Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #801  
Old 05-31-2019, 08:13 AM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 58,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Iím out to increase the availability of first trimester abortion, so I donít know why that was directed at me.
Yeah, I'm not quite buying that, based on your stated preference for a hard line at the end of the first trimester. The effect of putting on arbitrary restrictions that serve no medical purpose is a well-established tactic for driving practitioners and clinics out of business (or just out of the state) which WILL affect availability of services whether you recognize it or not.
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #802  
Old 05-31-2019, 09:20 AM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,640
Quote:
Originally Posted by elbows View Post
A woman can produce no more than one, and a bit, unwanted pregnancies in a year, whereas a man can produce hundreds. Trying to regulate this via controlling women is wrong headed from the get go. I smell misogyny myself.

It would seem fairer if when a man fathers an unwanted pregnancy, and the woman cannot BY LAW pursue an abortion, (ie. six weeks has passed already), then that man is on the hook to, not only financially support his child, but replace the motherís lost wages as well, until the child is in school. (he is still expected to support the child to adulthood!). And the state pays up front so babies and mothers do not suffer, then THEY recover the money from the man.
What do you feel should be the financial repercussions when a woman wants to keep the baby but the father does not? Should he be absolved of any financial responsibility?
  #803  
Old 05-31-2019, 09:37 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 61,003
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
What do you feel should be the financial repercussions when a woman wants to keep the baby but the father does not? Should he be absolved of any financial responsibility?
So, women should take responsibility for their actions, but men shouldn't have to? Is there a "Men's Choice Movement" I should be aware of?
  #804  
Old 05-31-2019, 10:00 AM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,640
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
So, women should take responsibility for their actions, but men shouldn't have to? Is there a "Men's Choice Movement" I should be aware of?
My personal opinion is that both the mother and the father "should take responsibility for their actions", but if someone wants to simultaneously complain about misogyny and advocate that women should be absolved of all financial responsibility for an unwanted pregnancy, they ought to also allow men to be absolved of all financial responsibility for an unwanted pregnancy. Anything else smells like misandry.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 05-31-2019 at 10:00 AM.
  #805  
Old 05-31-2019, 10:02 AM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,908
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
What do you feel should be the financial repercussions when a woman wants to keep the baby but the father does not? Should he be absolved of any financial responsibility?
Personally, I think that the child support is one of the more inefficient and corrupt systems we have in place, so answering that within the context of current child support systems is a tough one.

If society provided the resources to ensure that a single mother can raise a family, then child support from the father is unnecessary. He can pay it along with the rest of us in taxes.

If he wants to have any part of the child's life, OTOH, then financial contributions from him would be required.
  #806  
Old 05-31-2019, 10:46 AM
elbows is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: London, Ontario
Posts: 14,287
Both mother and father ARE taking responsibility though. He has to pay his share to support the child regardless. She has to give up a few years of working and is physically/medically making all the sacrifices/risks. He should replace her wages, while she’s doing so, or else how can she pay her share of the child support? Why should she be the only one facing poverty because of an unwanted birth? If you incapacitated someone with your car you/your insurer would be on the hook for THEIR lost wages.

If the state wants to regulate that I have to have the baby, (because I didn’t know I was pregnant in time to act!), then they should pay the child support and all medical costs and then THEY should make the men pay. Any system that sees the women sacrifice her job, face medical expenses, left raising an infant alone, without income from her job AND have responsibility to get him to pay is ridiculous on its face.

Last edited by elbows; 05-31-2019 at 10:47 AM.
  #807  
Old 05-31-2019, 10:52 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 38,813
Quote:
Originally Posted by elbows View Post
If the state wants to regulate that I have to have the baby, (because I didnít know I was pregnant in time to act!), then they should pay the child support and all medical costs and then THEY should make the men pay. Any system that sees the women sacrifice her job, face medical expenses, left raising an infant alone, without income from her job AND have responsibility to get him to pay is ridiculous on its face.
Seconded.
  #808  
Old 05-31-2019, 10:55 AM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,640
Quote:
Originally Posted by elbows View Post
Both mother and father ARE taking responsibility though. He has to pay his share to support the child regardless. She has to give up a few years of working and is physically/medically making all the sacrifices/risks. He should replace her wages, while sheís doing so, or else how can she pay her share of the child support? Why should she be the only one facing poverty because of an unwanted birth? If you incapacitated someone with your car you/your insurer would be on the hook for THEIR lost wages.

