Tuesday, April 08, 2008

OK, so you have a majority. Now what?


Over at Birth Pangs, there's been an interesting challenge thrown down to Canada's fetus fetishists, but it seems to me that that challenge is too narrowly focused, so I have a slightly different one and, like that aforementioned one, it's open to those Canadian bloggers whose every waking moment is devoted to obsessing over other peoples' reproductive rights.

Given the constant yammering about how the Knuckle Draggers Party of Canada is really, really after a majority in the next election, here's what I want to know: If you got that majority and could rewrite Canada's laws on reproductive rights any way you wanted, what would you do?

Remember, kids, these are the folks who can't get through the day without getting all weepy over someone else's clump of non-viable cells, so it won't do to suggest that they wouldn't change a thing -- we know that would be a lie. So what exactly would they do?

And I don't want any wishy-washy responses like, "We'd toughen up Canada's abortion laws" or "We'd make access to abortion more restrictive." Not good enough. What I want is detail, as in, actual legislation -- how you'd write your dream legislation into the Criminal Code of Canada.

For instance, if you genuinely want to criminalize abortion, let's hear what you'd propose in terms of prison sentences, both for abortion providers and for women who circumvent the law to get what would then be an illegal abortion. (Those with long memories might remember this entertaining video in which long-time abortion opponents had clearly never considered that issue.) And let's not stop there.

If someone unintentionally gets pregnant and is forced to carry to term but refuses to have anything to do with the child after it's born, how would you handle that? And, yes, you do need to have an answer for that. If you force someone to have a child she doesn't want, then you're kind of on the hook for looking after it, wouldn't you say? So what happens then?

And given the (theoretical) power to pass whatever legislation you wanted, would you allow, say, licensed pharmacists to exercise their freedom of religious belief to refuse to dispense certain prescriptions (such as birth control pills) if it offended their religious sensibilities. And so on, and so on.

In any event, I'm sure you can see where I'm going with this. I dearly would like to know what these fetus-fixated whackjobs would do if they actually got their hands on the levers of government. So, lines are open and operators are standing by to ignore the crap out of you.

Have at it.

WELL, THAT'S TIMELY: A quick recap of one of my issues from above:

If someone unintentionally gets pregnant and is forced to carry to term but refuses to have anything to do with the child after it's born, how would you handle that? And, yes, you do need to have an answer for that. If you force someone to have a child she doesn't want, then you're kind of on the hook for looking after it, wouldn't you say? So what happens then?

And along comes Suzie All-Caps:

If you're not able to care for a baby, for instance, you're addicted to drugs, then the responsible thing to do is to hand over care to someone who can, either a relative, friend or as a last resort, Child Protection.

"Child Protection?" I'm sorry, Suzie ... did you suggest "Child Protection?" One of those socialist, taxpayer-funded programs that you and the rest of your Blogging Knuckle Dragger colleagues are always to trying to defund? That's where you suggest putting unwanted children?

And for how long, Suzie? Until they're 18? Oh, wait ... I'm guessing you figure those unwanted kids are going to be just snapped up via adoption, don't you? Yessir, you and your right-wing buds are going to be just lining up for the first choice of unwanted, possibly medically-challenged infants and ... uh oh ...

Consider, too, that the children currently available for adoption in Canada are disproportionately burdened with problems of one kind or another. Many suffer from physical problems such as fetal alcohol syndrome. Many are toddlers, or even older children, not infants, who have been seized from abusive homes by Children’s Aid Societies and made wards of the state by the courts. Would-be parents may be unwilling to take on the extra challenges that such children pose, but would happily take on the care of an uninjured, pre-born baby without undesirable psychological baggage.

Or maybe not, eh, Suzie? No, Suzie, I don't think you've really thought this through very well. Perhaps you should -- and I'm making this suggestion with only your best interests in mind -- perhaps, Suzie, you should shut the hell up until you've given this whole matter some serious thought and you have something to say that's not astonishingly retarded.

It's just a thought.

16 comments:

KEvron said...

shall i cue the crickets now?

KEvron

skdadl said...

I think that we have to go all the way on this one -- no wimpy questions about law that only applies after a woman gets pregnant. No, we have to do what some American states have done, which is to recognize that every woman between, say, 12 and 50 is "pre-pregnant" and thus in need of state direction and control.

Don't you see the basic problem? Women are getting pregnant out of wedlock of the well-enough-financed kind. We all know how that happens, and it's not a pretty picture. Somebody is having fun, and so somebody should be suffering for that.

I say bring back the stocks on the commons, and scarlet letters embroidered on everyone's vests.

Prole said...

All women of reproductive age are to be considered pre-pregnant because personhood is established before conception. So along with abolishing and strictly prohibiting birth control, all women with working ovaries and uterus must submit to sexual intercourse at any time, by any fertile man. You never know when that fully formed person is floating above, waiting for a chance to enter a fertilized egg! Mommy!

