Should Justin Trudeau resign?

[carepov]

Cyber:

"The beginning of life is irrelevant. Even the beginning of personhood is irrelevant. No person is allowed to use another's body against that person's wishes and no law can be written to require it lest it violate that person's right to bodily autonomy."

Wayward:

"This is completely correct. I could care less when life "begins." It is a simple case where I will never support the creation of one group of people (pregnant women) who lack the exact same rights to bodily autonomy that everyone else has."

I still have trouble with this one. I see what you are saying about any laws that restrict abortion violate the rights of the pregnant woman. However, if life starts inside the womb, then are we not creating a group of people that lack the same rights to life that everyone else should have?

[Big Guy]

Some revealing stats at:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/07/04/new-poll-shows-most-canadians-support-abortion-with-some-restrictions/

[cybercoma]

However, if life starts inside the womb, then are we not creating a group of people that lack the same rights to life that everyone else should have?

No, because nobody has the right to demand that another person's body be used to keep them alive. Would it be nice if it that person allowed it? Of course. Are they morally or legally required to do so? Absolutely not because it's their body to decide with as they wish.

[cybercoma]

Some revealing stats at:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/07/04/new-poll-shows-most-canadians-support-abortion-with-some-restrictions/

What's so revealing about it? People have opinions and they don't matter. The only person who's opinion matters about a pregnancy is the person who's pregnant.

[Wayward Son]

I see what you are saying about any laws that restrict abortion violate the rights of the pregnant woman. However, if life starts inside the womb, then are we not creating a group of people that lack the same rights to life that everyone else should have?

No, the opposite. What pro-lifers are trying to do is grant the fetus more rights than any non-fetus. The right to use someone else's body against that person's wishes.

Let's say that a young child needs part of someone's liver to survive, and will die within hours without said transplant I am a perfect match, and the only match that is likely to found in time. I could save that child's life. I would have a moral obligation, but no legal obligation to agree to the transplant. That is for the simple reason that the legal system is based upon my right to bodily integrity superseding any benefits that anyone else might gain from the use of my body against my will.

The pro-choice position grants equal rights to all. The pro-life position wishes to take away rights from the woman, and give extra rights to the fetus.

Edited May 14, 2014 by Wayward Son

[segnosaur]

No, the opposite. What pro-lifers are trying to do is grant the fetus more rights than any non-fetus. The right to use someone else's body against that person's wishes.

Let's say that a young child needs part of someone's liver to survive, and will die within hours without said transplant I am a perfect match, and the only match that is likely to found in time. I could save that child's life. I would have a moral obligation, but no legal obligation to agree to the transplant.

Actually, a better analogy might be that of a set of conjoined twins with shared organs.

I rather suspect in that situation, if the twin that owned (for example) decided to stab their conjoined twin to death then it would be considered "murder", even if the shared organ was housed in the body of the surviving twin. (Why? Its my liver goddarnit! I'm tired of my brother stealing my bile!)

The pro-choice position grants equal rights to all. The pro-life position wishes to take away rights from the woman, and give extra rights to the fetus.

Technically, the pro-choice only grants "equal rights to all" because it assumes that the foetus is not a legal person, and ignores any contributions that it may be making to the mother's physiology.

Now, I don't want you to assume I'm "pro-life/anti-abortion". I'm all for the woman's right to choose, and I'm quite happy with the current status quo. However, that that does not mean I automatically dismiss the arguments made by pro-life people.

[Wayward Son]

Actually, a better analogy might be that of a set of conjoined twins with shared organs.

When one is completely dependent on the second, and the second is not at all dependent on first, it is called parasitic twins.

Technically, the pro-choice only grants "equal rights to all" because it assumes that the foetus is not a legal person, and ignores any contributions that it may be making to the mother's physiology.

The granting of the right to use another's body is a right that no one else has. Pretty simple concept.

Nor is this a case where the fetus is making contributions. The reality is that it is taxing and stressing the woman's organs, and that an evolutionary conflict ensues between the fetus who tries to take more and more, and mother who tries to prevent too much from being taken.