If the state wants to regulate that I have to have the baby, (because I didnít know I was pregnant in time to act!), then they should pay the child support and all medical costs and then THEY should make the men pay. Any system that sees the women sacrifice her job, face medical expenses, left raising an infant alone, without income from her job AND have responsibility to get him to pay is ridiculous on its face.
This sounds like you are both simultaneously complaining about misogyny and advocating that women should be absolved of all financial responsibility for an unwanted pregnancy but men should not. Am I misunderstanding your position?
  #809  
Old 05-31-2019, 11:20 AM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,040
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
This sounds like you are both simultaneously complaining about misogyny and advocating that women should be absolved of all financial responsibility for an unwanted pregnancy but men should not. Am I misunderstanding your position?
elbows stated quite clearly that a mother is responsible for "her share of the child support" for a baby, whether the baby was wanted or not. As, indeed, the law requires for both mothers and fathers alike.

The point of abortion rights is not to spare women all financial responsibility for an unwanted child, but rather to protect women from being forced to continue an unwanted pregnancy.

Once a baby is born, both its mother and its father are legally on the hook for providing financial support for it, whether they want to or not. But that doesn't mean that a woman is obligated to let an unwanted baby gestate inside her body.
  #810  
Old 05-31-2019, 11:20 AM
elbows is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: London, Ontario
Posts: 14,287
Yes, you are. If you want the woman to carry any financial burden you can’t just deny her wages. He’s as responsible. She’s making the sacrifice to her body, time off her job, then if he wants her to shoulder half the burden her wages need to be guaranteed for that period.

If you set the situation up so she’s forced to give birth, AND you want her to be able to financially contribute she HAS to continue getting wages.

When the woman is also employed, during the divorce, and bringing in wages, the amount he pays is reduced, they split the cost. When she can’t work, he pays his share and THEY struggle with poverty because her wages no longer exists.

He replaces her wages till she can see that child into school. Don’t complain she’s not contributing when only he’s able to get a salary while she’s being forced to instead raise an infant. If he wants her back to work before that child is school aged he springs for half the daycare costs in ADDITION to child support, (rent, food, clothes, basics.)

BOTH parents should have equal risk of an unwanted pregnancy pushing them into poverty.
  #811  
Old 05-31-2019, 11:28 AM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 12,575
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
This sounds like you are both simultaneously complaining about misogyny and advocating that women should be absolved of all financial responsibility for an unwanted pregnancy but men should not. Am I misunderstanding your position?
It sounds to me like they're saying that women should get to retain control over their bodies because they're not slaves. (Madness, madness I say!) This means that once she's impregnated the woman really ought to gain full control of the situation in her body, due to the whole "not slaves" delusion.

And they're also agreeing with you that people should be responsible for their choices. Once a man chooses to impregnate a woman, he's on the hook for his action - but he ceases to have a lot of control over the events that follow. If the woman is allowed to get an abortion and chooses to get one, then the consequences to him are negligible - at worst paying for some of the medical costs. But if she chooses to keep the child, or is forced to keep the child, either way he's on the hook for the child, and really should be held accountable.

