Should Justin Trudeau resign?

[cybercoma]

It really shouldn't a debate about Abortion, but should Liberal MPs be allowed to have that view. I don't think any reasonable person thinks Abortion Laws are going to be brought back, BUT I think it's not reasonable to demand that people agree with abortion.

He's not demanding that people agree with abortion. He's saying if they want to be a Liberal MP, they need to vote pro-choice. His father, who legalized abortion, was personally pro-life, but realized as a legislator that he had to govern for the people. The proper way to govern this is to allow people the choice. Shady can't comment on how many women have late term abortions, which doctors in Canada perform them, and why those late term abortions happen. You would think if someone was going to so vocally support regulations and restrictions they would want to have some idea what it is they're restricting and the scope of the problem. Barring that, what is he basing his opinion on? Nothing but emotional fear-mongering.

[cybercoma]

The thing is, the Liberals are a "supposed to be" a centrist party. Meaning some are religious and some do oppose Gay Marriage and Abortion. JT is moving them to the left here by simple fact of banning candidates that have opinions he finds distasteful.

It's the opposite of the Big Tent philosophy that allowed the CPC top win. There were a few Centrist Liberals in the 905 that lost to the CPC in 2011. With this move to the left can those ridings be won again?

The CPC isn't a big tent. It's Harper's party. That's clear from the grumblings of MPs, not allowed to attend debates unless Harper allows it. So what if he allowed them to vote freely on this bill or that. It's a token gesture. Harper has short leashes on his MPs and suggesting anything else contradicts Conservatives themselves.

[PIK]

The CPC isn't a big tent. It's Harper's party. That's clear from the grumblings of MPs, not allowed to attend debates unless Harper allows it. So what if he allowed them to vote freely on this bill or that. It's a token gesture. Harper has short leashes on his MPs and suggesting anything else contradicts Conservatives themselves.

LOL Ya right. It is a big tent party that is why he has a majority, just because the toronto star says otherwise does not mean it is true. And the short leash theory has been put to rest along time ago. And then in greta lefty fashion , he brings up rob ford, saying a guy like him would not be allowed to be a liberal. Jumping on the bash ford bandwagon , could cost him also. I would like to ask trudeau if he has ever done coke.

Edited May 8, 2014 by PIK

[cybercoma]

LOL Ya right. It is a big tent party that is why he has a majority

He has a majority because Ignatieff was so unelectable that he didn't even win his seat.

[overthere]

He's not demanding that people agree with abortion. He's saying if they want to be a Liberal MP, they need to vote pro-choice. His father, who legalized abortion, was personally pro-life, but realized as a legislator that he had to govern for the people. The proper way to govern this is to allow people the choice. Shady can't comment on how many women have late term abortions, which doctors in Canada perform them, and why those late term abortions happen. You would think if someone was going to so vocally support regulations and restrictions they would want to have some idea what it is they're restricting and the scope of the problem. Barring that, what is he basing his opinion on? Nothing but emotional fear-mongering.

Whaaaaat?

Trudeau Sr did nothing of the sort. Morgenthaler was jailed while Trudeau was PM.

The key court decsions came in 1988 and 1993, long after Trudeau left office.

[jbg]

He has a majority because Ignatieff was so unelectable that he didn't even win his seat.

Not entirely. The NDP managed to split the vote with the LPC in Ontario. Also the NDP had the Bloc for lunch.

On the positive side, Harper's economic stewardship made Canada about the only Western country to escape the 2008-10 economic debacle.

[guyser]

On the positive side, Harper's economic stewardship inheritance made Canada about the only Western country to escape the 2008-10 economic debacle.

Fixed it for you .

[On Guard for Thee]

Whaaaaat?

Trudeau Sr did nothing of the sort. Morgenthaler was jailed while Trudeau was PM.

The key court decsions came in 1988 and 1993, long after Trudeau left office.

Trudeau SR. changed the law from being criminal to being allowable upon the agreement of a panel (3) doctors.

[Smallc]

Fixed it for you .

It's a combination, actually.

[cybercoma]

Whaaaaat?

Trudeau Sr did nothing of the sort. Morgenthaler was jailed while Trudeau was PM.

The key court decsions came in 1988 and 1993, long after Trudeau left office.

In 1968 under Trudeau, abortion was legalized with an exception amended into s.251 of the Criminal Code (now s.287). Before that exception, abortion was illegal with no exceptions. Here is the link to that section of the Criminal Code for your edification. http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-287-20030101.html Edited May 8, 2014 by cybercoma

[dre]

The thing is, the Liberals are a "supposed to be" a centrist party. Meaning some are religious and some do oppose Gay Marriage and Abortion. JT is moving them to the left here by simple fact of banning candidates that have opinions he finds distasteful.

It's the opposite of the Big Tent philosophy that allowed the CPC top win. There were a few Centrist Liberals in the 905 that lost to the CPC in 2011. With this move to the left can those ridings be won again?

Sponsorship and the implosion of the liberal party allowed the CPC to win. Nothing else whatsoever.

[BubberMiley]

Being anti-choice in Canada is so far out of the mainstream, any true "big-tent" party wouldn't even consider it as part of its platform. And by "anti-choice", I mean that you can believe life begins at conception and that abortion is always wrong, but it is not the place of the state to prevent it from occurring.

