Jump to content

Pro Life? Then Don't Run Under Liberal Banner


Big Guy

Recommended Posts

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

How... idiotic.

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

As I said, in America. And in that country they still kill people for murdering a person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 783
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

:)

It would be easy to read this and react negatively, but there is little doubt that is what you are likely looking for so it would likely be best just to take it as the sad ramblings of a pathetic troll that it is. Either that or your position is that men are solely responsible for all such decisions and the act of intercourse is simply a victimization of a woman by a man, a position that causes you to despise men so much that you are incapable of respectful dialogue Either way, it's sad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's probable smart for any politician in Canada to just be quiet about being a Christian until challenged on it.

It would likely be equally smart for a politician to approach the issue of abortion the same way.

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.

Reflecting on the comment above, I would say you are giving JT far too much credit.

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).

So you are complaining that Mr. Trudeau is using Mr. Harper's strategy of treating his party like a private fiefdom and ramming changes through?

With whom did Mr. Harper consult before he eliminated the mandatory long form census? His party? I doubt it. Certainly not the electorate since it was never part of his platform. Mr. Trudeau is making it clear before an election where he stands. Mr. Harper should have done that with the census.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you are complaining that Mr. Trudeau is using Mr. Harper's strategy of treating his party like a private fiefdom and ramming changes through?

With whom did Mr. Harper consult before he eliminated the mandatory long form census? His party? I doubt it. Certainly not the electorate since it was never part of his platform. Mr. Trudeau is making it clear before an election where he stands. Mr. Harper should have done that with the census.

here are a lot of things that Harper does that I do not like, both in policy and the way he leads.

However, Trudeau was supposed to be different. He was supposed to take the high road. His party is supposed to be "inclusive". If a politician says one thing and does another even before a general election is called do you think he'll somehow get better once he becomes prime minister?

Do a search on this site for the words "harper" and "dictator". You'll find more than 1 person labeling Harper a dictator. Now, if any Liberal supporter attempts to label Harper as a dictator, they will be hypocrites.

Mr. Trudeau is making it clear before an election where he stands.

Yes, he is certainly making things clear where he stands on that particular issue. However, the way that he's making that clear might be seen as an indication of how he will run the government if he should ever become PM. Will he do is best to build a consensus while respecting diversity? Or will he think "I was able to ram through my position on abortion/liberal senators/etc. I can use the same tactic getting legislation through the House of Commons."

Mr. Harper should have done that with the census.
There are a lot of issues that a political party and leader must face if they are in power. Sometimes its from issues not raised during a campaign because they're not relevant at the time or not significant enough. If I do some digging I can provably find similar legislation passed by Chretien, Mulroney and Trudeau.
However, abortion is a significant issue; it has been for a while and will probably be for a significant time in the future... its been the subject of multiple private members bills, and its an issue that I suspect more people care about far more deeply than they do about the census.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

JT needs more experience in "politico speak". He appears to speak off the cuff and then spends the next few weeks explaining himself. I find it a refreshing if politically dangerous attribute. I wonder how important an issue this will be when the election is called. I can see his mentors influencing him before the election and his subsequent speeches may create "wiggle room" on a very divisive issue.

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'm sure you will do your best to convince yourself of that.

But, that explanation doesn't really hold much water. If Trudeau did go to various members of his caucus and say "this is what I want to do.... how should I proceed?" how come none of them have stepped forward to say they met with Trudeau before hand? So far I haven't seen one of them say Trudeau discussed things either individually with his MPs or as a group. Maybe he did, but given how this issue seems to have blown up in his face, if such a meeting did occur you figure they'd be able to trot a few MPs out to say thing had been agreed to before hand.

I think he could've played the media game better but the ideal behind it was appropriate.

That is also questionable.

There was never any risk that abortion would be restricted. Private members bills have all been voted down. Nobody on the NDP would vote against abortion, and the conservative party is split. And very few Liberals would vote to restrict abortions, even without his rather draconian "vote with me or else" policy.

A simple "I will never bring forward anti-abortion legislation if I were PM" would have had pretty much the same impact... it would affirm the Liberal's pro-choice policy, yet it would allow the liberals to continue claiming they were still a "big tent all inclusive" party.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JT needs more experience in "politico speak". He appears to speak off the cuff and then spends the next few weeks explaining himself.

He's Twitter Man. He makes policy statements that can fit into a tweet. Simpleminded statements on complex policies such as abortion, legalizing marijuana and assisted suicide. He gets pushback then makes "clarifications" that muddy the issue even further. I was a "Liberal Supporter" and voted in the leadership election - but none of my choices was for Trudeau. He lacks his father's intelligence and wit.

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.

:)

That was very good! :lol:

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.

:)

Women should not be voting on it either. Nobody should be. It's been settled via 'no legislation' for decades and that has worked out just fine for Canadian women. People who want abortions can get one, people who do not want an abortion don't have to get one.

Until Justin opened his yawning piehole yet again, their was nothing to talk about. Perfect.