And of course if the state is the one demanding that fetuses be brought to term, it only seems fair that the state ensure that their upkeep is paid for. Allowing them to bill the man for it after the fact is reasonable, but if they chose not to hold the man accountable they should be still be on the hook for the cash due to his involvement in causing the situation.
  #812  
Old 05-31-2019, 11:50 AM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 58,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
This sounds like you are both simultaneously complaining about misogyny and advocating that women should be absolved of all financial responsibility for an unwanted pregnancy but men should not. Am I misunderstanding your position?
I'd say "obviously", since nobody is calling for the mother to be absolved of all financial responsibility. Compensated for her lost earnings because of the pregnancy, if she wanted to terminate it but the father or the state prevented it, but absolved? I don't know where you got that.
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #813  
Old 05-31-2019, 05:19 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,286
I was going to make a similar point to HDs, except I have actually always believed (I remember first thinking about this in my early teens) that "there oughtta be a law" where men can register with the government as having a default preference that their sexual partners abort any pregnancy that might occur from a sexual liaison they participated in. This would be a public registry any woman could check. If a man is on this registry, he cannot be liable for child support unless he was married to, or cohabitated with, the woman who gave birth to the baby.


Quote:
Originally Posted by elbows View Post
A woman can produce no more than one, and a bit, unwanted pregnancies in a year, whereas a man can produce hundreds. Trying to regulate this via controlling women is wrong headed from the get go.

Really? This seems backwards to me. I have always thought for instance that neutering male dogs is stupid. The only real way to control the population of unwanted puppies is spaying.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
Yeah, I'm not quite buying that

Okay, I guess I'll just leave you to debate the straw man you have erected in my place.
  #814  
Old 05-31-2019, 05:28 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 12,575
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
I was going to make a similar point to HDs, except I have actually always believed (I remember first thinking about this in my early teens) that "there oughtta be a law" where men can register with the government as having a default preference that their sexual partners abort any pregnancy that might occur from a sexual liaison they participated in. This would be a public registry any woman could check. If a man is on this registry, he cannot be liable for child support unless he was married to, or cohabitated with, the woman who gave birth to the baby.
Can the women have a registry where if they sign up for it, if they get pregnant and decide not to abort then the man is required to take full charge for the baby once it's born with the woman not having to pay child support at all?

If we're signing up for services that allow you to abrogate responsibility for your actions unto perpetuity, and all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Really? This seems backwards to me. I have always thought for instance that neutering male dogs is stupid. The only real way to control the population of unwanted puppies is spaying.
I'm pretty sure that if all dogs were neutered that would be equally effective at controlling the population of puppies.
  #815  
Old 05-31-2019, 05:43 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 58,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Okay, I guess I'll just leave you to debate the straw man you have erected in my place.
Or you could recognize the consequences of your position if put into law. A bright line at the end of the first trimester? Are you going to require the clinics to try to figure out exactly when that is? If the best estimate the doctor can make is that a pregnancy is in 2.5-3.5 month range, does the doctor have to ask the patient exactly when she conceived? What if the patient isn't sure? What penalties did you have in mind, if any, if a doctor assumes incorrectly and aborts a 3.1-month fetus? How much monitoring, if any, were you planning to put in place to track and enforce this? If a clinic is determined to have aborted too many borderline cases, do you want it shut down?

Please give some thought to these issues.
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.

Last edited by Bryan Ekers; 05-31-2019 at 05:43 PM.
  #816  
Old 05-31-2019, 09:02 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,286
There must be some anatomical feature that develops around that time that is detectable via ultrasound. Or better yet, a feature that disappears around that time. An ultrasound conducted no more than 24 hours prior to the procedure must show X, or the abortion is illegal.

Last edited by SlackerInc; 05-31-2019 at 09:03 PM.
  #817  
Old 06-01-2019, 12:01 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,908
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
I was going to make a similar point to HDs, except I have actually always believed (I remember first thinking about this in my early teens) that "there oughtta be a law" where men can register with the government as having a default preference that their sexual partners abort any pregnancy that might occur from a sexual liaison they participated in. This would be a public registry any woman could check. If a man is on this registry, he cannot be liable for child support unless he was married to, or cohabitated with, the woman who gave birth to the baby.
Sounds great, as long as with the registry they also get a snip snip.

Will he be required to disclose this to anyone that he wants to sleep with, or is it their responsibility to ID him and cross reference that with the database?
Quote:

Really? This seems backwards to me. I have always thought for instance that neutering male dogs is stupid. The only real way to control the population of unwanted puppies is spaying.
One male dog can impregnate quite a number of females.

