Jump to content

Pro Life? Then Don't Run Under Liberal Banner


Big Guy

Recommended Posts

I can't speak for where JT is coming from but I don't believe his directive is coming from arrogance or a dictatorial manner at all.

And once again... nobody is criticizing the reasons he holds the beliefs he does. They are criticizing the way he implemented them.

He could have (for example) brought the issue up with either his cacus or during a convention brought it to a vote. (After all, we're assuming the Liberal party is pretty pro-choice, and such a vote would probably have passed easily.)

Or he could have made a statement that "When I am a leader there will never be government support for an anti-abortion bill... any new MPs will have to accept that". It would reaffirm the Liberal position on abortion, but give MPs the right to vote their consience in the case of a free vote. (Such a free vote would likely fail anyways.)

As he says:

"I had an extraordinary example in a father who had deeply, deeply held personal views that were informed by the fact that he went to church every Sunday, read the Bible regularly to us, and raised us very religiously, as Catholics," Trudeau wrote.

"But at the same time my father had no problem legalizing divorce, decriminalizing homosexuality and moving in ways that recognized the basic rights of the people.'

I'm always surprised by Trudeau's attachment to the Catholics.

Catholic dogma has very specific things to say on divorce and abortion, and whether Trudeau's actions are consistent with that is questionable. There are many different religions in the country... he could easily join another church (one without the stigma of being run by a bunch of child molesters), one that would be more in line with his own beliefs. Perhaps the United Presbeterian church of Anglicanism.

Or better yet, if he's so smart, become an atheist. I'm one. I get rather annoyed when I see politicians on the right trying to "out-jesus" each other.

Now, Trudeau apologists will rush in to defend him... probably claiming that he's separating is political from private beliefs... but, if his private beliefs are so important, why does he feel it necessary to stay in public office? After all, an Amish persion wouldn't be able to reconcile their non-violent dogma with going to war, so they would be labeled "contientus objectors".

And again, he reiterates that his party is committed to the values laid out in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Except of course when it comes to the clause about "Free speech". In which case he's more than happy to step on people's rights and freedoms. (See: Bill 101.)

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/10/25/justin-trudeau-pq-language-plan_n_2018712.html

Edited by segnosaur
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 783
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

There is no restriction on abortion, at least at the federal level. And there is no chance whatsoever that a Liberal government would ever bring in an anti-abortion bill.

Paul Steckle did in 2006.

http://www.arcc-cdac.ca/action/bill_c338.html

Note that the other person said that the Liberal government would bring in an anti-abortion bill.

Steckle's bill was a private member's bill. Different thing. (Private member's bills tend not to go very far.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regardless, we still have a Liberal bringing forth an anti-abortion bill as recently as 2006 then another kick at the can that died in 2008. I don't know what these Liberals would do as government, but we can see what they did with private members' bills. That makes Trudeau's stance necessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regardless, we still have a Liberal bringing forth an anti-abortion bill as recently as 2006 then another kick at the can that died in 2008. I don't know what these Liberals would do as government, but we can see what they did with private members' bills. That makes Trudeau's stance necessary.

Then Trudeau should fully commit and kick all Pro-Life Liberals out of caucus and force them to run as independents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then Trudeau should fully commit and kick all Pro-Life Liberals out of caucus and force them to run as independents.

Right. Just boot them out of caucus. Weren't you complaining about the way he handled it now? And that's your suggestion? In any case, he didn't need to boot Steckle out. He's gone already.

Edited by cybercoma
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right. Just boot them out of caucus. Weren't you complaining about the way he handled it now? And that's your suggestion? In any case, he didn't need to boot Steckle out. He's gone already.

JT can do what he wants. I won't vote for him. He's just being a bit of a hypocrite by letting current MPs off. Either it's important or it isn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regardless, we still have a Liberal bringing forth an anti-abortion bill as recently as 2006 then another kick at the can that died in 2008. I don't know what these Liberals would do as government, but we can see what they did with private members' bills. That makes Trudeau's stance necessary.

No, it isn't.

Stickle's bill didn't pass, and that was with the "evil anti-woman conservatives" in power. Why do you think that, should the liberals (with an even higher number of pro-choice individuals) ever gain power, that somehow the anti-abortionists would be able to dictate policy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think that. What makes you think that I think that?

Ummm... basic understanding of numbers?

The conservatives do have a higher proportion of social conservatives than the liberals. Two years ago, a conservative backbencher bill about abortion failed to pass. (And this wasn't even a bill outlawing abortion at any stage... just a call to create a committee to examine the issue.) Only 4 Liberals voted for the motion (out of 35 MPs total). If only 11% of Liberal MPs voted for a bill that as mild as that, why exactly do you think you'll all of a sudden get a giant influx of anti-abortion MPs should the liberals get a majority?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reality is that into the foreseeable future there is no threat of anti-abortion legislation passing in Ottawa. Anybody who wants to go that route should lobby provinces to use their rights to control health procedures. Access to abortion is by no means uniform across Canada and in some provinces abortions are not easy to come by.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He has done nothing of the sort. Harper gags his MPs from attending debates or speaking to the press. Trudeau here is letting candidates know that they will be expected to vote in accordance with the party's position and the decisions of that have already been made by the Supreme Court.