If I was a prolifer, I'd be sueing Trudeau and the Liberals over them denying my opportunity to exercise my Charter rights to run as an MP and serve Canada as a Liberal candidate. Any opening, any crack, will do.

And no, of course his action was not necessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would view JT's actions as being proactive. Now is a good time to get the Conservatives to spill their guts on their dishonest intentions. If they think they have a winning hand then they should put up or just continue to shut up. We aren't interested in a situation similar to south of our border where doctors are getting shot, women are threatened with capital punishment for having an abortion, or the rabid right is running around trying to destroy the lives of women for exercising their free choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now is a good time to get the Conservatives to spill their guts on their dishonest intentions.

Harper has spilled his guts repeatedly on abortion, saying he has no intention of introducing any abortion legislation in the House.

That means 'status quo' or 'easy access to abortion for Canadian women' in case it is unclear.

Next up: what else is in Trudeaus Secret Agenda?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harper has spilled his guts repeatedly on abortion, saying he has no intention of introducing any abortion legislation in the House.

That means 'status quo' or 'easy access to abortion for Canadian women' in case it is unclear.

Next up: what else is in Trudeaus Secret Agenda?

Yes, and JT's challenge goes a long way to ensure it stays that way. But make no mistake, Harper would just love to get into it and save a fetus or two. He just knows that he would take a licking on it. He needs to set the stage, so to speak. Do you think that's not his secret agenda? If you do then you need to ask most conservatives what they are hoping for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know what Harpers Secret Agenda might be, It's a secret.

But his public and often stated position on abortion is this, since he's said it many times now: no legislation. Not only has he said it, he hasn't done a thing towards legislation.

Same as Mulroney, Campbell, Chretien and Martin.

Harper has set the stage many times. He does not need to do anything else, since anything else just fans the flames, which Trudeau has foolishly and needlessly done. If you're prolife, it's the action of a colossal asshole, when you think it through.

What more could I possibly want from Harper?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, and JT's challenge goes a long way to ensure it stays that way. But make no mistake, Harper would just love to get into it and save a fetus or two. He just knows that he would take a licking on it. He needs to set the stage, so to speak. Do you think that's not his secret agenda? If you do then you need to ask most conservatives what they are hoping for.

If Canada's Left was mature enough to have a debate, the result would likely fall in line with all the other Western countries. Funny how the Left spins the debate as being pro-choice against anti-abortion. Today's debate among the vast majority of Canadians has two positions - and both positions are pro-choice (Duh!). But Trudeau's position is Abortion on Demand - there can never, ever be a restriction on a woman's right to choose - no matter what the reasoning, no matter what term the pregnancy is in, and no matter what other effects an abortion might inflict - no questions asked - period. The second position seeks to have a debate on what minor restrictions/safeguards could be put in place to address later term abortions or other concerns that may require some careful thought....in other words - looking at what other countries do - and creating made-in-Canada legislation.

Edited by Keepitsimple
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But Trudeau's position is Abortion on Demand - there can never, ever be a restriction on a woman's right to choose - no matter what the reasoning, no matter what term the pregnancy is in, and no matter what other effects an abortion might inflict - no questions asked - period. The second position seeks to have a debate on what minor restrictions/safeguards could be put in place to address later term abortions or other concerns that may require some careful thought....in other words - looking at what other countries do - and creating made-in-Canada legislation.

In the first bold, correct, there should never be any restriction on a womans choice, just like the Conservatives have governed.

In the second bold, why bother? Its a self regulating issue and that no one can deny that reality.

So I guess....the anti-abortion folks just want to restrict a womans choice, how misogynistic of you !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Canada's Left was mature enough to have a debate, the result would likely fall in line with all the other Western countries. Funny how the Left spins the debate as being pro-choice against anti-abortion. Today's debate among the vast majority of Canadians has two positions - and both positions are pro-choice (Duh!). But Trudeau's position is Abortion on Demand - there can never, ever be a restriction on a woman's right to choose - no matter what the reasoning, no matter what term the pregnancy is in, and no matter what other effects an abortion might inflict - no questions asked - period. The second position seeks to have a debate on what minor restrictions/safeguards could be put in place to address later term abortions or other concerns that may require some careful thought....in other words - looking at what other countries do - and creating made-in-Canada legislation.

You spilt the beans! JT wants abortion on demand and the Canadian people don't care to mess with that. You've just come up with some of the possible changes you would like to see brought about by Harper. And Harper is not unaware of the political position of his followers. In fact, his agenda is basically the same agenda as his followers.

So now that you have admitted that you want your politicians to start messing with the abortion laws, tell us specifically how you would like Harper to fix them. Give us your wish list that you can envision if Harper can ever set the stage for turning Canada into something like the mess to our south if he thinks he can get public support for any of it?

You people need to begin to start to understand that women don't prefer to have an abortion. When a woman seeks an abortion then you have to just accept that she deems it necessary. And again, your issue has to become on of caring about women enough to show an interest in promoting social responsibility in the citizenry so that abortions will become largely unnecessary. We may never attain a socially perfect society but we surely can reduce the number of abortions that women are asking for.