Besides, fixing is largely done for behavioral issues anyway. Most dog bites and attacks are perpetrated by intact males.
  #818  
Old 06-01-2019, 12:02 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,908
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
There must be some anatomical feature that develops around that time that is detectable via ultrasound. Or better yet, a feature that disappears around that time. An ultrasound conducted no more than 24 hours prior to the procedure must show X, or the abortion is illegal.
There must be? Or there is and you have identified it?
  #819  
Old 06-01-2019, 02:03 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 58,875
Well, I guess a feature restraint is at least more workable than a time restraint, though I am curious what kind of feature could be used as a benchmark. If the fetus is missing this feature (or never develops it), suggesting a genetic defect of some kind, fair game?
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #820  
Old 06-01-2019, 02:17 PM
elbows is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: London, Ontario
Posts: 14,287
How about we use the measure hospitals routinely use to decide if someone is dead and can be disconnected from life support? Beating hearts are disconnected when there ceases to be measurable brain activity. If a beating heart isnít enough to keep that person connected to life support, it makes no sense that it be the threshold for a fetus to be maintained.

In a fetus brain activity is measurable at 24 weeks. Without brain activity it is no more alive than a brain dead patient.
  #821  
Old 06-01-2019, 04:27 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 58,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by elbows View Post
How about we use the measure hospitals routinely use to decide if someone is dead and can be disconnected from life support? Beating hearts are disconnected when there ceases to be measurable brain activity. If a beating heart isnít enough to keep that person connected to life support, it makes no sense that it be the threshold for a fetus to be maintained.

In a fetus brain activity is measurable at 24 weeks. Without brain activity it is no more alive than a brain dead patient.
I suppose if I was a pro-choice American, I could picture that being an acceptable cut-off for purely-elective procedures, i.e. 22-23 weeks, before the brain-activity stage, but as part of that compromise I'd want to put an end to bullshit delaying tactics and medically-irrelevant regulations and I'd have misgivings that pro-lifers would be able to resist trying to reintroduce them.
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #822  
Old 06-01-2019, 04:37 PM
Ludovic is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: America's Wing
Posts: 29,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
I suppose if I was a pro-choice American, I could picture that being an acceptable cut-off for purely-elective procedures, i.e. 22-23 weeks, before the brain-activity stage, but as part of that compromise I'd want to put an end to bullshit delaying tactics and medically-irrelevant regulations and I'd have misgivings that pro-lifers would be able to resist trying to reintroduce them.
I'm about the same way but without so much of a misgiving as an expectation that the right would continue to attempt to bite away with irrelevant laws.
  #823  
Old 06-01-2019, 04:49 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 58,875
Yes, you're right, I was just being polite.
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #824  
Old 06-01-2019, 06:39 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,286
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
One male dog can impregnate quite a number of females.

That's exactly why it's pointless. You start with 100 males and 100 females, then neuter 99 of the males and leave the females alone, and you get 100 litters of puppies (fathered by a very busy, and happy, sire). Spay 99 females and leave the males alone, and you get one litter (from a very. very popular bitch, LOL).

Point taken on behavioral stuff, but for population control it's spaying that matters. You're never going to get to 100 percent, but spaying even 50 percent of females cuts the next generation in half.

Last edited by SlackerInc; 06-01-2019 at 06:43 PM.
  #825  
Old 06-01-2019, 08:28 PM
not what you'd expect is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,732
Why the fuck are we talking about dogs?

