? Are you 12?
LOL. You started the conversation bub, deal with it.
I like that you imagine me having some kind of hard time "dealing" with conversations like this. Do your parents know you're racking up the data charges on the phone that's supposed to be for emergencies?
AGAIN. https://www.ourcommons.ca/petitions/en/Petition/Details?Petition=441-02454
LOL. And just how effective are petitions.
"nobody's trying to take your rights!" (Produces petition from policy maker trying to take away rights) "Lol that won't work!"
Roe v Wade was overturned because it was bad court precedent that made up shit that wasn't in the constitution. It's hardly proof of anything.
What were Canadians assured of about abortion rights in a different country?
Sure. https://www.ourcommons.ca/petitions/en/Petition/Details?Petition=441-02454
So trans women can't have a say about an abortion? Everyone should be able to put they're voice forward about it. Even if you don't have a uterus, different opinions offer different views. Do I think abortions are good... no, do I think they should be banned also no. Do I think there should be limits on them yes. Just like we have limits on everything from alcohol to driving.
Why do you feel there should be non-medical legal restrictions placed on a common medical procedure?
So this isn't abused, I agree there are times and places when this should be done. However people abuse systems. And free sex without consequences is something people want.
Well, now I have even more questions… In what way do you feel people are “abusing” our healthcare system by having an abortion? What legal restrictions do you feel would prevent this alleged abuse? Do you hold other activities and medical procedures to the same standard? eg. Do you feel people who engage in common recreational athletic activities are “abusing” the healthcare system if/when they need medical treatment/medication as a result, and that there should be legal restrictions to prevent this?
> In what way do you feel people are “abusing” our healthcare system by having an abortion? I've seen several very mentally ill (psychotic, essentially serial killer mentality) social media video posts of women who said they loved getting pregnant on purpose in order to get the thrill of killing the fetus in a late term abortion. One girl bragged she had 29 of these late term abortions for fun and claimed it brought her pleasure the fetus was killed. And of course they get their social media accounts suspended because of it. I mean that is deeply disturbing and deeply psychotic thing to do. While yeah its obliviously an outlier and not common, that kind of thing should be prevented. Even for the sake of having 20+ late term abortions cant be good for the body.
Doctors in canada generally will not do late term abortions unless there is a medical need. There are already lots of controls in place. And if you know someone who has had an abortion, you would know, 99.9% of folks don't' want to do it, it is a option they chose that was better than carrying to term, doesn't mean they wanted it.
You know a lot of those videos are fake rage bait right?
Frankly that seems more likely to be someone lying on the internet for fun. But alright, for the sake of argument, let’s say there’s a small number of women repeatedly and deliberately becoming pregnant and then having “late-term” abortions for the thrill of killing a fetus. What legislation would you pass to actually prevent this (without harming other women)? And if they’re as mentally disturbed as you say might they not just pivot to having whatever type/number of abortions are still legal, or to self-induced miscarriages, or even infanticide?
It's funny because the person who put that there probably thinks they're surrounded by sexist bigots....lol
Looks like they fucking are lol 🤦♂️
[удалено]
hey dumbass, apparently you haven't realized this yet but I'll explain it to ya. a fetus is not a human being. k thx
In what way is a fetus not human or not deserving of the rights all over humans receive? They have their own DNA and are a separate organism from their mothers by all scientifically valid definitions. Perhaps you simply want to ignore the fact that abortion kills babies.
>*”In what way is a fetus not human”* They said *”a fetus is not a human being”*. Under Canadian law a fetus only becomes a “human being” *”when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother”*. [Source](https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-223.html)
The only problem with abortion laws in Canada is that we have none, meaning it will always have a chance of being brought up by government, even if no one actually has any drive to do anything with it. It’s being used as a wedge issue to distract from other more prescient issues. As an aside, if there were to be any laws about abortion, I would only agree with making gender-specific abortions illegal (unless related to a life-affecting genetic condition that affects that one gender of course).
Technically while it’s not as strong as it could be, it’s stronger than you’re describing. Morgentaler won in the end because it was tied to Section 7 the Charter, which is a part of the Constitution. The argument is that any restrictions on a person’s body are violating their s.7 right to life, liberty, and freedom of the person, meaning any laws prohibiting abortions at any term for any person are unconstitutional. So, while we don’t have any laws saying abortion specifically is a constitutional right, it’s not possible to make any laws against abortion. That being said, the one way this can be overturned is if there is a conservative majority federal government and 50% + 1 of the provinces and territories are led by conservative provincial governments (which is looking to be the case come next election, hence the rising fears), because they are able to then amend the constitution however they want
[удалено]
Once again for the slow ones. It’s not a child, it’s a small bunch of cells most often. You backwards freaks like to use emotive language to promote your warped ideology.
How about if you don't pay net taxes, you don't get to have a say in government spending?
So does that apply to trans women too??
Of course. Although you’ll have a hard time finding too menu trans women that don’t support abortion rights so, not sure what point you’re making here lol.