I'm speaking to you on the level as a Canadian and I have no doubt that it's going to go completely over an American's head. That is, most Americans!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, and JT's challenge goes a long way to ensure it stays that way.

Only in the same way that removing the engine from a car that has no tires goes a long way to ensure it doesn't get driven anywhere.

I.e. it does absolutely nothing.

Abortion wasn't going to be brought up by the conservative government. Every recent private members bill proposed about the subject has gone nowhere. And if the liberals should form the next government, well, they were already less likely to vote in favour of abortion restrictions than men were.

We aren't interested in a situation similar to south of our border where doctors are getting shot...

In 1994, Dr. Garson Romalis (a promanant abortion doctor in B.C.) was shot by a sniper while at home. 6 years later he was stabbed while at his clinic.

So guess what? Anti-abortionists do engage in violence here in Canada.

On the other hand, Sweden does have laws restricting abortions, yet I could not find any evidence of similar shootings there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence#Canada

So what do you know... maybe the absence or presence of abortion laws doesn't impact the rate of violence.

You spilt the beans! JT wants abortion on demand and the Canadian people don't care to mess with that.

Go back and look through the thread.

The majority of Canadians actually want some law. They don't want to eliminate all abortions, but a recent opinion poll asked "do you support or oppose the introduction of a law that places limits on when she can have an abortion, such as in the 3rd trimester". 60% of Canadians supported the introduction of such a law.

Oh, and in case you think that men should automatically be disqualified from voting, more women supported such a law (at 62%) then men.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So now that you have admitted that you want your politicians to start messing with the abortion laws, tell us specifically how you would like Harper to fix them.

I don't want politicians to mess with abortion laws, and I want Trudeau to shut up.

Shut up like Harper has done, like oither PMs have done, and continue to do nothing at all.

You people need to begin to start to understand that women don't prefer to have an abortion

How do you know what women or a woman wants?

Give em the choice I say. Like Harper says too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some people's views on abortion are certainly more relevant than those of some other people. When old men rant against abortion it is difficult to resist the temptation to ask why does the issue bother them so much as it most certainly doesn't personally concern them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some people's views on abortion are certainly more relevant than those of some other people. When old men rant against abortion it is difficult to resist the temptation to ask why does the issue bother them so much as it most certainly doesn't personally concern them.

Much of the debate on this topic is regarding Justin Trudeau's sudden desire to open the debate and to do it in such a dictatorial and exclusive manner. Inclusive and open seems to be out the window.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some people's views on abortion are certainly more relevant than those of some other people. When old men rant against abortion it is difficult to resist the temptation to ask why does the issue bother them so much as it most certainly doesn't personally concern them.

I don't really think its that difficult to understand. Despite all the hysterics from certain people on the site, I doubt in all cases it comes down to a case of "men wanting to control women".

Some individuals truly believe that what counts as a "human being" exists prior to birth; as such, an abortion is the equivalent of murder. Its not a belief I subscribe to, but I understand it, even if I don't agree.

On this forum there's a thread about a man who killed his 13 year old daughter and only got 2 months in jail. Does it upset you? If so, why? After all, you weren't one of the individuals personally involved. Yet the case has got people complaining about the relatively short sentence. People don't like it when they see a crime go unpunished.

People who go off the deep end, complaining that its "all about men controlling women" are basically hijacking the dialog and make it impossible to have a reasonable discussion about the issue. (Admittedly, the hysterics from the anti-abortionists are probably worse.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does life begin at birth or at conception? Futile to start arguing about that as that must have been debated many times over. However, I'm not familiar with the abortion-legislation of many other countries but in Finland we have the 26-week rule which must be later than almost anywhere else.

Let's not kid ourselves on one issue; It is a tiny minority of the abortions which are because the parents have discovered that the child would be severely handicapped or deformed that his/her life would not be worth living (as if human beings could make such a judgement on behalf of other human beings anyway) but the overwhelming majority of abortions are so-called abortions of convenience, ie. for social reasons.

In Finland the abortion-laws were relaxed in 1971 and since then there have been approximately 10,000 abortions every year. That would ampount to over 400,000 people + their descendants. None of those people exist however. If they did there would be none of this nonsense about ageing population and the need to import immigrants.

On the other hand, the demographic void created by abortions gives the multikulti-cluster a handy excuse to pursue their agenda. If that wasn't available they would come up with something else. After all, abortion is banned in Ireland and Ireland has the youngest population in Europe but that hasn't stopped immigration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the first bold, correct, there should never be any restriction on a womans choice, just like the Conservatives have governed.In the second bold, why bother? Its a self regulating issue and that no one can deny that reality.So I guess....the anti-abortion folks just want to restrict a womans choice, how misogynistic of you !

why have doctors regulate medical decisions when you can have the government legislate your religious beliefs?
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...