Pro Life? Then Don't Run Under Liberal Banner

[monty16]

OH?

This article would suggest quite the otherwise...

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/poll-50-percent-of-all-catholics-support-abortion-in-all-or-most-cases

Thanks for your support! All Canadians need to be vocal on this issue in order to keep Harper aware that he's not going to turn Canada into another land of the gun and a country where they hate women having any rights. We're pretty safe for now with the catholics being overall pro-choice!

[overthere]

Thanks for your support! All Canadians need to be vocal on this issue in order to keep Harper aware that he's not going to turn Canada into another land of the gun and a country where they hate women having any rights. We're pretty safe for now with the catholics being overall pro-choice!

Harper has been the Prime Minister for 8 years.

Does his wife know how much he hates women?

When do you think he is going to reveal that secret prolife agenda?

Like, give me a date.

[monty16]

Harper has been the Prime Minister for 8 years.

Does his wife know how much he hates women?

When do you think he is going to reveal that secret prolife agenda?

Like, give me a date.

There's little doubt that Harper has a personal agenda of being against free choice on abortion. Much of Justin's purpose is to force that position out of him and succeed also if he doesn't express his real agenda. Harper has to keep his party twisting and turning in the wind on the issue. But Harper also knows that a lot of groundwork needs to be done on the Canadian people before it would make sense to go anti-abortion as his voiced political position. That is, anything even remotely resembling the position of the political right in the US.

Our saving grace that people are waking up to now is that in order for the political right to continue to forward their agenda, they need to be dishonest on many issues. Birth control would be one of them of course because to voice a position against birth control in Canada would be political suicide. No politician would like to get Santorum all over themselves.

And another is our health care system. It's plainly obvious that the Fraser institute has had to push that old political hayburner along for so long that it's literally fallen off the tracks. No politician on the right, no matter how rabid and frothing at the mouth he/she is has ever have the nerve to express their agenda on it.

[Keepitsimple]

No. He means 'Choice' - as in : if somebody wants an abortion they can have one. If somebody doesn't want an abortion then they don't have one.

Slippery words. "Choice" sounds all warm and fuzzy on the surface - but duh!.... of course if someone doesn't want an abortion, they don't have to have one. On the other hand, Trudeau supports Abortion on Demand. You cannot be refused an abortion .......and as has been discussed, that's a position that a large majority of Canadians disagree with.

[PIK]

Harper has been the Prime Minister for 8 years.

Does his wife know how much he hates women?

When do you think he is going to reveal that secret prolife agenda?

Like, give me a date.

Thanks for your support! All Canadians need to be vocal on this issue in order to keep Harper aware that he's not going to turn Canada into another land of the gun and a country where they hate women having any rights. We're pretty safe for now with the catholics being overall pro-choice!

Desperate or what. This is right up there with harper has serious mental issues. I guess when all the fake scandals did not do anything and trudeau's constantly sticking his foot in his mouth, you have to resort to crap like this. Trudeau is doing everything the left said about harper and if anyone has a secret agenda out there, it is trudeau.

[Mighty AC]

Slippery words. "Choice" sounds all warm and fuzzy on the surface - but duh!.... of course if someone doesn't want an abortion, they don't have to have one. On the other hand, Trudeau supports Abortion on Demand. You cannot be refused an abortion .......and as has been discussed, that's a position that a large majority of Canadians disagree with.

It seems that social cons are rarely content to live by their own, personal ethical code; they want to impose it on others through legislation. The equal marriage debate was similar. Cons were not content to personally avoid same sex marriages, they wanted to ensure that no gay couple could unite.

Abortion or birth control or masturbation or whatever, may or may not be acceptable for you Simple, but why do you need to impose your moral code on everyone else?

[Mighty AC]

You mean no choice.

I mean choice for socons to never have an abortion and others with different personal, ethical views to have one if necessary.

The CPC has been fairly consistent in its belief that matters of conscience are best left to individual MPs and their constituents. I agree with them.

A handy strategy when trying to hide a position on important but divisive issues, from both the public and the CPC itself. Hiding information is a good way to appeal to as many voters as possible, but it's not honest. I suspect that by announcing a party position on such an issue will cost the Libs some votes, but I appreciate the transparency on this. I also appreciate the fact that the Liberal position if implemented will allow everyone the choice to live by their own moral code when dealing with difficult situations.