Pale said...

Cattle. Chattel. I don't think they see any difference.

BlueBerry Pick'n said...

...I love being an indentured chauffeur to a blastocyst.
I love being an indentured chauffeur to a blastocyst.
I love being an indentured chauffeur to a blastocyst.


repeat as necessary until you can believe it...


How PRIVACY violations abort populist gov't reforms

if there is no Public Will for Privacy Protections... & conservatives demand we 'criminalize VICE' (aka, 'how one choses to use use or enjoy their own body') ... exactly WHO IS PERFECT ENOUGH to be 'permitted' to participate in democratic protections from corruption?

~~~
Spread Love...

BlueBerry Pick'n
can be found @
ThisCanadian com
~~~
"We, two, form a Multitude" ~ Ovid.
~~~
"Silent Freedom is Freedom Silenced"
"do no harm"

Mike said...

"all women with working ovaries and uterus must submit to sexual intercourse at any time, by any fertile man."

Well, lets be fair here, they only want that to be applied to Christian men, lest those sneaky Moooslims and other assorted brown folk create the dreaded "demographic winter".

Do you think changing the name of the country to Gilead is in the cards too?

Are we on the other side allowed to describe in detail how we would fight this, should it come to pass? Or should we maintain operational security?

Niles said...

I for one would LOOOOVE to "happily take on the care of an uninjured, pre-born baby without undesirable psychological baggage"

Can't be that hard. Since preborn, it's residing in a woman shaped incubator. All I'd have to do is order that incubator around and demand it behave exactly as I desire and then if the non-preborn product turns out defective by time of delivery, I can blame the incubator anyway and drop the responsibility...and the second that kid becomes non-preborn, I can drop it like a hot potato in any case? Is there a warranty?

So...just whose undesirable psychological baggage is under discussion here? And if we mean the preborn paed's... does that mean there are no physiologically sourced neuro-behavioral problems that might not show up until non-preborn?

Or does that word 'psychological' not mean what Suza thinks it means?

Oh right, these are the same folks who believe sexuality is a wardrobe change and once you're dressed wrong (so maaaany ways to dress out of style with the Righteous-tool kids), you shouldn't be adopting kids anyway.

HT said...

Gosh, I was writing a total Lord of the Flies scenario, then I stopped myself. This is so sad. Women as breeding stock!
Kids as commodities - how many kids are out on the streets selling their bodies and their internal self worth?

But I just had to add, Tax Cuts. Who gives a good gosh darn about infrastructure, kids, abused women, abused men, health care, environment. Give me what I earned without government interference, without all those nasty taxes for health care, pension, unemployment situations etc but be darned sure that when I'm in trouble, you are there for me, me, and only me. And while you're at it, get those gays and lesbians and uppity women, and bring back Christianity, but only the one that I worship - those others are not Christians.
Ah, heck, I could go on forever, but I suddenly realized that it would never make a difference. People like "Suzie" will never change, until it's profitable for her to do so. She is marketing a product - nothing more, nothing less. There is no belief, other than a desire to generate a dollar, same as Shaidle. These people are HUCKSTERS, nothing more, nothing less.

E in MD said...

Or does that word 'psychological' not mean what Suza thinks it means?

By Blogger Niles, at 2:47 PM


No, she's just an opinionatedly bint who feels the need to live everyone else's lives for them, except where it really counts. Otherwise her and all her fetus fetishist buddies would be lining up around the block to adopt these babies regardless of what might be 'wrong' with them.

It is now as it was before with fetusfetishistmomma, they only want to save certain 'babies' and the rest are on their own especially the ones that are already plopped out. If this weren't the case Deamonte Driver would still be kicking around the Baltoplex instead of being in a cheap pine box because people like her voted down the programs needed to give him the simple dental surgery that would have saved his life.

Boris said...

Mike,
I don't think it violates opsec to tell them that a Con majority trying to legislate its way into your body not likely be recognised.

jj said...

"...working ovaries and uterus..."

That would be the all-purpose, fuel-efficient "commuter-uter", as opposed to the fun and frisky "sport-ute"?

mikmik said...

The dangers of sex-ed:
Revealed: The shocking state of British virgins

('tis satire):
"I blame the education system. When I was thirteen, I had no idea whatsoever what the human reproductive system was for until some biology teacher explained that I could gain pleasure from admitting a man's penis into my vagina. I can tell you, it was straight round to my boyfriend's, half a bottle of sweet cider, knickers down and on the job. Since then, I've had forty-three partners, seven abortions...."

liberal supporter said...

Once the Enabling Act gave the Harper regime jurisdiction within the womb, such that anything considered alive within the womb was legally protected, the Harper State funded research to develop the implantable womb camera. The wombcam was designed to power itself by extracting nutrients from the uterine wall, and had special defenses so that it could poison the incubator host, should any attempt be made to remove it. These properties were considered sufficient that the wombcam could be considered "life" and therefore was protected by law.

