• Welcome to BookAndReader!

    We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!

    Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.

Radical Handmaid's

Mr. A

Mr. A

Member
I just heard about Radical Handmaid's on my way to work and finally have some time to look more into them. Those familiar with Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale, these red clad radical handmaids are not sitting around idly while Canada descend into Gilead, but they are activists protesting Motion 321 (M-321), which is anti-abortion by trying to get legal personhood for fetuses.

This is the counterarguments site of the handmaid's:
Counter Arguments Against Motion M-312: "The Handmaid's Tale"
and this is the site of the Radical Handmaid's:
radicalhandmaids

Fortunately today Sept. 27 2012 it was defeated, and not passed.

I just thought this may be of interest to some here.
 
So the Radical Handmaids advocate the right to terminate a healthy fetus on the grounds that it's not the correct sex.
 
Mr. A said:
I just heard about Radical Handmaid's on my way to work and finally have some time to look more into them. Those familiar with Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale, these red clad radical handmaids are not sitting around idly while Canada descend into Gilead, but they are activists protesting Motion 321 (M-321), which is anti-abortion by trying to get legal personhood for fetuses.

This is the counterarguments site of the handmaid's:
Counter Arguments Against Motion M-312: "The Handmaid's Tale"
and this is the site of the Radical Handmaid's:
radicalhandmaids

Fortunately today Sept. 27 2012 it was defeated, and not passed.

I just thought this may be of interest to some here.
Click to expand...

How did they vote on this today - it's not even 8:00 a.m. in Ottawa?
 
Mr. A said:
I think I want to try to contact the Radical Handmaids site to see what they think of this site, which provides much intellectual ammo
Click to expand...

In the West we've spent over a century working toward sexual equality, so aborting a fetus purely on the grounds of possessing the 'wrong' genitals is the ultimate form of sexual discrimination.
 
Conscious Bob said:
In the West we've spent over a century working toward sexual equality, so aborting a fetus purely on the grounds of possessing the 'wrong' genitals is the ultimate form of sexual discrimination.
Click to expand...

A woman has the right to abortion, sex selection abortion, too, which I think you are bringing up. She has the right to abortion, no matter what her reasons for having one, whether rational or irrational, her right does not change any.
 
Mr. A said:
A woman has the right to abortion, sex selection abortion, too, which I think you are bringing up. She has the right to abortion, no matter what her reasons for having one, whether rational or irrational, her right does not change any.
Click to expand...

Is that the law or is that what you think her right should be?
 
pontalba said:
Agreed. How could it not be.
Click to expand...

Regardless, if a woman choices to have an abortion because of the gender of the fetus, or because the fetus is not there by her permission as in case of rape, or she may die during pregnancy, or because of something wrong with fetus and does not want to have such a burden upon her, or because she had unprotected sex and got pregnant, or because... she just doesnt want to have a child - period. Again, for whatever reason, it is and should be recognized as her right regardless, and any interference by government into that matter would be a violation of her right to abortion. And until the fetus is born, when a potential human being becomes an actual, only then does it have rights.
 
Mr. A said:
Regardless, if a woman choices to have an abortion because of the gender of the fetus, or because the fetus is not there by her permission as in case of rape, or she may die during pregnancy, or because of something wrong with fetus and does not want to have such a burden upon her, or because she had unprotected sex and got pregnant, or because... she just doesnt want to have a child - period. Again, for whatever reason, it is and should be recognized as her right regardless, and any interference by government into that matter would be a violation of her right to abortion. And until the fetus is born, when a potential human being becomes an actual, only then does it have rights.
Click to expand...

I agree with abortion, for medical reasons, for traumatic reasons and even for economic reasons but sex selection is an entirely different matter.

This is after all, abortion based not on a life threatening defect, accident or rape but on a preferred physical characteristic.

As human beings, men and women, we don't have the right to sexually select future generations. By preferring one gender over another at such a fundemental level we completely destroy the concept of gender equality.

These radical handmaids may advocate that gender selection is their choice but in general across the world far more girls are aborted than boys. The right for the Radical Handmaids to choose does not include their unborn sisters.
 