My body, my choice. End of fucking story.
  #826  
Old 06-01-2019, 10:18 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,640
Quote:
Originally Posted by not what you'd expect View Post
... My body, my choice. End of fucking story.
Sorry, but that's not how we do things in a democracy.
  #827  
Old 06-01-2019, 10:44 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 58,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Sorry, but that's not how we do things in a democracy.
Well, not American democracy. Canadian democracy said "Okay" a while ago.
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #828  
Old 06-02-2019, 10:06 AM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,908
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Sorry, but that's not how we do things in a democracy.
Wow, way to try to make democracy look like a tyranny.
  #829  
Old 06-02-2019, 10:08 AM
Northern Piper is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is gone. For now
Posts: 29,028
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
Well, not American democracy. Canadian democracy said "Okay" a while ago.
Yes, the unelected Senators.
__________________
"I don't like to make plans for the day. If I do, that's when words like 'premeditated' start getting thrown around in the courtroom."
  #830  
Old 06-02-2019, 10:13 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,286
Canadians (including some in my own family) love to talk high and mighty, but they seem to forget that nearly all the time we had Obama in the Oval Office, they had Stephen Harper at 24 Sussex. (For those who don't know Canadian politics, Harper is...not good. Not Trump type bad, but definitely Mitch McConnell type bad.)
  #831  
Old 06-02-2019, 11:19 AM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 58,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Canadians (including some in my own family) love to talk high and mighty, but they seem to forget that nearly all the time we had Obama in the Oval Office, they had Stephen Harper at 24 Sussex. (For those who don't know Canadian politics, Harper is...not good. Not Trump type bad, but definitely Mitch McConnell type bad.)
Mitch McConnell makes Harper look saintly.
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #832  
Old 06-02-2019, 12:05 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,908
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Canadians (including some in my own family) love to talk high and mighty, but they seem to forget that nearly all the time we had Obama in the Oval Office, they had Stephen Harper at 24 Sussex. (For those who don't know Canadian politics, Harper is...not good. Not Trump type bad, but definitely Mitch McConnell type bad.)
I don't really see how pointing out comparisons of different laws regarding reproductive rights and how they have played out for the public benefit is being "high and mighty", but does that mean that having Trump in the Oval office mean that your opinions are invalid?
  #833  
Old 06-02-2019, 01:19 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 58,875
Hmm, might be a new metric for evaluating the validity of expressed political opinion - it's tied to the stupidity level of your highest elected official. Hence, no American has anything of value to say on the topic until at least January 2021.
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #834  
Old 06-02-2019, 10:31 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,286
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
I don't really see how pointing out comparisons of different laws regarding reproductive rights and how they have played out for the public benefit is being "high and mighty", but does that mean that having Trump in the Oval office mean that your opinions are invalid?

It means I certainly can't say we're doing better than Canada right now. But I remember my mom's significant other circa mid-2006 lording it over me about how "Americans love Bush, they just like to march to that fascist beat" or whatever. Then a few months later, Pelosi became Speaker and Harper became PM with a Conservative-controlled legislature (which is how it works in parliamentary systems: no division between the legislative and executive branches). And a couple years after that, we got Obama and full control of Congress, while Harper and the Conservatives continued to reign supreme up north.

I'm just saying, don't get too fucking smug up there in the Great White North, because things can reverse rather quickly.
  #835  
Old 06-03-2019, 12:14 AM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,908
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
It means I certainly can't say we're doing better than Canada right now. But I remember my mom's significant other circa mid-2006 lording it over me about how "Americans love Bush, they just like to march to that fascist beat" or whatever. Then a few months later, Pelosi became Speaker and Harper became PM with a Conservative-controlled legislature (which is how it works in parliamentary systems: no division between the legislative and executive branches). And a couple years after that, we got Obama and full control of Congress, while Harper and the Conservatives continued to reign supreme up north.
So this is about a family feud? Heh, lemme tell you about my family...
Quote:
I'm just saying, don't get too fucking smug up there in the Great White North, because things can reverse rather quickly.
You think that Canada is going to impose restrictions on reproductive rights in the near future?
  #836  
Old 06-03-2019, 12:47 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,286
Who knows. What I'm saying is that Canadians often take a pose (and not just in my family, I have heard it from people I am mildly acquainted with, people I've just met, and people who post on boards like this) of smugly clucking, "We are so much more civilized up here. My my, it's so shocking and terrible what goes on in the States." And yeah, being stuck with the old Confederacy does hold us back, oftentimes. But if we severed that region and operated a country with just the rest of it (even still including hardcore red states like Oklahoma, Kansas, Indiana, etc.), we would be way more progressive than Canada. That Harper and the Conservatives were in charge until so recently shows that even without that slave-state legacy, Canada is on the knife's edge, just like we are--and given Trudeau's unpopularity, a Conservative comeback in the near future hardly looks impossible to imagine.
  #837  
Old 06-03-2019, 01:17 AM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,908
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Who knows. What I'm saying is that Canadians often take a pose (and not just in my family, I have heard it from people I am mildly acquainted with, people I've just met, and people who post on boards like this) of smugly clucking, "We are so much more civilized up here. My my, it's so shocking and terrible what goes on in the States."
When they talk about healthcare, they deserve to be smug and I agree with them. As far as reproductive rights, they certainly can demonstrate that they take a much more liberal position.

