Conference kaosws::canada

    No one, especially the judges, seem to give a passing tought as
    to what kind of life the child is going to have.  It is difficult
    enough to see couples breaking up after a few years and the children
    from those unions that were conceived and raised (up to that point)
    in love, being subjected to seeing their parents fighting for anything
    from THEM to more material things.  Now we have non-couples fighting
    for a still unborn infant, which neither really wants ! and on top
    of that it is forcing a woman to go trough a unwanted pregnancy.
    
    Jean
    

	What sort of circumlocution would we be subjected to if men could
	conceive?

    Then you could F yourself, get pregnant, get an injunction against
    getting an abortion and sue yourself for child support.
    
    Jean
    

		
		Tsk, tsk

    More than anything, this case shows that the Federal Government MUST
    put an abortion law in place.  These judges have no law to base
    judgement on, and therefore must put their interpretation of other laws
    and the Charter of Rights into the decision.  As a result, the decisions
    will be varied, and will take years to build enough precedents to form
    a cohesive 'law'. In the meantime, everyone suffers.
    
    I understand that pro-choice groups were against any abortion law
    after the Supreme Court decision against the former one.  Has that
    stance changed?
    
    Glenn

    Heard this morning that the guy in Qu�bec can't spare the time to
    look after the kid when it's born anyway.  Going to be too busy
    with his career.  Reportedly wants his father to look after baby.
    
    I reckon that if the injunction is upheld that he should be forced
    to looked after the baby as 'payment' for granting the injunction.
    After all, he raised this issue on the basis that he wanted the
    kid.

	I don't know what Judge Vien's dilemma is with his recent
	ruling about the human aspects of the fetus.  The Criminal
	Code of Canada is quite explicit on the matter:

	Criminal Code of Canada, revised to 1985

	Section 223

	"When a child becomes human being - Killing child.

	   223. (1) A child becomes a human being within the meaning of
	 this Act when it has completely proceeded, in a living state,
	 from the body of its mother whether or not
	    (a) it has breathed,
	    (b) it has an independent circulation, or
	    (c) the navel string is severed.

		(2) A person commits homicide when he causes injury to a
	child before or during its birth as a result of which the child
	dies after becoming a human being."

    Interpretation of the law would make a doctor a murderer if he cuts
    the umbilical cord and the child then dies.
    
    As for the idiot who got the injunction and yet can't take care
    of "his" "child", he should be locked up in an asylum.
    
    Raising kids DEMANDS a lot from BOTH parents, and kids are the
    trigger to many divorces, the physical and emotional drain on the
    parents take a heavy toll on the spouses relationship.  Some couples
    think that kids will bring them closer, the contrary is true.  So
    if a woman wants to have an abortion, if only to keep a child from
    having an unhappy life, then let her have her way.
    
    Jean
    

    RE -1
    WWho says that the child will have an unhappy life. As far as I
    know, there are thousands of "Childless" couples who are more than
    willing to adopt "unwanted" children. NOBODY has the right to take
    a life just because it inconveniences them. If people don't take
    the proper precautions to start with, they should pay the price.
    
    Gerry 

     Life starts at the point of conception. First one, then two, then
    four, then eight cells, etc, etc, etc.....
    
     I believe that two people should be in control of their minds and
    before starting a new life, they must think very much about the
    ramifications of children. If abortion were illegal, then people
    would be forced to think about conception. In todays modern world,
    I can see no reason what-so-ever, that out of all of the available
    options for birth control (family planning), that one should end
    up with an unexpected (unwanted) conception.
    
     I find that many of the abortions being performed today, are being
    done in the interests of birth control. I think this is sick. These
    are probably the same unthinking selfish people who drive their
    2 tons of steel on four wheels through our neighbourhoods, attempting
    to kill our children too.
    
     Abortions should be limited to life threatening situations and
    cases of rape.

	Re .11

>    I can see no reason what-so-ever, that out of all of the available
>    options for birth control (family planning), that one should end
>    up with an unexpected (unwanted) conception.

	Folk wisdom: 90% of accidents are caused by people,
			90% of people are caused by accidents

	A friend of a friend described herself as the result of a foaming
	tablet that didn't foam.

	Tony

    Altough I do agree that children SHOULD be wanted and loved, it
    is an aberration that a woman would be coerced into an unwanted
    pregnancy for whatever reason.
    
    Jean
    

    re: .13
    
     What is unwanted?
    
     Let's say we have a couple, they have a child, and somewhere around
    four or five years of age of the child, the couple discover that they
    are no longer in love and get a divorce. Now, I ask you, is this
    child unwanted by either parent, or is it just that the parents
    prefer to go their seperate ways. If the woman has custody of the
    child, should she do it in?
    
     Let's say we have a couple, they concieve a child and one or two
    months later, the couple discover they are no longer in love and
    get a divorce. Now, I ask you, is this child unwanted by either
    parent?  At this point, what I observe is that the woman wants nothing
    what_so_ever to do with the man, nor anything that they shared.
    The woman by default happens to have custody of the child, and by
    abortion she does it in.
    
     In both cases, I put it to you that the children were conceived
    in love. I further say that neither child should suffer nor die
    due to a change in love between the parents.
    
     Could it be the woman has an abortion, as it is easy to kill something
    you can't see, because she has rationalized it to be similar to
    a cancerous growth?
     Could it be the woman has an abortion, as it is the last way to
    strike out at the man that has hurt her emotional well being?
    
     Parent-hood is not a skip in the park. Once the path is chosen,
    a responsible adult will see it through.

