Guest Posted June 1, 2015 Report Share Posted June 1, 2015 (edited) The political statement suggested by this image is totally distasteful to me. Distasteful political statements exist. This is a site that discusses politics. Deleted this last sentence. Rereading it, it didn't come out sounding the way I wanted it to.. Edited June 1, 2015 by bcsapper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 1, 2015 Report Share Posted June 1, 2015 We have had a rule against posting disgusting images in the past, which I last used to remove images of war, terrorist attacks and so on. The general idea is that you can discuss such issues without the aid of such images. I've asked again, to confirm that the rule is still in place. Yes, I'm not discussing the removal of the image. It's up to the site admin. The link is still there, with a warning. That's sufficient. I'm just commenting on the discussion around the image itself being used for the purpose of what amounts to a political attack ad. The discussion is not out of bounds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted June 1, 2015 Report Share Posted June 1, 2015 I agree with Derek here. I'm pro choice, but I don't see any point in hiding from things being the way they are. The news is not abortion per se, but rather the political statement made using those images. Exactly, and the political ramifications of such images.......clearly they are intended to shock, we wouldn't be talking about them otherwise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted June 1, 2015 Report Share Posted June 1, 2015 Thats all it was is a political attack ad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted June 1, 2015 Report Share Posted June 1, 2015 Thats all it was is a political attack ad. Derek's point is that Trudeau's exclusion of those with differing views on abortion can/is coming back to bite him - another "gaffe". You obviously support Trudeau's decision as a smart one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted June 1, 2015 Report Share Posted June 1, 2015 Derek's point is that Trudeau's exclusion of those with differing views on abortion can/is coming back to bite him - another "gaffe". You obviously support Trudeau's decision as a smart one. The only difference between the stance of JT and Harper on this issue is that the former is more forthright. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overthere Posted June 1, 2015 Report Share Posted June 1, 2015 The only difference between the stance of JT and Harper on this issue is that the former is more forthright. How so? Harper has been very clear that while he personally does not personally agree with abortion, he has no intention of changing the status quo- which is essentially that there is no law, abortion is a medical procedure and a matter for a woman and her physician- not legislators.. He has had ten years to act otherwise. Martin (2 years) and Chretien(13 years) were also PMs who felt exactly the same as Harper and acted exactly the same as Harper. How can any of them be more forthright than to refuse to act when they could easily do so as Prime Minister? Trudeau of course, has no ability to do anything but talk. Acting on anything is, thankfully,well outside his pay grade for now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted June 1, 2015 Report Share Posted June 1, 2015 How so? Harper has been very clear that while he personally does not personally agree with abortion, he has no intention of changing the status quo- which is essentially that there is no law, abortion is a medical procedure and a matter for a woman and her physician- not legislators.. He has had ten years to act otherwise. Martin (2 years) and Chretien(13 years) were also PMs who felt exactly the same as Harper and acted exactly the same as Harper. How can any of them be more forthright than to refuse to act when they could easily do so as Prime Minister? Trudeau of course, has no ability to do anything but talk. Acting on anything is, thankfully,well outside his pay grade for now. How so, because Harper's stance is simply he wont allow the issue to be addressed. JT made it clear incoming Liberal MPs will vote in favor of a woman's right to choose. The effect of both stances is essentially the same at the end of the day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 1, 2015 Report Share Posted June 1, 2015 Sorry, Derek 2.0, graphic images are not allowed on here. Since when? You're derailing yet another thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Anthony Posted June 2, 2015 Report Share Posted June 2, 2015 What is the site's definition of a "graphic image"?There is no definition. It is purely a judgement call. We decide whether the image serves anything more than shock value. Images you personally find distasteful or ones that run counter to your own political bias? I would think an image posted by the Huffington Post would be acceptable.......You are asking the wrong question. You should ask Do I really really NEED to post this image to get my message across? to stir up the discussion? What REALLY matters about this topic anyways??? As I said to you in a previous private conversation, perhaps the site should have