Don't bring the Supreme Court into this. Their ruling was quite explicit in that the government had an interest in legislating abortion requirements. They overturned the law because the mishmash of hospital boards was confusing and giving unequal treatment across the country, not because they didn't believe the government had the legal right to control it.

As to the nonsense claim about supporting the party's position. The party's position is 'pro-choice' but it doesn't say 'abortion on demand at all times of the pregnancy for any reason the woman wants it'. In fact, the vast majority of Canadians would never support such an extremist plank. Most Canadians believe in some control of abortion in the latter stages of pregnancy.

Further, this is a moral issue, an issue of conscience, one which traditionally, MPs were given considerable leeway with. But under Trudeau its become increasingly obvious it's his way or the highway. I will point out once again that no consultation was done with caucus, nor were his caucus even considered iportant enough to be told of his decision before going to the media, in either this case or the senate case.

If he's this rigid over moral issues I have no doubt that a Trudeau administration will focus all power in the PMO to an even greater extent than Harper does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I had an extraordinary example in a father who had deeply, deeply held personal views that were informed by the fact that he went to church every Sunday, read the Bible regularly to us, and raised us very religiously, as Catholics," Trudeau wrote.

Yes, whenever Justin is in trouble he brings up his father, like a shield to hang in front of him to absorb the invective his own thoughtlessness draws. As for his supposed religious nature, if he actually believed in Catholicism he'd be pro-life, not so determinedly refusing to legislate any aspect of abortion. Or perhaps it's that his religion is just not as important as his ambition. No one believes this edict was done out of a sense of morality, but for political propaganda purposes. It's more of his 'style over substance' act.

"But at the same time my father had no problem legalizing divorce, decriminalizing homosexuality and moving in ways that recognized the basic rights of the people.'

But he insisted that matters of moral conscience would be free votes, and they were.

And again, he reiterates that his party is committed to the values laid out in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

And again, this has absolutely nothing to do with the Charter. THere is nothing in the Charter which stops the government from legislation abortion laws

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think that. What makes you think that I think that? Trudeau is making it perfectly clear that he expects people to govern in a way that respects people's rights and freedoms, regardless of the individual MPs' personal preferences.

Riiight, and regardless of what their constituents think or want or say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Argus doesn't believe in the Charter though. I believe he thinks it's one of the worst things ever to happen to Canada.

Regardless of what I think of the Charter I still don't like people trotting it out to support species arguments.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/05/16/national-post-editorial-board-thats-not-what-the-charter-says/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, whenever Justin is in trouble he brings up his father, like a shield to hang in front of him to absorb the invective his own thoughtlessness draws. As for his supposed religious nature, if he actually believed in Catholicism he'd be pro-life, not so determinedly refusing to legislate any aspect of abortion. Or perhaps it's that his religion is just not as important as his ambition. No one believes this edict was done out of a sense of morality, but for political propaganda purposes. It's more of his 'style over substance' act.

But he insisted that matters of moral conscience would be free votes, and they were.

And again, this has absolutely nothing to do with the Charter. THere is nothing in the Charter which stops the government from legislation abortion laws

It's probable smart for any politician in Canada to just be quiet about being a Christian until challenged on it. Then he's wise to pretend to be a Chritian. To me it's pretty obvious that Justin Trudeau is far too intelligent to truly believe in sky fairies and so he needs to fake it. Christians are easily convinced and the rest of us surely won't hold it against him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regardless of what I think of the Charter I still don't like people trotting it out to support species arguments.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/05/16/national-post-editorial-board-thats-not-what-the-charter-says/

I don't want to short change you, so let me be clear that I understand your argument and I'm not claiming that you're wrong. Justice Wilson said in her statement in '88 that the criminal law needs to be proportional to the length of gestation. In other words, legislating against abortions in the third trimester wasn't off the table. If I understand you correctly, you're just repeating her sentiment.

My argument is, of course, that third trimester criminal legislation is wholly unnecessary, since there aren't many doctors qualified to do the procedure and not a single one performs the procedure unless it's medically necessary for the mother's health or if the infant has an abnormality so severe that it's unlikely to survive birth. I find the legislation completely unnecessary and voice my concerns against it because I believe fully that it will be used as a foot-in-the-door to expand the legislation later on. Every abortion is a necessary abortion, imo. Any woman that does not want to be pregnant should not be forced by legislators to carry a fetus inside them against their will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In America, a woman needs to see a doctor and then wait three days before proceeding with her abortion. If she doesn't then she could be found guilty of murder and be executed for that crime.