We can be smug about our economy and our military, if those are things that we are proud of.
Quote:
And yeah, being stuck with the old Confederacy does hold us back, oftentimes. But if we severed that region and operated a country with just the rest of it (even still including hardcore red states like Oklahoma, Kansas, Indiana, etc.), we would be way more progressive than Canada.
Yeah, we jettison our deep conservative areas, and we become more progressive. I am sure that there are some geographic areas of Canada that could be removed to make it more liberal.

Quote:
That Harper and the Conservatives were in charge until so recently shows that even without that slave-state legacy, Canada is on the knife's edge, just like we are--and given Trudeau's unpopularity, a Conservative comeback in the near future hardly looks impossible to imagine.
The benefit of the Parliamentary system over ours is that the minority party isn't shut out of governing. Even with a majority coalition, they cannot make as sweeping changes as can be made when the Republicans manage a small majority of seats from a minority of votes.

Last edited by k9bfriender; 06-03-2019 at 01:18 AM.
  #838  
Old 06-03-2019, 04:59 AM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 58,875
An American trying to warn us about the potential for Canadian conservatism is like a person on fire warning someone about the potential for mildly uncomfortable humidity.
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #839  
Old 06-03-2019, 08:52 AM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,908
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
An American trying to warn us about the potential for Canadian conservatism is like a person on fire warning someone about the potential for mildly uncomfortable humidity.
And a Canadian concerned about American conservatism is like a person watching someone running around on fire, and saying, "Stop, Drop, and Roll, dude!"
  #840  
Old 06-03-2019, 10:24 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,286
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
Yeah, we jettison our deep conservative areas, and we become more progressive. I am sure that there are some geographic areas of Canada that could be removed to make it more liberal.

Yes, their rural "flyover country", particularly their Plains states and Mountain West, which are--like our Plains states and Mountain West--very conservative. But we have the same thing, PLUS the Deep South. Our counterbalancing cities and "coastal elite" areas must be much more deeply progressive, and well populated, to give us even a fighting chance, much less sweeps like we got in 2008.

ETA: Even during their Liberal periods, Canada is worse than the U.S. when it comes to environmental regulation, freedom of the press, and freedom from religion. And if you talk to Native people there, you won't find many of them endorsing the notion that it's a progressive country.

Last edited by SlackerInc; 06-03-2019 at 10:27 AM.
  #841  
Old 06-03-2019, 10:55 AM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 58,875
I understand our cherry-picking industry is woefully inferior, too.
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #842  
Old 06-03-2019, 11:09 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,286
That was good. Clever!
  #843  
Old 06-03-2019, 11:58 AM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 58,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
That was good. Clever!
It should not be taken as a concession of any of your picks, though, particularly freedom from religion which seems the only one that is relevant to the issue under discussion.
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.

Last edited by Bryan Ekers; 06-03-2019 at 11:58 AM.
  #844  
Old 06-03-2019, 12:09 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,286
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
It should not be taken as a concession of any of your picks, though, particularly freedom from religion which seems the only one that is relevant to the issue under discussion.

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada...ls-study-finds
Quote:
As debate over religious schools continues in Canadian courts and legislatures, a new poll has found that 61 per cent of Canadians support full or partial public funding for faith-based schools.