[Black Dog]

No, you're not, but you're falling into the same trap of discussing abortion. This thread isn't about abortion. It's about JT's decision that the matter is entirely settled, and that only evil people would even want to discuss whether there ought to be some regulation of it.

If that's so, why do you keep discussing abortion?

It's about a prime minister who has so little respect for individual freedoms and conscience that he's blithely decided to simply ban anyone whose conscience differs from his own -- without, as I've said already, even bothering to consult his caucus, or even inform them about his decision.

Well, I've already issued the requisite tut tuts. I'm not sure what else there is to say on that subject. If a majority of Canadian believe there should be limits on abortion, I'm more interested in why that is.

[Keepitsimple]

It seems that social cons are rarely content to live by their own, personal ethical code; they want to impose it on others through legislation. The equal marriage debate was similar. Cons were not content to personally avoid same sex marriages, they wanted to ensure that no gay couple could unite.

Abortion or birth control or masturbation or whatever, may or may not be acceptable for you Simple, but why do you need to impose your moral code on everyone else?

Your rabid defence of Trudeau spouts nonsense. It is Trudeau that is imposing his "moral code" - selecting only "Abortion on Demand" candidates and thereby dismissing any sort of support for the large majority of Canadians who do not support that view, most of who support "choice" but with some legislative safeguards. It's usually best to let sleeping dogs lie - Harper has repeatedly promised - over 8 years and counting - that he will not re-open the debate. And even with a majority, he has kept his word. This thread is not about Abortion per se - it's about Trudeau's "my way or the highway" approach to a sensitive, personal issue. The Conservative Party has recognized that there are a variety of personal views that are held - and although it can lead to some disgruntlement, both sides are welcome in the party.

As for the same-sex issue - Conservatives had a similar debate within the party - a heated exchange of a variety of viewpoints. A compromise of Domestic Partnerships was reached which would have legally protected Gays and provided access to benefits - which was the original goal of activists. Sure, democracy can be messy but it has to respect all viewpoints - not just the righteously chosen.

Edited May 13, 2014 by Keepitsimple

[On Guard for Thee]

Your rabid defence of Trudeau spouts nonsense. It is Trudeau that is imposing his "moral code" - selecting only "Abortion on Demand" candidates and thereby dismissing any sort of support for the large majority of Canadians who do not support that view, most of who support "choice" but with some legislative safeguards. It's usually best to let sleeping dogs lie - Harper has repeatedly promised - over 8 years and counting - that he will not re-open the debate. And even with a majority, he has kept his word. This thread is not about Abortion per se - it's about Trudeau's "my way or the highway" approach to a sensitive, personal issue. The Conservative Party has recognized that there are a variety of personal views that are held - and although it can lead to some disgruntlement, both sides are welcome in the party.

As for the same-sex issue - Conservatives had a similar debate within the party - a heated exchange of a variety of viewpoints. A compromise of Domestic Partnerships was reached which would have legally protected Gays and provided access to benefits - which was the original goal of activists. Sure, democracy can be messy but it has to respect all viewpoints - not just the righteously chosen.

So if it's JT it's "my way or the highway" but in Harper's case it's "keeping his word". Both approaches have the same effect. If you happilly support the rights of gays, then why not also the rights of women with unwanted pregnancies?

[Keepitsimple]

So if it's JT it's "my way or the highway" but in Harper's case it's "keeping his word". Both approaches have the same effect. If you happilly support the rights of gays, then why not also the rights of women with unwanted pregnancies?

That's gibberish. Harper accepts the status quo and the Conservative Party will continue to respect the many sides of this sensitive issue. Trudeau is only accepting candidates who believe in Abortion on Demand. You can already see that Trudeau's approach has opened debate on this forum for an issue that had been silenced for some time - and only time will tell if this stunt will turn on, or turn off voters. There is more to these matters on conscious than just tag-lines.