    Do we have the right to take the life of another human being?
    When does life begin?
    If life begins at birth, then abortion is not murder.
    If life begins at conception, then abortion is murder.
    Would we consider it murder if a mother was to kill her child after
    birth.
    I believe that life begins at conception.
    If life did not begin until birth then there would be no movement
    or heartbeat prior to birth.
    
    LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION.
    TAKEING A LIFE IS MURDER.
    ABORTION IS TAKEING A LIFE.
    ABORTION IS MURDER.
    
    
    Lorne

	You either believe a woman has control over her body or you don't.
Arguments to convince otherwise are futile and an indication of a slow day
at the office.

< Note 210.17 by TROA02::DEAK >
<I disagree with your first statement. There are 3 issues involved here.

	By default, as you didn't address my second statement then you
agree that the arguments are futile - there will always be a diversity
of opinion.  The galling aspect of some of the diatribes in this topic
are that some overbearing individuals feel that they are right and the
rest are wrong.

	Yes, finding a scapegoat to heap abuse upon has been done in
other conferences on this same topic.  A number of suppressed men found
'feminists' to be a favourite scapegoat.

	...truly a slow day.

< Note 210.19 by TROA02::DEAK >
<<I take it you are right and the rest are wrong? I guess that kind of proves 
<<your point.

Step back a bit and think before leaping.  Try to keep this on a less personal
basis.  If you insist on having a public argument to fill in a slow day,
then do it on your time not the company's.

There will always be a difference of opinion on this particular subject, and
I was stating that there is no right or wrong just opposition.  So, to continue
this topic is to encourage the construction of a major rat-hole, and I
encourage Mr. Moderator to SET MODERATOR/HAT=ON.

<<The scapegoat here is not feminism, as you wrote. The cause of this 
<<situation which I am addressing (lack of father's rights and therefore 
<<suppression of men's rights) is a direct result of feminism AND pro-choice 
<<groups which pressure politicians, which are therfore included. If any one 
<<group is the scapegoat in this issue it is men. 

That's contradictory.  Again, you've stated that the cause is due to feminism.

<<In other words, if you can't say anything relevant, then why say 
<<anything at all?

Precisely my point.


Pat

    I enjoyed reading all your letters. Now should we look at the truth?
    What is moral and what is not?
    			Richard.
    

	Re .24

>    I enjoyed reading all your letters. Now should we look at the truth?
>    What is moral and what is not?

	According to what moral code? In this context, what is truth?

	Tony

    Hot dogs at the ball park with my family.
    

    To ALL of you who may want to FORCE your beleifs that life begins
    at conception and that getting an abortion would be murder, consider
    that some other religions have other "rules" that are enforced by
    their "cult officers" that make no sense whatsoever.  Just look
    what the late (may he NOT rest in peace) Komeny made for these "rules",
    they were pure non-sense, yet the followers did follow them, and
    we think these people are backwards and barbaric!  they themselves
    don't consider a child (male) a person unless he has passed puberty,
    and how they treat women, well!
    
    Some of you consider a mass of cells a person, and in some parts
    of the world a father would tie dynomite to his child to promote
    the "faith" in Allah.
    
    Gimme a break
    
    Jean
    

    <.27> You know how to make a lot of noise. What's your point? 

    Free choice, if a woman wants an abortion, let her have it.  If
    YOU want to have kids, please do so, don't try to force your views
    or beleifs or faith on others.  In this world there are much more
    important issues than these (pollution being #1) that may just destroy
    the place these "saved" babies will grow in.  
    
    We work, worry and generally center our lives around our children,
    because we have few of them (2 or 3 at most) but in some other
    countries, where having 8 to 10 kids is a way of life (to make sure
    one makes it) loosing them to malnutrition, desease or some other
    cause is a way of life too.  To us loosing a child is a tragedy,
    and some people extend that need to see ALL children safe, even
    un-children (not yet born), to me this is skewed logic.
    
    In Qu�bec, one of the more militant anti-abortion leader, is divorced,
    what did he do for his "family" ? and what give him or anyone the
    right to change the lives of others AGAINST their will ?
    
    Jean
    
    
    

    re .29
    
    >In Quebec, one of the more militant anti-abortion leader, is divorced,
     what did he do for his "family" ?

    Can we call a truce here?  This note is becoming a soapbox forum,
    for which this conference is not intended. With all due respect
    to the opinions offered here, they are not focusing on Canada. 
    They are focusing on a world-wide, highly emotional debate.  
    
    And I believe the majority of this conference's readers are sick of
    checking each day to see nothing but someone insulting another's views. 
    
    Glenn

    Yes, we are mamals, NOT animals (at least most of the people I know)
    which means that fatherhood is not just spewing your seed to the
    wind and letting (mother) nature take care of the ofsprings. 
    
    Jean
    

    Believing somthing does not make it true. One of the major points
    in this debate is the question...When does life begin? Whether we
    believe that life begins at conception, birth or at some point
    inbetween does not change the fact that life does begin sometime.
    
    I believe that it begins at conception, but I could be wrong. If
    life does begin at conception then abortion is murder. If life begins
    later then the rights of the unborn are of less concern. But as
    I believe that life begins at conception I have no choise but to
    believe that abortion is murder.
    
    I also have a great deal of trouble believing that Killing thousands of
    babies each year is much less important that polution. Polution
    is very important, but so is human life.

    Since the topic has evolved to a general discussion of abortion
    and not its specific relevence to Canadian issues, this topic is
    herewith aborted, so to speak. Try PEAR::SOAPBOX for some rousing
    dissemblance, if you dare.
    
    The Scooterator

    oh, and by the way, the missing notes from the thread are not the
    action of me as moderator, so they must have been removed by the
    author.
    
    Scooter