On Guard for Thee Posted May 11, 2014 Report Share Posted May 11, 2014 (edited) Canada has no position on abortion. The Supreme Court said you couldn't ban it, but it didn't say you couldn't control it. In fact, according to Coyne they basically invited the government to rewrite the law. Largely out of political cowardice, the government has not done so. This, even though more than half the people in this country feel there ought to be some controls in place. Again, as Coyne said, for Trudeau to pretend this is a settled issue is nonsense. http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/07/04/new-poll-shows-most-canadians-support-abortion-with-some-restrictions/ The SC said it is a decision to be made between a woman and her doctor. Not a woman and her doctor and others. Edited May 11, 2014 by On Guard for Thee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoastRunner Posted May 11, 2014 Report Share Posted May 11, 2014 WestCoastRunner, So what? Unless you are trying to suggest that birth control measures are evil because it kills babies? Or just don't 'do it' because it's not for fun? Or you're taking a responsible position and suggesting that men and women should be further educated on the fact that birth control measures are not infallible? Like take better precautions? My point was that sometimes no matter how responsible someone is with birth control, unplanned pregnancies will happen which may lead to abortions being performed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoastRunner Posted May 11, 2014 Report Share Posted May 11, 2014 The problem is that men cannot get pregnant. If they could, it might change peoples position on abortion. Exactly! We wouldn't even be having this conversation. There would be no shame, barriers or secrecy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoastRunner Posted May 11, 2014 Report Share Posted May 11, 2014 This actually IS getting into the abortion debate, deliberately, in order to score political points. It's not political points, it is to ensure that candidates do not vote in favour of making abortion services less accessible for Canadians (this includes women and their partners) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter F Posted May 11, 2014 Report Share Posted May 11, 2014 Why do you question their motives? The fact is - as you've agreed - is that there is a "significant portion of the public". Yet you choose to dismiss all of them because they don't totally agree with your all or nothing abortion on demand. This is the scary position of a segment of our voters, usually found on the Left - they are totally exclusionary of those who do not agree.....and that is precisely what is troubling about young Trudeau's "policy". 'Exclusionary'? What? Those that disagree with the all-or-nothing abortion on demand position are forbidden to run for parliament? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monty16 Posted May 11, 2014 Report Share Posted May 11, 2014 WestCoastRunner, You'll probably find that the people who try to be responsible with birth control are the very people who would suffer the consequences and not even think of an abortion. They're not the people we have to reach with our socially responsibility message. Let's us Canadians not dick around with the issue too much or we'll end up shooting doctors who provide abortions on demand to women. We're better than the US on this issue and we're not nearly as likely to connect it with the god's wishes as they do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoastRunner Posted May 11, 2014 Report Share Posted May 11, 2014 WestCoastRunner, You'll probably find that the people who try to be responsible with birth control are the very people who would suffer the consequences and not even think of an abortion. They're not the people we have to reach with our socially responsibility message. And you know this because? Statistic show that 51% of women who choose abortions already have children. These women are responsible enough to raise a child but don't want another child for whatever reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monty16 Posted May 12, 2014 Report Share Posted May 12, 2014 WestCoastRunner, why are you fighting me on this? Don't you think that a socially responsible way of handling the problem of abortions is better than the US way of murdering abortion providing doctors? Or taking away abortion clinics like they are doing in the hillbilly states so women like you have to resort to the coathanger trick? What are your priorities dear? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoastRunner Posted May 12, 2014 Report Share Posted May 12, 2014 WestCoastRunner, why are you fighting me on this? Don't you think that a socially responsible way of handling the problem of abortions is better than the US way of murdering abortion providing doctors? Or taking away abortion clinics like they are doing in the hillbilly states so women like you have to resort to the coathanger trick? What are your priorities dear? I'm fighting you? I don't believe I am. I was just responding to your comments. Chill out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted May 12, 2014 Report Share Posted May 12, 2014 Gee...I never knew that Prince Edward Island was a "hillbilly state"...no abortion clinics to be seen far and wide. Maybe it's a "hillbilly" province ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monty16 Posted May 12, 2014 Report Share Posted May 12, 2014 It's not a state, it's a province but if there's any province that's got an excess of hillbillies it would be a province that doesn't provide necessary services for women seeking an abortion. What province tops Canada's list of brothers marrying sisters or even just having 'affairs' , hint, hint, say no more! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted May 12, 2014 Report Share Posted May 12, 2014 'Exclusionary'? What? Those that disagree with the all-or-nothing abortion on demand position are forbidden to run for parliament? I referred to Bleeding Heart's post that he/she was being exclusionary of that significant portion of the population that thought different than Bleeding Heart. BH questioned their motives and basically said their reasoning was not worthy of consideration. As for Trudeau - yes - he is being exclusionary as well because left to his own dictatorial edict, he will not be allowing that significant voice of Canadians to be heard - even if local riding associations would prefer someone with a different view. So much for open, transparent nominations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted May 12, 2014 Report Share Posted May 12, 2014 The problem is that men cannot get pregnant. If they could, it might change peoples position on abortion. Possibly, but we're not really discussing abortion. We're discussing the acceptability of having an opinion on abortion, or any other social subject, which conflicts with the Great Leader. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted May 12, 2014 Report Share Posted May 12, 2014 'Exclusionary'? What? Those that disagree with the all-or-nothing abortion on demand position are forbidden to run for parliament? Well, they're forbidden to run for parliament in two of the three main parties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted May 12, 2014 Report Share Posted May 12, 2014 Well, I don't know, argus...you keep making claims, and then asking me to research them.. Because my point isn't that we need laws on abortion. My point is that to dismiss this as a settled subject, where no contrary or valid viewpoint to the current standard orthodoxy is acceptable, is nonsense. There are valid views to be had on the side of some restrictions on abortion, and the majority of Canadians want some restrictions on abortion. Yet as far as some are concerned, only "hillbillies" question the need for any oversight, and such people shouldn't be permitted in any 'enlightened' political party. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monty16 Posted May 12, 2014 Report Share Posted May 12, 2014 No Argus, I didn't say that only hillbillies question the need for oversight. You're confused about that. But I did say that the province with the most hillbillies would be the province that wouldn't provide abortion clinics. Then I found out that wasn't completely true because I think that Alberta still has a few. The rabid right is most likely frothing at the mouth on fixing that issue as we speak! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter F Posted May 12, 2014 Report Share Posted May 12, 2014 Because my point isn't that we need laws on abortion. My point is that to dismiss this as a settled subject, where no contrary or valid viewpoint to the current standard orthodoxy is acceptable, is nonsense. There are valid views to be had on the side of some restrictions on abortion, and the majority of Canadians want some restrictions on abortion. I agee that there are many different views on what restrictions women should have regarding their pregnancies. Personally, i do not consider such restrictions valid. Others think different of course. And no doubt, once those that think different manage to elect some party or other to parliament then perhaps a law restricting women will be passed. Until such time I for one am quite content with the abortion laws as they are. I see no validity in accepting third parties determining wether some other person can abort or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monty16 Posted May 12, 2014 Report Share Posted May 12, 2014 Right on Peter F, and we aren't interested in remaking Canada into another land of the gun where they shoot doctors who help women. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter F Posted May 12, 2014 Report Share Posted May 12, 2014 Well, they're forbidden to run for parliament in two of the three main parties. Yes, and anyone who isn't accepted as a candidate in those two parties can run for any other party or as an independent. Why worry? They will gather up vast amount of votes taking their stand on abortion policy. Lets be honest here, Party's have platforms that those running for election must be willing to support in order to get the party nomination. My socialist views regarding nationalization would be reason enough to have any nomination as a conservative candidate rescinded by the party leader. So, whats the point of any party if the proper thing is to let anyone within that party vote however they wish? Do parties not stand for certain principles? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter F Posted May 12, 2014 Report Share Posted May 12, 2014 I referred to Bleeding Heart's post that he/she was being exclusionary of that significant portion of the population that thought different than Bleeding Heart. BH questioned their motives and basically said their reasoning was not worthy of consideration. As for Trudeau - yes - he is being exclusionary as well because left to his own dictatorial edict, he will not be allowing that significant voice of Canadians to be heard - even if local riding associations would prefer someone with a different view. So much for open, transparent nominations.t Any nomination for a Liberal candidate will be among candidates that agree to support the party policy. That will be a given. It couldn't possibly be more transparent than that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted May 12, 2014 Report Share Posted May 12, 2014 Any nomination for a Liberal candidate will be among candidates that agree to support the party policy. That will be a given. It couldn't possibly be more transparent than that. If you think matters of conscious should be part of party policy - having policy that tells people what to think.....well, its a very slippery slope. That's not leadership - it's authoritarianism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted May 12, 2014 Report Share Posted May 12, 2014 (edited) Wow this thread has ballooned over the weekend! I'm not going to review the previous pages. I'll just point to this column from Sun Media Liberal apologist Warren Kinsella http://www.torontosun.com/2014/05/08/trudeau-no-choice-only-pro-choice Said Trudeau: “I have made it clear that future candidates need to be completely understanding that they will be expected to vote pro-choice on any bills.” And, with that, Trudeau did two things. One, he disposed of any lingering hope that he still favours so-called “open nominations.” In his Liberal party, if you want to be a candidate, you must vote pro-choice. Or you’re out. Two, by seeking to close the abortion issue, he has effectively reopened it. Chretien, Martin and Trudeau’s father all knew that Catholics have historically tended to be Liberals. JT has shown himself to be a liar early in his political career. By passing this edict plus the whole Trinity-Spadina Bleep-Up it's clear that JT isn't interested in open nominations at all. He'll decide who runs for his party and him alone. Also by bringing this up, he re-opens the Abortion debate, not the CPC. I think most have agreed that the ideal of allowing abortions but hoping they are rare is fair position to take, and most politicians from all sides of the spectrum seem to accept that. But JT clearly wants to shake things up again and make people re-visit their views on abortions. Abortions can still be legal but people should be free to try and persuade people that abortion isn't a good life choice. What's wrong with that? Edited May 12, 2014 by Boges Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overthere Posted May 12, 2014 Report Share Posted May 12, 2014 No Argus, I didn't say that only hillbillies question the need for oversight. You're confused about that. But I did say that the province with the most hillbillies would be the province that wouldn't provide abortion clinics. Then I found out that wasn't completely true because I think that Alberta still has a few. The rabid right is most likely frothing at the mouth on fixing that issue as we speak! What a load of utterly uniformed crap. Getting an abortion in Albwerta is not in the least difficult. For the most part- in urban centers- the former Morgenthale clinics are under contract to Alberta Health Services. Alberta residents simply have to show up to be provided service. Looks like New Brunswick is the hillbilly center of Canada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monty16 Posted May 12, 2014 Report Share Posted May 12, 2014 overthere, It's just that I discovered that Alberta is the incest capital of Canada and that sounds hillbilly to me. As to the topic: Trudeau has simply proclaimed that he supports a woman's right to choose. What could be more Canadian than that? It's our brand of capitalism with a social responsibility that is lacking south of the border. WE should all be trying our best to keep that sort of political nonsense out of Canada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoastRunner Posted May 12, 2014 Report Share Posted May 12, 2014 overthere, It's just that I discovered that Alberta is the incest capital of Canada and that sounds hillbilly to me. You have got to be kidding me. What an inappropriate remark! How are you going to back up that statement? 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.