Pro Life? Then Don't Run Under Liberal Banner

[Topaz]

I guess it up to the constituents to choose the MP which agrees with the leader or at least, agrees to vote that way.

[cybercoma]

If that's the case, why not pass legislation ensuring it?

If a doctor needs to perform a late-term abortion, the last thing we need is a bunch of legal red tape that he or she has to wade through when making that decision. If it needs to happen, that's best left up to the discretion of the doctor performing it and the patient that needs it. This is never a decision that's made lightly and it's not something any doctor wants to be doing. You don't need to be pushing your ideas and opinions into that discussion. Edited May 9, 2014 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

Let's also pass legislation, making sure that such late term abortion practices, that don't involve the mother's life, are restricted. The majority of Canadians agree with this sentiment. If you don't, you're not in the mainstream.

What if they involve the baby's life?

And give it up with the "mainstream" crap. It doesn't matter. It's a logical fallacy to claim someone is wrong because their opinion is not "mainstream."

[Big Guy]

A position based solely on faith is never valid.

I respectfully disagree. To people of faith, any position based on their faith is valid to them. While I personally do not agree with many positions they take, especially those that run contrary to current science, I respect their right to hold and support their opinion.

[cybercoma]

Validity is not relative.

[bush_cheney2004]

I respectfully disagree. To people of faith, any position based on their faith is valid to them. While I personally do not agree with many positions they take, especially those that run contrary to current science, I respect their right to hold and support their opinion.

Good point....the majority of people in the world have belief systems that rely partially or entirely on "faith". Such positions are constitutionally protected in many nations, including Canada.

[TimG]

Validity is not relative.

Every position you take is based entirely on your personal faith. You may claim that the position is based on 'science' but that is a pile of crap because science provides a framework for understanding. It is does not tell anyone how to deal with the unknowns and/or tradeoffs that are inherent in any position. The latter requires a moral framework or reference point - a.k.a. "faith". Edited May 9, 2014 by TimG

[TimG]

It's a logical fallacy to claim someone is wrong because their opinion is not "mainstream."

Yet you do it all of the time when someone suggests the claims of a CO2 catastrophe are exaggerations. Edited May 9, 2014 by TimG

[Argus]

He's not "banning" anything. People are free to have their opinions, but if their opinions conflict with the party's platform, they aren't the right person to represent the party. The CPC wouldn't allow candidates who advocate nationalization of industry or larger government, but somehow that isn't "attacking" other people's opinions.

There is a difference between issues of conscience and issues of economic policy.

Further, given this is an issue of moral concience, it ought to be the concience of the constituents which counts. On previous votes, on this and other issues of conscience, many MPs voted the way they felt their constituents wanted them to vote.

What Trudeau is saying is, bluntly "I don't care what you think and I don't care what your constituents think. The only thing that matters is what I think"

Edited May 9, 2014 by Argus

[Argus]

What a ridiculous comment.

Why? It's clearly "My way or the highway" with both of them. Both favour the leader making all decisions, and dictating his decision downward. No disagreement is permitted. Neither cares what the actual voters want or think or say.

God knows you guys have been ragging on Harper, the dictator for years now, and bemoaning how much he controls his caucus. But here's another example of Trudeau not only demanding his caucus follow his line, even on moral issues, but not even bother to consult them before making a major party decision!

And suddenly, well, that's not very important...

Edited May 9, 2014 by Argus

[The_Squid]

Yet you do it all of the time when someone suggests the claims of a CO2 catastrophe are exaggerations.

You are confusing scientific consensus with the logical fallacy "argumentum ad populum". Two entirely different things.

Unless you mean that CC has argued that because most people in the general public believe in climate change, therefore it is true... but I doubt very much that he has argued that.

It would be like saying the opinion that gravity exists is a logical fallacy because 99.99999999% of scientists believe it to be true.

[Argus]

What's the difference? Harper has vowed he will not re-open the abortion discussuin, and has backed those words up by smacking down at least two attempts by backbenchers to table motions on the subject. Tom Mulcair has been quoted as saying no NDP memeber will ever vote against a womans right to choose.

Harper hasn't smacked them down. He's actually allowed backbenchers to put their motions forward for votes. The NDP have always been a "Great Leader" party, ie, what the Great Leader wants is what YOU want, or else. It appears Trudeau favours that sort of leadership style, as well.

[Black Dog]

Harper hasn't smacked them down. He's actually allowed backbenchers to put their motions forward for votes. The NDP have always been a "Great Leader" party, ie, what the Great Leader wants is what YOU want, or else. It appears Trudeau favours that sort of leadership style, as well.

Red meat for the base, nothing more.

[Argus]

It was a question... What about homophobes? They are often bigots on religious grounds.

I suppose that depends on how you define the term. Many on the Left will say anyone who tells a gay joke, or isn't 100% in favour of total gay rights/marriage/pensions/adoptions, and everything else, is basically a member of the Ku Klux Klan, as far as they're concerned.