Mass implantation of the wombcam was sanctioned under "Elena's Law" in memory of Mrs. Ceaucescu, who was a true friend of the fetus until she was assassinated by fringe elements in an uprising in 1989.

Not only did the wombcam detect and alert the Fetal Aid Society when an egg was fertilized, it would provide conclusive proof that the egg willingly accepted the sperm that fertilized it. The reported incidence of rape was greatly reduced, only those who had not yet received their wombcam implant were able to introduce other evidence to sustain a charge of rape in the fertility courts.

The wombcam further improved lives by monitoring the fetus to ensure it was being treated properly by the incubator host. For inferior hosts, the wombcam was useful to ensure there were no developing fetuses present when inferior hosts were executed, often for attempting to procure abortions or even worse, wombcam removal.

Later versions had microphones, giving effective monitoring of the incubator host, so that early intervention was possible should the host attempt to discuss illegal activities, learn science, not vote CPC, or mate with a lefty.

And we all lived happily ever after.

Sheena said...

So then what jurisdiction has authority over the Gatineau fetuses when Quebec separates?

Cameron Campbell said...

The Mighty Freedom Loving Republic of Quebec.

Karol karolak said...

==Modest proposal on abortion divorce and custody of children.==

When Canadian radical feminists write quote, "As opposed to "formal" equality, "substantive" equality recognizes the effect on women of their own biology and accumulated social disadvantage, acknowledging that laws and policies can affect them differently than they do men -- and then correcting that imbalance." We (Canadian men) should take them at their word and demand "substantive" equality for men on issues of human reproduction.

see: http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=42b64359-4031-4398-a1a5-f93006e6a4fe

Considering current catastrophic birth rate in Canada standing at unsustainable 1.5 child per woman of chilbearing age federal legislation restricting abortions is inevitable anyway so while we are at it we might as well try to solve all other issues that are discouraging Canadians from having children.

Due to biology of human species only women are capable bearing children. Under current lack of applicable laws women are free to decide to have an abortion or carry pregnancy to term, and they can and do use pregnancy as a leverage and ultimate weapon in their quest of total domination of Canadian men. Since current situation is skewing workings of Canadian economy thru unjustifiable transfer of wealth (division of property, spousal support, child support, legal cost of divorce litigation), and discourages men from getting married and investing their time end efforts in setting up family and raising children, than in order to level playing field men should demand that they automatically be granted sole custody of all children that were sired by them (based on DNA paternity testing).

Such demand by Canadian men should ease radical feminists' apprehensions about introduction of restrictions on abortions in Canada. Unwanted pregnancy and childbirth would no longer be whole life altering event, but an inconvenience soon to be concealed and forgotten by all people involved.

In this way women would be relived from having to bear "full responsibility" for their poor choices of sexual partners, and be free to seek better partners in the future. It seems to me that nine months of pregnancy and childbirth is not that harsh punishment for a night of fun, at least not as harsh as 20 plus years of having to pay child support for a kid they never see as is the norm today for Canadian men.

Since under current practice women rarely if ever are forced to pay any child support when on rare occasion men are awarded sole custody of their children whole issue of child support could easily be scrapped eliminating government involvement, and costs of government bureaucracy.

Men would become much more responsible for their sexual behaviour, as they would be running risk of a cute little baby dropped at their doorsteps nine months after a night of fun. Old hags who had their asses scraped so many times that they are no longer able to get pregnant would have many cute babies with uncertain parentage to choose from and adopt without spending a fortune on buying children stolen for them by CAS from poor single mothers that are trying to find for themselves reason for their own existence.

All nonsense of deadbeat dads would disappear overnight; we would be able to scrap Family Responsibility Office and Family Courts.
Birthrate would raise dramatically easing demand on increase of immigration as only means to sustain Canadian economy.

Canadian Children’s Aid Societies would revert from baby snatchers feeding adoption racket, back to protectors of abused and vulnerable children.

Divorce rates would plummet as women who truly love their kids would sacrifice their "freedom" and a "right" to find new and better partner for company of their own kids.

In case of divorce children would automatically stay with fathers forcing them to find another woman to take care of children abandoned by their
biological mother. That in turn would lead men to have second crop of children with their new partners. Such arrangement would motivate to work and provide for their families. Women would have to resort to charm instead of blackmail in order to stay in relationships. Gender wars would come to immidate end.

Medical costs associated with performing abortions, infertility treatments and mental health treatments would also drop dramatically.

What is there that radical feminists would not like about such proposal???