[guyser]

It's a combination, actually.

Agreed .

[cybercoma]

Former Liberal strategist Warren Kinsella offers a theory about why Trudeau continues to lead in the polls, while the Conservatives blanket the media with attack ads:

"It's possible, perhaps, that the Con ads are serving Trudeau's purposes. That is, by endlessly reminding voters that Trudeau represents radical change, they also remind Canadians that Trudeau - really, truly - is a real change."

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/archives/sunnews/straighttalk/2014/05/20140513-072657.html

[Big Guy]

It seems to me that the whole pro-choice and pro-life difference in views is based on faith. It is the question of when is the beginning of "life". With the beginning of life is the creation of a soul. If you believe it is at fertilization then the entity or growth or baby or whatever has rights and then it is a question of the right of the mother vs the right of the ... If you believe that life begins at birth, then the potential mother has the right to make decisions about her own body.

This issue will never be settled.

[cybercoma]

It seems to me that the whole pro-choice and pro-life difference in views is based on faith. It is the question of when is the beginning of "life".

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 Son]

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.

[guyser]

This is completely correct. I could care less when life "begins."

And yet that is exactly what the anti abortionists try and frame the message around.

They speak in terms of baby killing , conveniently (ignorantly?) forgetting that if it was a legal person murder charges would result, but alas, they can call it what they want. Smarter minds know better.

We see it her all the time,attempts to frame it from an emotional basis.

What we have now works better than anything else anyone has tried.

Leave

it

alone!

[Keepitsimple]

What we have now works better than anything else anyone has tried.

Leave

it

alone!

I can't agree with the first statement - Franch, Germany, Norway, Sweden, Denmak, Netherlands and just about anyone else - have legislated a compromise that has made Abortion a completely "settled" issue. Yet here in Canada, the issue simmers - as shown by the wide diverging comments on this board. Ironically, it's the large majority of Canadians who would prefer some level of legislation.....while the Abortion on Demand crowd is a relatively small minority - yet it's this minority, enabled by the media and the Left that has shouted down the moderate middle.

As for the politics - I agree - leave it alone......which is why Trudeau's "policy" is such a self-serving, irresponsible stunt. That's two major planks in the platform, neither of which does anything to help Canadian workers and families.

Edited May 13, 2014 by Keepitsimple

[Big Guy]

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.

I respectfully disagree. If the belief is that life has begun before the ... leaves the female body then there are two people sharing the same body. That being the case, the pro-life people appear to feel that the second small person in that body requires the same rights, protection and advocacy as any other "born" child. They feel that the "unborn" child should be protected the same as a "born" child as to harm and death.

There have been court cases where the potential mother is being taken to task for harming her "unborn" child through the use of drugs, alcohol or other forms of self destruction. It is a difficult issue.

I have had discussions with fervent and passionate pro-life advocates and generally found them very caring and moral people. Personally I do not share those views.

It is the extremists who bother me. Those who picket in front of abortion clinics, confront women entering and threaten those physicians who perform abortions bother me. Intimidation tactics are inacceptable and quickly lead to the old "the end justifies the means" rationalization for physical confrontations and murder.

As I have stated, I do not agree with the pro-life position but understand why they have those views.

[cybercoma]

Regardless, you said it's a fundamental misunderstanding of these things. I'm saying it doesn't matter your conception of these things. As someone that supports choice, I don't care when you determine human life or personhood to begin. It's still the same argument.

[PIK]

Good points on both sides. That is probably why harper will not touch it. And I read where JT's reason is to force harper into something. Harper has made it quite clear that will never happen. Dumb move.

Edited May 13, 2014 by PIK

[eyeball]

Yes we all know how clear Harper likes to make everything. Maybe Trudeau is just baiting Harper, to test just how clear he really is.

[segnosaur]

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.

As another persion said...the beginning of person hood may not be irrelevant. If the government dictates a particular point in utero where life begins (and the court agrees to it) then an abortion would be considered assault/murder.

A couple of other things:

- Keep in mind that the part of the charter that deals with the "right to bodily autonomy" is probably 7: Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

Notice the part in bold? It means that there are exceptions to basic rights... if the government brought in an anti-abortion law and managed to convince the courts that "fundamental justice" involves protecting a fetus, then that would override the right to "security of the person".

- Also keep in mind section 33: the 'notwithstanding' clause, which can allow the government to override certain sections of the constitution. I could be wrong, but I think the government could invoke this clause to allow an anti-abortion law to stand. (Not only that there is also section 1 of the charter, which limits rights by what is "demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society".

- Some jurisdictions (e.g. Quebec) have "good samaritan" laws that actually require a person to render aid (assuming it does not in significant risk). That law already contradicts basic freedoms (freedom of association, possibly the right to not be detained, etc.) yet it still stands. It wouldn't be difficult to see an abortion law as an extension of that.

So, while I have no problem with abortion, or the current status quo, I think your argument that "no law can be written" is flawed. There are multiple ways that an anti-abortion law could (in theory) be written and pass constitutional muster.

[monty16]

This proves my point, the libs can't do no wrong.

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.