And I would suggest given her previous performance in cabinet she hasn’t given much thought to it at all - are we done taking my snark overly seriously? I’m however underwhelmed by the suggestion that white women are incapable of extrapolating gender bias in their lives to pressures their nonwhite Canadian peers face - especially after we’ve been in Afghanistan for 10 years and have been blessed with stories of women suffering acid scaring, stoning and assorted other barbarisms. And I suppose white Canadian women have never heard of the honor killings in Kingston, or the 16 year old girl killed in Mississauga or about the UBC student who went back to Bangladesh and had her eyes hacked out. It would seem whites simply can’t imagine the pressure some women from tradition bound cultures have to endure.
The point is that abortion in Canada is not a ghoulish hell of late term abortions taken at a whim and so does not require legislation to place bounds on it. Further, more while the gender selection of boys over girls in recent immigrant families is discernible the focus should NOT be on ensuring those families have girls since it’s completely possible they may never have any but on making the men realize the inherent worth of women - that strikes me as a significantly greater long term value than using it, it seems to me, as a flag of convenience during an abortion debate.
Yeah, he’s in Kingston. Open your wallets folks he’s sueing us for ten million, because he got caught killing our allies in a warzone and the Americans allegedly tortured him while in custody so its our fault. Pay up.
Possibly. Possibly not. I don’t think it’s a common occurrence at present. Hence “might.” I’m so glad we haven’t had any honour killings… oh, no, wait, we have.
[QUOTE=Grey]
The point is that abortion in Canada is not a ghoulish hell of late term abortions taken at a whim and so does not require legislation to place bounds on it.
[/QUOTE]
You might be correct. I am not, however, going to condemn someone who wants to discuss the matter, as in fact people are doing. Standing against the religious right trying to take away people’s freedoms is one thing, and I will not for an instant deny that that was the intent of some of the people who voted for M-312. But saying “You aren’t even allowed to discuss a potential problem” is, in my honest opinion, stupid. And yet people seem to be saying just that. Unless someone gives me evidence to the contrary, I am going to give Ambrose the benefit of the doubt and of the available evidence, and assume that she does, in fact, have some idea of what she’s talking about. Perhaps she read the same study you cited, which openly concludes sex-selective abortion is taking place in Canada.
I mean, it may be that we have to just suck it up. That is, IMHO, an entirely logical and defensible position. But can it at least be discussed?
This is the government that cancelled the long form census over privacy complaints that didn’t exist. They have used the increase in unreported crime as a justification for building higher security prisons at greater expense to the taxpayer.
So when the concern over gender-selective abortion is raised, I’d like some evidence that there is a basis for the concern. Then, I can make up my mind as to whether the concern is a legitimate one, or a red herring introduced to manufacture consent for re-opening the debate on abortion on demand. I’m not against having the discussion, as long as the discussion will be based on facts.
They knew from other unreported reports that it would grow worse: The increase in unreported UFO sightings, the increase in unreported sightings of Elvis and last but not least, the increase in unreported reports reported by Minister of Unreported Reports Vic Toews.
A bloody cabinet minister does not throw her weight behind a bill obviously targeted to taking control of women’s bodies away from them. If she was a simple member of Parliament - fine. It was a free vote and she can vote her conscience which apparently is “abortion should be restricted”. She is however the minister responsible for advancing the status of women and ensuring that rights hard won are not cast aside thanks to an open ended private members bill.
As for her ability to discern a future threat of gender selection abortions and so forestall it by restricting abortion is stupid beyond belief. It’s the underlying attitudes towards the status of women by those patriarchal cultures that drives the sex selection and violence towards girls. The minister should focus on that and not use it as an excuse to support abortion restrictions.
That was my point - as the Minister for the Status of Women, I don’t get why she was voting the way she was. It doesn’t make sense to me for just the reasons you’ve stated - she’s supposed to be on the side of women, not against them.
I’m certain she knew what the final outcome would be, and that her vote was a protest vote. Voting as she did, she knew she would be asked for reasons, and her reason appears to be rooted in the selective-sex abortion issue.
I don’t agree with her vote, but if she took this position to bring attention to gender-specific abortion then I admire her.
Yeah, possibly. Hey I’m no expert here, but when you are given the information that you have a baby daughter in your uterus and you choose to abort it on those terms only, I have an issue.
I don’t think that’s what Leaffan is getting at. I think what he’s saying (and Leaffan, you can correct me if I’m wrong), is that in some cultures, women will have no say in the matter.
Their husbands will. In some cultures, girl-children are unwanted, while boy-children are. It won’t be the woman’s choice; her husband will make it for her. Because in some cultures, the man makes all the decisions and the woman has no say.
I think that’s what Leaffan is getting at. He doesn’t want to see (and neither do I) a Canadian society where aborting a female fetus solely based on someone’s “culture,” especially where that culture favours male children, is fine.
There can be many reasons for an abortion–a sexual assault, a mistake, a broken condom during an evening of passion, and similar–but aborting a fetus simply because that fetus happens to be female, and “our culture” affords fewer rights to females, is (IMHO) abominable. Here in Canada, female humans are equal in all ways to males. As such, abortions based on the ultrasound-discovered sex of the child should not be permitted.
Have I described your position appropriately, Leaffan?