The following article if good:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/14/health/14preg.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

especially the following;

In a 1993 paper, Dr. Haig first predicted that many complications of pregnancy would turn out to be produced by this conflict. One of the most common complications is pre-eclampsia, in which women experience dangerously high blood pressure late in pregnancy. For decades scientists have puzzled over pre-eclampsia, which occurs in about 6 percent of pregnancies.

Dr. Haig proposed that pre-eclampsia was just an extreme form of a strategy used by all fetuses. The fetuses somehow raised the blood pressure of their mothers so as to drive more blood into the relatively low-pressure placenta. Dr. Haig suggested that pre-eclampsia would be associated with some substance that fetuses injected into their mothers' bloodstreams. Pre-eclampsia happened when fetuses injected too much of the stuff, perhaps if they were having trouble getting enough nourishment.

In the past few years, Ananth Karumanchi of Harvard Medical School and his colleagues have gathered evidence that suggests Dr. Haig was right. They have found that women with pre-eclampsia had unusually high levels of a protein called soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase 1, or sFlt1 for short.

Other labs have replicated their results. Dr. Karumanchi's group has done additional work that indicates that this protein interferes with the mother's ability to repair minor damage to her blood vessels. As that damage builds up, so does her blood pressure. And as Dr. Haig predicted, the protein is produced by the fetus, not the mother.

[carepov]

No, because nobody has the right to demand that another person's body be used to keep them alive. Would it be nice if it that person allowed it? Of course. Are they morally or legally required to do so? Absolutely not because it's their body to decide with as they wish.

I agree with you but can see the other side as well.

However, what if the foetus reaches a point where it can survive outside the womb? Shouldn't its "life" be protected?

[WestCoastRunner]

Maybe this thread needs to be merged with the other one?

[PIK]

You mean the Conservatives can't do no wrong. It's the Liberals who can do no wrong. This is no reason for Trudeau to 'not' resign.

But if he doesn't then he gets my vote unless the NDP has a better chance of defeating the rabid right.

The rabid right, you have been reading the star to much. The liberals cry about attack ads when the liberals attacks ads early in harper carreer are still following him around and most were even close to being true. I wish the CPC knew how to do real attack ads like the liberals.And why do you want this great country to fail and it will if we get the high spenders of the NDP or liberals, we will be the new greece in a very short time. I am sick and tired of the unions getting everything they want from the NDP and the liberals. It is time for the rest of the country to get a break. And it is time for the unions to realize how good they have it and quit being so greedy.

[cybercoma]

This must be some kind of joke. The Conservatives have been running attack ads since they took office. Suddenly, an opposition party runs one and Conservatives are losing their minds. I wish nobody ran ads until the writs are dropped. So screw both sides on this one. However, I can't exactly blame the Liberals when the Conservatives have been attacking them for years now. Hell, they ran ads against Bob Rae and he was nothing more than interim leader.

[Smallc]

He said he wouldn't do that. They didn't.

[cybercoma]

Well then, just swallow the CPC's bs and consider Trudeau's ad an "information campaign." He's just informing the electorate of the issues.

[Smallc]

Right...

[Keepitsimple]

What's so revealing about it? People have opinions and they don't matter. The only person who's opinion matters about a pregnancy is the person who's pregnant.

You keep missing the point - over and over again. This is not about your personal view on abortion - it's about Trudeau's dictate to hundreds of new candidates - and whether it is a smart move or not. It's about his reckless opening of a sensitive "settled" issue for no valid reason. It's about his judgement. The National Post survey and a previous one that was posted showed that a sizable majority of Canadians do not want Abortion on Demand. So - forcing candidates to take that position is in fact, going against the views of the Canadian public at large. He has chosen to exclude that sizable majority that believes in choice but would like to see a few restrictions put in place. The Conservatives continue to include all viewpoints.

As to whether his decision ends up backfiring remains to be seen.

[guyser]

You keep missing the point

We can get back to this shortly.

- over and over again. This is not about your personal view on abortion - it's about Trudeau's dictate to hundreds of new candidates - and whether it is a smart move or not. It's about his reckless opening of a sensitive "settled" issue for no valid reason.