Conscious Bob said:
As human beings, men and women, we don't have the right to sexually select future generations. By preferring one gender over another at such a fundemental level we completely destroy the concept of gender equality.
Click to expand...

Not allowing a woman the right to abortion, for any reason whatsoever that she decides to have one during any point of her pregnancy, would be destroying the concept of... individual rights. This is the foundation of gender equality - the concept of individual rights is applicable to both genders. Since a fetus, regardless of gender, is not a physically separate living human being, it has no rights. If a woman wants a girl and only a girl for whatever reason, her right to abortion should still be respected, recognized, upheld, and protected by law.
 
Conscious Bob said:
In the West we've spent over a century working toward sexual equality, so aborting a fetus purely on the grounds of possessing the 'wrong' genitals is the ultimate form of sexual discrimination.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I believe in the right to abort but this reason is just stupid...

In Portugal, abortion is a legal procedure that can be done on-demand if a woman's pregnancy has not exceeded its tenth week. I believe it's not possible to tell the sex of a fetus at this time, but please correct me if I'm wrong.

It's also a legal procedure until the sixteenth week in the case of rape, until the twenty-fourth week in the case of fetal defects or incurable syndromes, and at any time to save the life of the mother or in case of unviable fetus.
 
Landslide said:
Agreed. I believe in the right to abort but this reason is just stupid...

In Portugal, abortion is a legal procedure that can be done on-demand if a woman's pregnancy has not exceeded its tenth week. I believe it's not possible to tell the sex of a fetus at this time, but please correct me if I'm wrong.

It's also a legal procedure until the sixteenth week in the case of rape, until the twenty-fourth week in the case of fetal defects or incurable syndromes, and at any time to save the life of the mother or in case of unviable fetus.
Click to expand...

I have trouble with the idea of aborting a fetus on the basis of gender - it to me seems wrong. I agree on the basis of rape, medical conditions and other reasons cited in the foregoing posts but definitely not on the basis of gender.
 
While people may have objections to a woman wanting a girl instead of a boy, I know that when I planned to have a child with my ex-wife, it was a child we wanted primarily not gender specific child, (and we did have one, a girl), the point of all this is, abortion is and should be a woman's choice by right, not by permission, nor does she have to provide a 'valid reason' as to why she chooses abortion or birth.

While eople are certainly free to voice their objections to what they regards a valid and invalid reasons for a woman choosing abortion as much as their right to freedom of speech allows them to be vocal about it, but one thing that should not be done is to prevent a woman from making such a choice in regards to abortion, since abortion should be hers by right, for whatever reason, whether the government recognizes her right to abortion or not, does not change that right any.
 
Mr. A said:
While eople are certainly free to voice their objections to what they regards a valid and invalid reasons for a woman choosing abortion as much as their right to freedom of speech allows them to be vocal about it, but one thing that should not be done is to prevent a woman from making such a choice in regards to abortion, since abortion should be hers by right, for whatever reason, whether the government recognizes her right to abortion or not, does not change that right any.
Click to expand...

Actually as you're in the minority at the moment feel free to disagree with us. Societies have a responsibility for parents and their children whether born or not. Women also require assistance to abort so this right has to be supplied... By everyone.
 
Interesting website there Mr. A. Good thing that group is in Canada. They would get NO traction in my state, the midwest, the south, or be able to garner enough "pull" for their agenda in the U.S. I would even go so far as to say that we are about one supreme court justice away from potentially overturning Roe v. Wade. We have had some interesting legislation regarding "fetal pain" bills that have been passed in a few states. As I understand it, abortion would be banned at the point that a physician could determine that a fetus would be able to feel pain from the abortion process.

Finding "the line" on this issue is a tough one. Some would argue that if a woman can be cited for drinking while pregnant, it is rich irony that she could terminate a pregnancy with no consequences. At the same time, it's quite telling that the key reasoning behind the Roe decision was privacy, and not the moral conundrum of where and when does something begin.
 
I doubt Roe v. Wade will be overturned in our lifetimes. A Roe v. Wade overturn would be the last thing that the Republicans really want.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top