Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Chretien and Martin took this country's finances and turned them around. They were very fiscally conservative in the way that they governed. I don't know what Chretien did to frenchify it, either (other than being from Quebec). That said, I'm not sure how acknowledging this country's history is somehow left wing.

Edited by Smallc
  • Replies 395
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted

Chretien and Martin took this country's finances and turned them around. They were very fiscally conservative in the way that they governed. I don't know what Chretien did to frenchify it, either (other than being from Quebec). That said, I'm not sure how acknowledging this country's history is somehow left wing.

Look at what those two promoted socially. It's darned near right out of the communist manifesto. I pray to God that he gives you people the wisdom to see the truth for what it really is and to stop believing in ways that will only serve to hurt Canada.

"You are scum for insinuating that isn't the case you snake." -William Ashley

Canadian Immigration Reform Blog

Posted

smile.gif Oh Ho!

So you believe everyone is a total idiot, and can't see what you're driving at.

What an unbelievably dishonest remark. Of course it's about abortion...that is precisely your interest in it, and why you started the thread.

Exactly.

Posted

Look at what those two promoted socially.

Yeah....scary stuff....rolleyes.gif

It's darned near right out of the communist manifesto.

ph34r.png

I pray to God that he gives you people the wisdom

Don't bother.

Posted

Chretien and Martin took this country's finances and turned them around. They were very fiscally conservative in the way that they governed. I don't know what Chretien did to frenchify it, either (other than being from Quebec). That said, I'm not sure how acknowledging this country's history is somehow left wing.

Didn't they primarily download costs to the provinces rather than actually save money?
  • Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone."
  • Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds.
  • Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location?
  • The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).

Posted

Just because I care about your education, kraychik, I tracked down the table for you.

StatsCan 2003 Data

Here's the breakdown at a glance:

5-12 weeks — 90.1%

13-16 weeks — 7.4%

17-20 weeks — 2.0%

>20 weeks — 0.3%

Keeping it further in mind that these include abortions for all reasons, even medical emergencies.

There is a password required to open that link. You're still not addressing the core of the issue, why does the proportion of pregnancy terminations being carried out in the later stages of pregnancy relevant? If is is wrong to do so, it is wrong to do so once or a million times. Imagine removing criminalisation of murder simply because it's a rare crime. It's an absurd line of logic.

Posted

Just because I care about your education, kraychik, I tracked down the table for you.

StatsCan 2003 Data

Here's the breakdown at a glance:

5-12 weeks — 90.1%

13-16 weeks — 7.4%

17-20 weeks — 2.0%

>20 weeks — 0.3%

Keeping it further in mind that these include abortions for all reasons, even medical emergencies.

My mistake, it opens without a password. I just needed to press 'enter' when prompted for it. Assuming the statistics are correct, they're irrelevant for reasons I already explained. Moreover, the link itself acknowledges that it only collected information from hospitals and clinics that collected this specific information. I do, however, believe it is fair to assume that these statistics are consistent across the entire abortion panorama.

Posted

It's not wrong to do so and I already explained why. The reason I'm posting the numbers is to support the idea that it's only done in the most serious circumstances. Those that just don't want to be pregnant get it done earlier. Those that have late term abortions do so because they were either unable to make the decision sooner due to some sort of abuse or they didn't find out about a serious complication with their pregnancy until later. The fact of the matter is, doctors don't just perform late term abortions in Canada for any reason. The list of exemptions you would have to put on any law limiting late term abortion makes it a massive waste of time to even run it through the legislature. Moreover, it creates unnecessary complications for women that may have been abuse and for doctors that may need to make quick decisions.

Posted

It's not wrong to do so and I already explained why. The reason I'm posting the numbers is to support the idea that it's only done in the most serious circumstances. Those that just don't want to be pregnant get it done earlier. Those that have late term abortions do so because they were either unable to make the decision sooner due to some sort of abuse or they didn't find out about a serious complication with their pregnancy until later. The fact of the matter is, doctors don't just perform late term abortions in Canada for any reason. The list of exemptions you would have to put on any law limiting late term abortion makes it a massive waste of time to even run it through the legislature. Moreover, it creates unnecessary complications for women that may have been abuse and for doctors that may need to make quick decisions.

