cybercoma Posted April 16, 2012 Report Share Posted April 16, 2012 The decision to have an abortion is the result of one thing and one thing only, a woman being pregnant when she does not want to be a mother. It doesn't matter what choices were made before that or after that, you cannot force a woman to carry a child to term and have a baby if she is absolutely set against. Women died in shady back-alley establishments to have abortions. In the early-modern period, abortifacients were used to end pregnancies often with horrible effects to the woman's health. You can eliminate abortion or put barriers up to access (like forcing people to pay for it or jump through approval hoops), but they will continue to find a way. Why? Because you cannot legislate what a person can and can't do with their body. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted April 17, 2012 Report Share Posted April 17, 2012 You're comparing a woman having to carry a child to term, give birth to it, and be a mother before she is ready to having your teeth cleaned. Just to put your argument into context here. Yes, because we all know that's all there is to dentistry . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmax Posted April 17, 2012 Report Share Posted April 17, 2012 Yes, because we all know that's all there is to dentistry . Nothing like discussing an Election Campaign while standing on the 3rd rail. The discussion is a net loss. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted April 17, 2012 Report Share Posted April 17, 2012 (edited) Nothing like discussing an Election Campaign while standing on the 3rd rail. The discussion is a net loss. Not when you only need that 35% of the electorate to win a majority. Edited April 17, 2012 by punked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmax Posted April 17, 2012 Report Share Posted April 17, 2012 Not when you only need that 35% of the electorate to win a majority. No, i am speaking that a single issue wedge topic on a discussion forum leads nowhere.. I am trying to get a prediction poll posted..but MLW is crashing on me before it posts... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted April 17, 2012 Report Share Posted April 17, 2012 Nothing like discussing an Election Campaign while standing on the 3rd rail. Sorry, but I hate when people use stupid analogies. I btw, am quite sure the matter is settled, and also that WR is crazier than bat shit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted April 17, 2012 Report Share Posted April 17, 2012 Yes, because we all know that's all there is to dentistry . Having your teeth pulled if they are bad is covered by most provincial plans, even when 'dentist visits' are not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmax Posted April 17, 2012 Report Share Posted April 17, 2012 Interesting http://www.toryorwildrose.ca/?q=1 Warning... Liberal Link Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dpwozney Posted April 18, 2012 Report Share Posted April 18, 2012 Well if you can't afford prescription drugs then doesn't the government step in? Ditto with dental care? So if it can be proven you have no other option than a publicly-funded abortion then OK let the gumint be on the dime. But it shouldn't be the default response by the healthcare system IMHO. I'd say many decisions to have an abortion are as a result of bad choices. Danielle Smith supports having taxpayers pay for any and all abortions that are not medically necessary and could be paid instead by the people having the abortions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted April 18, 2012 Report Share Posted April 18, 2012 Danielle Smith supports having taxpayers pay for any and all abortions that are not medically necessary and could be paid instead by the people having the abortions. She's not allowed to create a law that defines when a woman can and cannot have an abortion. That was already challenged at the Supreme Court and lost. The Supreme Court ruled that this kind of law violates the security of the person by determining for a woman when she is eligible for an abortion and when she isn't, causing delays in treatment, etc. Woman have a right to control their own fertility, whether you like it or not. So abortions, whether medically necessary or not, ought to be widely available for that reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fellowtraveller Posted April 18, 2012 Report Share Posted April 18, 2012 (edited) Nobody from the Wildrose intends to have a referendum on something like this. This is just fear monger stuff from the pcaa. Holding referendums is stated Wildrose policy. And they can delist abortions, and will. It doesn't matter if the feds or anybody takes them to court, it will take months and years to reverse. It is the way that the Proliefers(who just cannot get any traction in Canada) can get the issue front and center, and finally into a court in Canada. In the meantime, mission accomplished for them. They cannot get anywhere with abortions treated as medical issues, this is an opportunity to make it a judicial issue, finally. Oh, and Smith of course is a complete fucking hypocrite about referendums. Her policy calls for citizen referendums. The citizens of Edmonton has a referendum in 1995 and chose to close the municipal airport. She has promised to keep it open if elected. So much for promises. Edited April 18, 2012 by fellowtraveller Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dpwozney Posted April 18, 2012 Report Share Posted April 18, 2012 She's not allowed to create a law that defines when a woman can and cannot have an abortion. That was already challenged at the Supreme Court and lost. The Supreme Court ruled that this kind of law violates the security of the person by determining for a woman when she is eligible for an abortion and when she isn't, causing delays in treatment, etc. Woman have a right to control their own fertility, whether you like it or not. So abortions, whether medically necessary or not, ought to be widely available for that reason. Whether or not the above is completely true, the above is irrelevant to what I wrote, which is that Danielle Smith supports having taxpayers pay for any and all abortions that are not medically necessary and could be paid instead by the people having the abortions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted April 19, 2012 Report Share Posted April 19, 2012 Whether or not the above is completely true, the above is irrelevant to what I wrote, which is that Danielle Smith supports having taxpayers pay for any and all abortions that are not medically necessary and could be paid instead by the people having the abortions. IT DOES NOT MATTER. That is not the way the UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE system works in our country. Unless Alberta is looking to lose Federal funding so their health care taxes go to other provinces. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNewTeddy Posted April 19, 2012 Author Report Share Posted April 19, 2012 Except that it is. PEI has never, and still does not, fund abortion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted April 19, 2012 Report Share Posted April 19, 2012 they never thought they'd vote PC!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dpwozney Posted April 19, 2012 Report Share Posted April 19, 2012 IT DOES NOT MATTER. The fact, that Danielle Smith supports the system of having taxpayers pay for any and all abortions that are not medically necessary and could be paid instead by the people having the abortions, does matter to certain potential voters. Unless Alberta is looking to lose Federal funding so their health care taxes go to other provinces. Why should the “Province of Alberta” lose “Federal funding” and have “their health care taxes go to other provinces” if people in the “Province of Alberta” still have the right to an abortion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmax Posted April 19, 2012 Report Share Posted April 19, 2012 (edited) Why should the Province of Alberta lose Federal funding and have their health care taxes go to other provinces if people in the Province of Alberta still have the right to an abortion? I guess the WR intends to fight this in court Because they are funded, I think WR will have an even tougher time then Manitoba which until 2004 didn't fund abortions.. Until 2004, Manitoba did not fund private abortion clinics. However, in July 2004 the province's only private abortion clinic was purchased by a non-profit organization, which then successfully sued the provincial government to pay for abortion procedures there Edited April 19, 2012 by madmax Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted April 19, 2012 Report Share Posted April 19, 2012 (edited) Except that it is. PEI has never, and still does not, fund abortion. That is untrue they do and have funded abortion from the time Supreme court ruling. Check out the facts. You just have to leave the province to do it. Canada has laws and no amount of right wing hoping and wishing is going to change that. Got a problem with it then take it up with Harper, don't like is answer don't vote for him. Edited April 19, 2012 by punked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNewTeddy Posted April 19, 2012 Author Report Share Posted April 19, 2012 Abortion funding is not going to sink a campaign. It's the only social issue where the voter base is slowly swinging back to the right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted April 19, 2012 Report Share Posted April 19, 2012 Why should the “Province of Alberta” lose “Federal funding” and have “their health care taxes go to other provinces” if people in the “Province of Alberta” still have the right to an abortion? Because the law is about access to, not the right to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted April 19, 2012 Report Share Posted April 19, 2012 Abortion funding is not going to sink a campaign. It's the only social issue where the voter base is slowly swinging back to the right. Just an untrue statement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dpwozney Posted April 19, 2012 Report Share Posted April 19, 2012 I guess the WR intends to fight this in court I doubt the WR intends to fight this in court. According to CBC News, “Wildrose Leader Danielle Smith said she has absolutely no intention of legislating on abortion, and that includes delisting”. Because they are funded, I think WR will have an even tougher time then Manitoba which until 2004 didn't fund abortions.. Until 2004, Manitoba did not fund private abortion clinics. However, in July 2004 the province's only private abortion clinic was purchased by a non-profit organization, which then successfully sued the provincial government to pay for abortion procedures there. Delisting abortion does not mean that a private abortion clinic, purchased by a non-profit organization, would not get funding for people who cannot afford to pay for an abortion. Delisting abortion means making only the people, who can afford to pay for their abortions, pay for their abortions. Delisting abortion does not mean that anyone, who wants an abortion, would no longer have access, or the right, to an abortion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dpwozney Posted April 19, 2012 Report Share Posted April 19, 2012 Because the law is about access to, not the right to. Why should the “Province of Alberta” lose “federal funding” and have “their health care taxes go to other provinces” if anyone in the “Province of Alberta”, who wants an abortion, still has access to an abortion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted April 19, 2012 Report Share Posted April 19, 2012 Why should the “Province of Alberta” lose “federal funding” and have “their health care taxes go to other provinces” if anyone in the “Province of Alberta”, who wants an abortion, still has access to an abortion? Because the courts say when you limit funding you limit access. That is why it is illegal to have two tiered healthcare it is about access. No amount of hoping and wishing is going to change our FEDERAL laws on it. Better go take this fight up with Harper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted April 19, 2012 Report Share Posted April 19, 2012 Delisting abortion does not mean that a private abortion clinic, purchased by a non-profit organization, would not get funding for people who cannot afford to pay for an abortion. Delisting abortion means making only the people, who can afford to pay for their abortions, pay for their abortions. Delisting abortion does not mean that anyone, who wants an abortion, would no longer have access, or the right, to an abortion. You don't understand how our health care system works. That is all you have shown us in this thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.