a defined set of rules encompassing images, topics, foul language and other things that you find personally distasteful......it would save you the time in future from editing other members post to be more of your liking.As far as images are concerned, there need only be 1 rule: Translate your post into Braille and have a blind man proof-read it. If you can not faithfully convey whatever substance may exist in your post to a blind man, then you need to go back to the drawing board. I just made that up right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overthere Posted June 2, 2015 Report Share Posted June 2, 2015 How so, because Harper's stance is simply he wont allow the issue to be addressed. JT made it clear incoming Liberal MPs will vote in favor of a woman's right to choose. The effect of both stances is essentially the same at the end of the day. Incorrect. Harper has refused to get abortion in front of Parliament, refused to implement any kind of law. Why? Because law creates legal challenge, which is a goal of the prolifers for decades in Canada. For decades, prolifers have made no headway at all because they cannot get a case in the courts at basically any level. They cannot get any kind of Charter challenge going because there is nothing for the courts to do. Yet for inexplicable reasons you support Trudeau, who you claim will force a vote on womens right to choose when they already have the right to choose now? Why would you do that and enable some dilettante fool in Parliament to give the prolifers the tools required to gain some traction? They really have none now, what is your agenda here? Hmmmmm? Why do you hate women and support the proflife camp? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted June 2, 2015 Report Share Posted June 2, 2015 (edited) Incorrect. Harper has refused to get abortion in front of Parliament, refused to implement any kind of law. Why? Because law creates legal challenge, which is a goal of the prolifers for decades in Canada. For decades, prolifers have made no headway at all because they cannot get a case in the courts at basically any level. They cannot get any kind of Charter challenge going because there is nothing for the courts to do. Yet for inexplicable reasons you support Trudeau, who you claim will force a vote on womens right to choose when they already have the right to choose now? Why would you do that and enable some dilettante fool in Parliament to give the prolifers the tools required to gain some traction? They really have none now, what is your agenda here? Hmmmmm? Why do you hate women and support the proflife camp? Dont know why you wish to make it so complicated.Trudeau has simply stated if you want to join his club, you will not attempt to change the rights women now have since the abortion law was torn out of the criminal code. Edited June 2, 2015 by On Guard for Thee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted June 2, 2015 Report Share Posted June 2, 2015 Dont know why you wish to make it so complicated.Trudeau has simply stated if you want to join his club, you will not attempt to change the rights women now have since the abortion law was torn out of the criminal code. As you can see from this discussion - it was Trudeau who "made it so complicated" with his puzzling approach. He should have just kept his mouth shut - but his inexperience and petulance couldn't keep him from pulling this prank, thinking that somehow it would make the Conservatives look bad. Just another gaffe where he's had to try and pull his foot out of his mouth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted June 2, 2015 Report Share Posted June 2, 2015 As you can see from this discussion - it was Trudeau who "made it so complicated" with his puzzling approach. He should have just kept his mouth shut - but his inexperience and petulance couldn't keep him from pulling this prank, thinking that somehow it would make the Conservatives look bad. Just another gaffe where he's had to try and pull his foot out of his mouth. I dont see what you think is complicated about it. Wanna be a Liberal MP, vote in favor of womens rights. What could be less complicated... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overthere Posted June 2, 2015 Report Share Posted June 2, 2015 I dont see what you think is complicated about it. Wanna be a Liberal MP, vote in favor of womens rights. What could be less complicated... That is a very weak attempt to dodge another stupid move by Trudeau. Successive Liberal and Tory PMs have taken what is clearly the very least complex route to maintaining the right of Canadian women to abortion: do nothing in Parliament, nothing that can lead to a court of Charter challenge. No abortion law. That approach has worked very well for women for about 27 years, since 1988. A 'vote' in Parliament implies legislation, which will result in exactly what prolifers want: cases in court. Or is Trudeau going to introduce some vague, pointless, toothless resolution as a 'gesture of support'?. He is increasingly ridiculous and apparently intent on insulting the intelligence of women. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted June 2, 2015 Report Share Posted June 2, 2015 That is a very weak attempt to dodge another stupid move by Trudeau. Successive Liberal and Tory PMs have taken what is clearly the very least complex route to maintaining the right of Canadian women to abortion: do nothing in Parliament, nothing that can lead to a court of Charter challenge. No abortion law. That approach has worked very well for women for about 27 years, since 1988. A 'vote' in Parliament implies legislation, which will result in exactly what prolifers want: cases in court. Or is Trudeau going to introduce some vague, pointless, toothless resolution as a 'gesture of support'?. He is increasingly ridiculous and apparently intent on insulting the intelligence of women. You may not like Trudeau, but to say a clear attempt by him to ensure womens rights is stupid, seems, in itself, stupid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted June 2, 2015 Report Share Posted June 2, 2015 You may not like Trudeau, but to say a clear attempt by him to ensure womens rights is stupid, seems, in itself, stupid. It's not a "clear" attempt. It's an obscure attempt to somehow portray Conservatives as "not defending Women's Rights". Machiavellian at best. Stupid, maybe not - but certainly another example of Foot-in-Mouth - and a Gaffe. Here's the headline that was published by CBC: Justin Trudeau's abortion stance leaves Liberal ranks in confusion Is that "clear" enough for you? Link: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/justin-trudeau-s-abortion-stance-leaves-liberal-ranks-in-confusion-1.2648752 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted June 2, 2015 Report Share Posted June 2, 2015 It's not a "clear" attempt. It's an obscure attempt to somehow portray Conservatives as "not defending Women's Rights". Machiavellian at best. Stupid, maybe not - but certainly another example of Foot-in-Mouth - and a Gaffe. Here's the headline that was published by CBC: Justin Trudeau's abortion stance leaves Liberal ranks in confusion Is that "clear" enough for you? Link: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/justin-trudeau-s-abortion-stance-leaves-liberal-ranks-in-confusion-1.2648752 Party must speak with one voice. Is that clear enough for you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted June 2, 2015 Report Share Posted June 2, 2015 You may not like Trudeau, but to say a clear attempt by him to ensure womens rights is stupid, seems, in itself, stupid. Who says having zero laws on abortion constitutes supporting womens rights? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted June 2, 2015 Report Share Posted June 2, 2015 Who says having zero laws on abortion constitutes supporting womens rights? Perhaps because it allows them the RIGHT to choose whether or not they can have an abortion... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted June 3, 2015 Report Share Posted June 3, 2015 He is increasingly ridiculous and apparently intent on insulting the intelligence of women. He will lead -- barely -- through an election. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overthere Posted June 3, 2015 Report Share Posted June 3, 2015 Who says having zero laws on abortion constitutes supporting womens rights? Well, a couple of generations of women would agree that not having any abortion law does exactly that- allows women reproductive choices in Canada. It is actually fiendishly clever in its simplicity. There is nothing for the prolife crew to challenge since the issue never gets to a court. Looks like Mr Trudeau would like to change all that into an American style rodeo of endless litigation and court challenge. Why would you support that? Party must speak with one voice. Is that clear enough for you. Women must maintain their right to reproductive choice, as they do now and have done for 25+ years under leaders that recognize the status quo suffices quite nicely. Is that clear enough for Mr Trudeau? Apparently not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Second-class Canadian Posted July 2, 2015 Report Share Posted July 2, 2015 I'm pro life too, but all four major parties have essentially the same policy on this matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted July 2, 2015 Report Share Posted July 2, 2015 Perhaps because it allows them the RIGHT to choose whether or not they can have an abortion... Do you know that more than half of all women want zero laws on abortion? This is not my hobby horse subject but I seem to recall majorities of Canadians want some kind of law restricting the act in some cases. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted July 2, 2015 Report Share Posted July 2, 2015 Do you know that more than half of all women want zero laws on abortion? This is not my hobby horse subject but I seem to recall majorities of Canadians want some kind of law restricting the act in some cases. I think the courts made a sensible decision to leave the choice a matter between a woman and her doctor. Late term makes people uneasy but I doubt you could find a doctor in Canada to perform one, unless serious health concerns were a compelling factor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
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.