It's my opinion that no American has the credibility it requires to take part in a discussion on Canada's position on abortion. America has departed much too far from understanding human needs and reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My argument is, of course, that third trimester criminal legislation is wholly unnecessary...

Here's what I find ironic...

You claim that some law restricting late term abortions is "wholly unnecessary". Yet you claim that Trudeau's actions were somehow necessary despite the fact that no abortion bill has ever come close to getting approved in the past few years.

What's more likely... that somehow the majority of the ~90% of pro-choice liberals will somehow change their minds and become anti-abortionists? Or that there will be some doctor somewhere who decides to do late-term abortions for non-medical reasons (for financial reasons, because he is from a culture that approves of sex-selective abortions, etc..)

since there aren't many doctors qualified to do the procedure and not a single one performs the procedure unless it's medically necessary...

Here's a question.. where is your proof that "not a single one" ever does such a procedure for non-medical reasons? (Or more importantly, that no one will ever perform one for non-medical reasons? Do you follow every abortion doctor around and make sure every moment of their time is accounted for?

Claiming that each and every single doctor that has ever practiced in the past 2 decades, and every doctor that ever will practice until the sun burns out will follow the same code is a rather high bar to set.

Now, in practice I will admit that the vast, vast majorities of late-term abortions are only for medically necessary reasons; I just take issue with the claim that it would be impossible for a doctor to do elective abortions if they so desired.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In America, a woman needs to see a doctor and then wait three days before proceeding with her abortion. If she doesn't then she could be found guilty of murder and be executed for that crime.

Uhhh... no.

Abortion laws actually vary from state to state. Many have absolutely no waiting period; only around half do, and in those cases the waiting time us usually a day. (only 2 states have waiting times of 3 days.)

I haven't checked on yuor claim that a woman would be "guilty of murder", but since you made mistakes with your '3 days' claim, I'm going to assume your 'guilty of murder' claim is also incorrect.

http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_OAL.pdf

It's my opinion that no American has the credibility it requires to take part in a discussion on Canada's position on abortion. America has departed much too far from understanding human needs and reality.

How... idiotic.

What if it was a pro-abortionist (someone who disagreed with waiting periods, etc.)? Would the be ineligible to post here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Europe abortion is banned in three countries: Poland, Ireland and Malta. That means that the Polish go to Germany, the Irish into the UK and the Maltese into Italy for abortion. Banning abortion may therefore enable some saves in the health-budget but your neighbours won't like it that your citizens start burdening their health-system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Europe abortion is banned in three countries: Poland, Ireland and Malta. That means that the Polish go to Germany, the Irish into the UK and the Maltese into Italy for abortion. Banning abortion may therefore enable some saves in the health-budget but your neighbours won't like it that your citizens start burdening their health-system.

Why is that relevant?

Nobody here is calling for abortion to be banned. Nobody here is suggesting the Liberal party under Trudeau should take an anti-abortion stance.

The issue that is the focus of discussion is whether Trudeau implemented his abortion policy by building consensus and respecting other people's opinions, or whether he implemented his policy through by treating the Liberal party as is own little private fiefdom/dictatorship and ramming the changes through (i.e. by doing the things Liberal fans seem to accuse Harper of doing all the time).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The issue that is the focus of discussion is whether Trudeau implemented his abortion policy by building consensus and respecting other people's opinions, or whether he implemented his policy through by treating the Liberal party as is own little private fiefdom/dictatorship and ramming the changes through (i.e. by doing the things Liberal fans seem to accuse Harper of doing all the time).

See this is what we don't really know......just b/c John Mackay or Jim Karygiannis feel left out in the cold doesn't make it so. He may have built a significant (not total) consensus in the caucus but felt to go public quickly so to be "open" before nominations went too far. I think he could've played the media game better but the ideal behind it was appropriate. Edited by Bob Macadoo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the need for abortion should be reduced. Men should have to wear a dick ring that cries like a baby everytime they get an erection, to remind them that their equipment should be wrapped up unless they want to pay child support for 18+ years.

Men shouldn't be allowed to vote on abortion. It's none of their business.

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See this is what we don't really know......just b/c John Mackay or Jim Karygiannis feel left out in the cold doesn't make it so. He may have built a significant (not total) consensus in the caucus but felt to go public quickly so to be "open" before nominations went too far. I think he could've played the media game better but the ideal behind it was appropriate.

Sure you know - but don't want to face it. If he had built any sort of consensus, there would be plenty of MPs standing up and saying so. Instead, we get an old warhorse like Carolyn Bennett telling Evan Solomon over and over "I think what Justin is saying is......". He blind-sided the whole party with his Abortion on Demand ultimatum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
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 - Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...