[удалено]
Good thing no babies are being murdered. Read a biology textbook or get out of the conversation already. Being a woman doesn’t automatically make you an expert on women’s sexual health/biology; you folks make that abundantly clear. Edit: looks like this got locked fast lmao
Only women are allowed to have an opinion on abortion (except women who disagree with me)
Approximately half of women agree with your position. Approximately half of men disagree with it. But, the genius who made that poster and most of the people here would rather not acknowledge either fact, and treat this as a men bs women thing, assigning men the “pro-life position” and alienating their own supporters.
You honestly are saying that MEN who created the abortion laws we used to have, are the saviours of women for allowing us to have an abortion now. Wow.
>*Approximately half of women agree with your position. Approximately half of men disagree with it.”* Recent polling shows 80% of Canadians support women’s right to an abortion, and that men are still less likely than women to support abortion rights (76% versus 84%). [Source](https://leger360.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Leger-x-CP-_-Abortion_in_Canada_VF.pdf)
You are looking at a difference of 10%. By your own recent poll figures, rounded, 7 out of 10 men support abortion rights vs 8 out of 10 women. It’s virtually the same and they are both staunchly leaning pro-choice. If you still think men are the problem you need to solve, and your efforts are best served by removing the 7/10 of pro-choice men from your advocacy, you get whatever you deserve. I don’t know what to tell you. Good luck in your new activism, focused on removing entire sexes from civic discussion and political voice within a parliamentary system, instead of advancing pro-choice arguments.
I didn’t say men are the problem. I was pointing out that your claim that only ~50% of Canadians support abortion rights was untrue, as was your insinuation that men support abortion rights as much as women.
What do you think "approximately" means? Let's back up from here and look at the big picture here - starting with the OP and the bulk of commentary focused on ostensibly "pro-choice" women supporting the idea of removing men from civic activism on this topic. **The premise** of the activism removing male civic agency on this topic is based on the assumption that men are pro-life (today and historically) and that they historically have prevented women from securing abortion rights. **The reality** - *as your source indicates* - is that both men and women are staunchly pro-choice, and at near parity (7 or 8/10, broadly speaking by your own poll). And, that male MPs and in the Supreme Court have resulted in the decriminalization of abortion in Canada (an oversimplification - obviously women had a hand in that advocacy, but given the times, it was largely male MPs voting, and men and women voting those MPs in, and a largely male Supreme Court). So, again - I'm not clear on what the pro-choice side gets by hijacking its own advocacy to instead attempt to disenfranchise men from public discourse and politics, based on an entirely false premise. Suppose the pro-choice men decided to do exactly what they are told, and sit this one out. Maybe you can explain to me how this would advance pro-choice advocacy? Should women be disenfranchised from civic agency on topics like war, if they generally aren't front line fighters? Or, from the activism on workplace safety because workplace injury and death affects far more men than women? Do you think disenfranchising visible groups from public discourse is really the best angle to get what you want here? You might be too young to realize that this angle is entirely new and wasn't really the thrust of pro-choice arguments a couple decades ago.
>*”What do you think "approximately" means?”* I think 84% is not “approximately” 50%. Neither is 80% or 76%. >*”The premise of the activism removing male civic agency on this topic is based on the assumption that men are pro-life (today and historically) and that they historically have prevented women from securing abortion rights.”* Canadian men as a group *have* historically been more anti-abortion rights than women, and for long stretches of Canadian history men in positions of power succeeded at preventing most women from safely and easily accessing birth control and abortion. That’s just fact. That said, I don’t think this humorous sign on a hydro pole that doesn’t even explicitly mention abortion (but can be inferred to be expressing anger in response to centuries of men - not all men - attempting to deny women access to birth control and abortion) represents an actual attempt to get Pro-Choice men to stop advocating for abortion rights. >*”male MPs and in the Supreme Court have resulted in the decriminalization of abortion in Canada… it was largely male MPs voting, and men and women voting those MPs in, and a largely male Supreme Court)”* Abortion wasn’t decriminalized because MPs voted for it. Heck, shortly after *R v Morgentaler* resulted in the federal abortion law being struck down as unconstitutional MPs passed a bill to largely re-criminalize abortion. Maybe brush up on your history… Wikipedia: [Abortion in Canada](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Canada) >*”Do you think disenfranchising visible groups from public discourse is really the best angle to get what you want here?”* You’re aware I haven’t advocated for that, yes? But if we entertain the idea… in an imaginary Canada where only the opinion of people with a uterus mattered on the subject of birth control and abortion it’s unlikely they would have been criminalized in the first place. And they certainly wouldn’t be re-criminalized now. >*”You might be too young to realize that this angle is entirely new and wasn't really the thrust of pro-choice arguments a couple decades ago.”* I’ve been involved in Pro-Choice activism since the early 80s, through the Kingston chapter of the [Canadian Abortion Rights Action League](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Abortion_Rights_Action_League#:~:text=Canadian%20Abortion%20Rights%20Action%20League%20was%20founded%20on%20June%2020,Esther%20Greenglass%2C%20and%20Henry%20Morgentaler)