Um....it is settled.

JT is ensuring it remains that way. How could you see it any other way?

Back to Pt 1 ?

[jbg]

The beginning of life is irrelevant. Even the beginning of personhood is irrelevant. No person is allowed to use another's body against that person's wishes and no law can be written to require it lest it violate that person's right to bodily autonomy.

This is completely correct. I could care less when life "begins." It is a simple case where I will never support the creation of one group of people (pregnant women) who lack the exact same rights to bodily autonomy that everyone else has.

How about a middle ground, that abortion should be, to quote President Clinton, "safe, legal and rare."

[Keepitsimple]

We can get back to this shortly.

Um....it is settled.

JT is ensuring it remains that way. How could you see it any other way?

Back to Pt 1 ?

The status quo is working in Canada, I can't disagree - but the issue was never settled, never debated after the SCC struck down the old abortion laws......and no government has tried to raise it again.....even though poll after poll has shown that a majority of Canadians would prefer some restrictions on abortion. Those are the Canadians that JT has thumbed his nose at.

In todays Star and also reported by CBC, Cardinal Collins - who is also the Archbishop of Toronto - urged Trudeau to step back from his ultimatum, pointing out that under these Liberal rules, the Pope would be ineligible to run for the Liberal Party. He also pointed out that he was in danger of alienating two million Catholics in the GTA.

Cardinal Collins wrote a letter to the Liberal leader on Wednesday saying there are two million members of his archdioceses.

"I encourage all of them, of whatever party, to serve the community not only by voting but by active engagement in political life as candidates. It is not right that they be excluded by any party for being faithful to their conscience," he wrote.

.....skip

The archbishop wrote in his letter than the party line should not trump matters of faith. "Political authority is not limitless: it does not extend to matters of conscience and religious faith. It does not govern all aspects of life."

Collins ended his letter with a direct challenge to Trudeau to stand down on his new rule.

"Political leaders in our day should not exclude such people of integrity, no matter how challenging they find their views," he wrote. "I urge you to reconsider your position"

Link: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/cardinal-thomas-collins-urges-justin-trudeau-to-reverse-pro-choice-rule-1.2643080

Edited May 15, 2014 by Keepitsimple

[Big Guy]

...

In todays Star and also reported by CBC, Cardinal Collins - who is also the Archbishop of Toronto - urged Trudeau to step back from his ultimatum, pointing out that under these Liberal rules, the Pope would be ineligible to run for the Liberal Party.

That's OK. I do not think that he would be allowed to wear that beanie in the house of commons anyway.

[Peter F]

I think the pope is ineligible to run for the Conservative party too.

[guyser]

I think the pope is ineligible to run for the Conservative party too.

Why? Honesty issues ?

(SM should be on)

[guyser]

The status quo is working in Canada, I can't disagree - but the issue was never settled, never debated after the SCC struck down the old abortion laws......and no government has tried to raise it again.....

Then why say its settled then tell me it isnt?

The issue for both parties is that its settled. JT is doing nothing but confirming what the Conservatives are doing, not touching it, dont talk about it.

The issue is settled.

There is no thumbing anything. The sitting govt is treating it the same way as Liberals are.

In todays Star and also reported by CBC, Cardinal Collins

Like most people, I dont give a crap what a Cardinal has to say. He has a job to do, I get that, but his relevancy is nothing to most, including most Sunday morning Catholics who forget they are come lunch time.

[On Guard for Thee]

I suppose if we did elect the Pope we'd be back into the death penalty debate as well. The old "eye for an eye" bit.

[cybercoma]

How about a middle ground, that abortion should be, to quote President Clinton, "safe, legal and rare."

Meaningless platitude. Of course it should be safe, legal, and rare. And frankly it is.

[cybercoma]

Someone let Cardinal Collins know that he should be more concerned with the child molesters in his ranks than the Liberal Party's position on abortion. He's one to weigh in on leadership. I mean come on.

Edited May 15, 2014 by cybercoma