That would drive me nuts if my tax dollars were being funneled to religious schools!

Wikipedia says:


Quote:
The United Nations declared in 1999 that Ontario was in violation of the international covenant on civil and political rights by exclusively funding Catholic schools over other faith-based schools.[55] In 2007, an Ontario poll conducted by the Strategic Council showed that 71% of people were opposed to expanding faith based funding to non-Catholic religions.[56]

I also remember reading about an atheist in Canada who was not allowed to be a witness in court, although I can't find anything about it via Google.
  #845  
Old 06-03-2019, 02:03 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 58,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
That would drive me nuts if my tax dollars were being funneled to religious schools!
And if you were Canadian, treatment of your mental illness would be covered by provincial health insurance.



I'm not going to chase you down this particular rabbit hole.
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.

Last edited by Bryan Ekers; 06-03-2019 at 02:03 PM.
  #846  
Old 06-03-2019, 02:12 PM
OldGuy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Very east of Foggybog, WI
Posts: 5,306
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
The benefit of the Parliamentary system over ours is that the minority party isn't shut out of governing. Even with a majority coalition, they cannot make as sweeping changes as can be made when the Republicans manage a small majority of seats from a minority of votes.
I really don't understand this at all. In the US you need to control the Presidency, House and Senate to be sure to pass a law. In Canada, if you have a majority in Parliament, you hold the Prime Ministership, too. The Senate must also approve bills, but they have very rarely not done so. So it would seem easier to shut out the minority party in Canada.

It is still possible for one party to hold a majority of seats in the Canadian Parliament while receiving a minority of votes nationwide by winning many seats by a small margin and losing others by a large margin.
  #847  
Old 06-03-2019, 02:32 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 58,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldGuy View Post
It is still possible for one party to hold a majority of seats in the Canadian Parliament while receiving a minority of votes nationwide by winning many seats by a small margin and losing others by a large margin.
Notably, though, the boundaries of the districts that elect those seats as well the rules for the elections themselves are under the control of an independent agency and not the elected officials themselves, hence gerrymandering and other shenanigans pose less of a temptation and problem.

Going to proportional or ranked-preferential voting might work slightly better, I guess.
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.

Last edited by Bryan Ekers; 06-03-2019 at 02:34 PM.
  #848  
Old 06-04-2019, 01:14 AM
nelliebly is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Washington
Posts: 1,447
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
I was going to make a similar point to HDs, except I have actually always believed (I remember first thinking about this in my early teens) that "there oughtta be a law" where men can register with the government as having a default preference that their sexual partners abort any pregnancy that might occur from a sexual liaison they participated in. This would be a public registry any woman could check. If a man is on this registry, he cannot be liable for child support unless he was married to, or cohabitated with, the woman who gave birth to the baby.
Sure, and if we're going to do that, let's have a registry for women so they can have a default preference of either having an abortion OR carrying a baby to term with the father contributing his fair share to either option. How many young men do you think will check this registry before a first date? Would he have to get some ID number from the woman, or would he just have to scroll through all the "Kelly Daniels" and hope he gets the right one? ("Your honor, I thought she was the Kelly Daniels who said she'd have an abortion.") What if a woman doesn't choose to register because she thinks it's nobody's damn business? How many guys would refuse to date Kelly Daniels because she wasn't in the registry?

Of course, it's all moot because the point is not whether the woman gets child support, it's whether the child needs it. No registry is going to convince a judge a man doesn't have to pay child support just because he signed onto a "not responsible" registry. It doesn't, shouldn't, and won't work that way.
  #849  
Old 06-04-2019, 06:58 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,286
Doesn’t and won’t, I agree. But I also believe the government should be providing sufficient resources for a low-income mother to raise her child rather than relying on 18 years of monthly payments from a guy she had a one night stand with.

ETA:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Kitchen View Post
The Slate is liberal? OK.

You don’t think it is? I assure you, as a Slate Plus member, that it is very liberal.

Last edited by SlackerInc; 06-04-2019 at 07:03 AM.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:06 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017