Your conjecture about "abuse" or health complications being the primary (or exclusive) reasons for late-term abortions is worthless. As is your false assertion that a woman cannot secure a late-term abortion in Canada for any reason.

Posted

Why is it "wrong"? If a human embryo/fetus is a human life, and the primary moral consideration is whether or not it is ethical to terminate this life, then why would the ethics of this change whether the entity in question is 12 weeks old or 13 weeks old? Absurd.

Perhaps you should consider that there are more than two possible answers to the question of when life begins. You're assuming an all-or-nothing perspective, where one must either believe that life begins are conception or at birth, without any possible answer for some period of time or occurrence in between those two points in time.

The morality of having an abortion is unchanged over the span of the pregnancy, because there is a higher ethical consideration than the one of taking or not taking a life: whether the government should have the power to subjugate the physical freedom of one person to the needs of another. Only once the fetus is viable and can survive outside the mother should abortion be off the table, since options which give the mother her freedom while also saving the life of the fetus would then exist.

That's one opinion. Also, your opinion is at odds with Canada's existing laws, which do not grant rights to unborn children based on viability of life outside of the mother. That's a pretty extreme position that Canada's staked out on this issue, and it's certainly out-of-line with many Canadians.

Posted

If is is wrong to do so, it is wrong to do so once or a million times.

Perhaps you should consider that there are more than two possible answers to the question of when life begins. You're assuming an all-or-nothing perspective, where one must either believe that life begins are conception or at birth, without any possible answer for some period of time or occurrence in between those two points in time.

How do these two quotes work together?

Posted

I am firmly pro life but am slowly seeing that perhaps it not be the governments place to legislate women's bodies but I still think that abortions in the ninth month are wrong and need to be against the law. I just don't see how killing a baby in the womb at eight or nine months pregnant can be seen as a great triumph for women's rights.

"You are scum for insinuating that isn't the case you snake." -William Ashley

Canadian Immigration Reform Blog

Posted

How do these two quotes work together?

What is it you can't understand? Once is a reference to late-term abortions always being wrong, whether they're carried out once a decade or hundreds of times a years (assuming one accepts the premise of them being wrong, of course).

The second comment is a simple statement of fact: that different people have differing opinions of when rights are guaranteed to a person; that reasonable people can disagree over this.

This isn't complicated, BigL.

Posted

What is it you can't understand? Once is a reference to late-term abortions always being wrong, whether they're carried out once a decade or hundreds of times a years (assuming one accepts the premise of them being wrong, of course).

Your statement wasn't that clear. It seemed to imply that abortion is always wrong, no matter when it is performed.

Posted

Your statement wasn't that clear. It seemed to imply that abortion is always wrong, no matter when it is performed.

It was perfectly clear in the context within which it was given. It's not my problem you didn't follow the discussion prior to that post.

Posted

It was perfectly clear in the context within which it was given. It's not my problem you didn't follow the discussion prior to that post.

I'm sorry, but I didn't read it the way you wrote it, even though I had followed the discussion.

Posted

I'm sorry, but I didn't read it the way you wrote it, even though I had followed the discussion.

This isn't the first time you've demonstrated sub-standard reading comprehension, BigL.

Posted

This isn't the first time you've demonstrated sub-standard reading comprehension, BigL.

Nor is it the first time that you've demonstrated an inability to make clear statements. Should we just trade insults, or move on?

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.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,900
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Ana Silva
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Ana Silva earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • Scott75 earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Political Smash went up a rank
      Rising Star
    • CDN1 went up a rank
      Enthusiast
    • Politics1990 earned a badge
      Very Popular
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...