[Peter F]

Slippery words. "Choice" sounds all warm and fuzzy on the surface - but duh!.... of course if someone doesn't want an abortion, they don't have to have one. On the other hand, Trudeau supports Abortion on Demand. You cannot be refused an abortion .......and as has been discussed, that's a position that a large majority of Canadians disagree with.

Ok. and a large majority of Canadians have the choice of voting for someone else knowing where the liberal party stands on the issue.

Edited May 13, 2014 by Peter F

[Peter F]

Keep it Simple:

The Conservative Party has recognized that there are a variety of personal views that are held - and although it can lead to some disgruntlement, both sides are welcome in the party.

I'm pretty sure that both sides are welcome to join the Liberal party too. Hell, their even welcome to join the NDP party. Probably even the Communist Party (marxist-leninist).

[Keepitsimple]

Ok. and a large majority of Canadians have the choice of voting for someone else knowing where the liberal party stands on the issue.

Exactly. As I said, we'll just have to wait and see how the Party of Abortion on Demand stacks up against the party that chooses to say that Canadians have spoken and they will not be re-opening the Abortion Debate, period.

[Peter F]

Now thats funny. You do realize that refusing to open the abortion debate is the same as supporting abortion on demand right?

[Argus]

Thanks for your support! All Canadians need to be vocal on this issue in order to keep Harper aware that he's not going to turn Canada into another land of the gun and a country where they hate women having any rights.

You mean like in Iceland, which, for five years in a row, has been considered the best place in the world to be a woman, with the smallest gender gap around?

They have laws about abortion in Iceland, you know.

[Argus]

There's little doubt that Harper has a personal agenda of being against free choice on abortion.

What evidence do you have to support that statement?

[Argus]

I mean choice for socons to never have an abortion and others with different personal, ethical views to have one if necessary.

A handy strategy when trying to hide a position on important but divisive issues, from both the public and the CPC itself. Hiding information is a good way to appeal to as many voters as possible, but it's not honest. I suspect that by announcing a party position on such an issue will cost the Libs some votes, but I appreciate the transparency on this. I also appreciate the fact that the Liberal position if implemented will allow everyone the choice to live by their own moral code when dealing with difficult situations.

But they don't hide it. They're quite explicit about their many and varied beliefs. You seem to believe, on the other hand, that all MPs should do only what they're told, think only what they're told, say only what they're told, and do only what they're told, on all issues, great or small, be they economic or moral and ethical.

So you want a dictator for your leader, right?

[Argus]

Ok. and a large majority of Canadians have the choice of voting for someone else knowing where the liberal party stands on the issue.

You didn't know where the Liberal Party stood on this issue last month? Really!?

[Peter F]

You didn't know where the Liberal Party stood on this issue last month? Really!?

Really. Thats because I don't really care about the Liberal Party and therefore not inclined to delve into their internal politics.

[Bob Macadoo]

I don't understand why its so unacceptable to maintain a candidate roster (not members) that complies with the current party platform. That would be the democracy. The convention voted for it and therefore would want only those who represent their platform stand in front of it. Leadership would indicate one should direct your party's stated focus so you don't look like hypocrites.

There is nothing to say on the next policy review convention to extract or reverse this particular policy, especially if they lose votes due to it.

Just b/c this may be JT's personal view, doesn't make it his issue, its his party's issue. Would a social conservative in the CPC allowed to be a candidate if he was a communist? He'd be allowed a member card, but certainly NOT a party endorsement.

[Smallc]

The problem is the way Trudeau came to this decision - all on his own, with no consultation, just like with so many other decisions.

[On Guard for Thee]

That's gibberish. Harper accepts the status quo and the Conservative Party will continue to respect the many sides of this sensitive issue. Trudeau is only accepting candidates who believe in Abortion on Demand. You can already see that Trudeau's approach has opened debate on this forum for an issue that had been silenced for some time - and only time will tell if this stunt will turn on, or turn off voters. There is more to these matters on conscious than just tag-lines.

Speaking of gibberish, you just agreed with what I said.

[On Guard for Thee]

The problem is the way Trudeau came to this decision - all on his own, with no consultation, just like with so many other decisions.

And you can confirm that how?

[Smallc]

And you can confirm that how?

It's been widely reported.