But it wouldn't surprise me if Trudeau made that his next decision. Anyone who doesn't fully and vocally support gay marriage, etc. won't be allowed in HIS party.

[Argus]

I think it's more likely the right who will tend toward RIGHTeous views, often tainted by religious overtones. Anti abortion is anti choice. What else could it be? I don't think people who are pro choice are promoting abortion, they are simply promoting choice. Let's let people make up their own minds about such a personal and important issue.

But not if they want to be Liberal MPs. There's no way they'll be allowed to make up their minds then, and their constituents, well, who cares about what they do with their minds since only what Trudeau's mind says matters, right?

It will be the job of Liberal MPs to tell those voters who 'make up their own minds" on such a "personal issue" that they're wrong and that the party doesn't care what they believe or want or think or say.

[Argus]

Which ironically is the definition of a conservative position.

So you're saying all those people who kept pushing for changes to the laws on gay rights were conservatives because they weren't satisfied with the status quo?

[Argus]

If a doctor needs to perform a late-term abortion, the last thing we need is a bunch of legal red tape that he or she has to wade through when making that decision. If it needs to happen, that's best left up to the discretion of the doctor performing it and the patient that needs it. This is never a decision that's made lightly and it's not something any doctor wants to be doing. You don't need to be pushing your ideas and opinions into that discussion.

I'm curious. Why do you believe no other nation in the western world believes that? Even the most left wing social democratic countries of Europe have laws about abortion.

[dre]

This is all about the young vote. But I think the trade off will hurt him.

If he could polarize the electorate and push the people that favor government womb control into the conservative camp, and pull folks that dont favor government womb control to the liberals then he would win a majority government. I dont see how this could hurt him.

[cybercoma]

You are confusing scientific consensus with the logical fallacy "argumentum ad populum". Two entirely different things.

Unless you mean that CC has argued that because most people in the general public believe in climate change, therefore it is true... but I doubt very much that he has argued that.

It would be like saying the opinion that gravity exists is a logical fallacy because 99.99999999% of scientists believe it to be true.

I have never said climate change is correct because most people believe that; you're correct that it's about scientific consensus.

[cybercoma]

So you're saying all those people who kept pushing for changes to the laws on gay rights were conservatives because they weren't satisfied with the status quo?

I'm saying the definition of a conservative position is support for the status quo.

[cybercoma]

I'm curious. Why do you believe no other nation in the western world believes that? Even the most left wing social democratic countries of Europe have laws about abortion.

You're reifying nations. I don't know what nations believe because I don't know how an abstract concept is capable of belief. If you're asking me why other nations have laws against late term abortions then it would depend on the nation and I would have to find out. If you would like to share why other nations have laws on late term abortions, please feel free. I've yet to see a reasoned argument as to why we need those laws here. On the other hand, I have presented evidence in the past that the number of women who have late term abortions is ridiculously small and almost always for life-or-death medical reasons. It's also clear from statements by medical boards that there aren't any doctors who will perform them without due consideration. I also know that those people who push for these laws have been unable or unwilling to tell me why women have late term abortions, nor can they articulate the scope of the problem. The argument is usually that they want to make it illegal because they find it morally reprehensible, even if they have no idea whatsoever of the scope of it happening nor why.

[Argus]

You're reifying nations. I don't know what nations believe because I don't know how an abstract concept is capable of belief. If you're asking me why other nations have laws against late term abortions then it would depend on the nation and I would have to find out.

All of them.

Look, some of you on the Left are portraying this as an issue where only 'radicals' or extremists want any kind of restrictions on abortions. The polls just don't support you, here, or anywhere. Opposition to abortion is widespread all over the world, and it's not coming from a few extremists. Even middle-of-the roaders generally feel their ought to be some guidelines and legislation.

Here is Swedens' fairly uncomplicated law, and I don't think many would consider the Swedes to be radical conservatives on social issues. http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/population/abortion/SWEDEN.abo.htm

Now why don't you tell me why this is so horrific to you?

Edited May 9, 2014 by Argus

[cybercoma]

An example that was given in the past is that a mother finds out after 6 months of pregnancy that her child is so severely deformed that it will certainly die within the first year of life. During that year, the child will live in absolute agony and suffering. The costs for medication, equipment, and home care for the child will be crippling. Aborting the fetus would not save the life of the mother, since her life is not in danger. However, it would be the humane thing to do for the baby and for the psychological, emotional, and financial well-being of the parents. Under such laws as Shady proposes, this extremely rare circumstance would be criminal even if a doctor would otherwise suggest it. The mother's life is not in danger and so it is a crime.

We don't need the government involved in that decision. That is something deeply personal between the parents of the child and their doctors. If it's a decision that has to be made and has to be made quickly, we don't need legal hurdles impeding something so deeply personal and difficult.

[TimG]

I have never said climate change is correct because most people believe that; you're correct that it's about scientific consensus.

That is not true. What you do is deliberately confuse the science with the political opinions on what do to about what the science says. You then claim that since majority of "scientists" hold certain political views anyone who disagrees with those political views is wrong.

[cybercoma]

All of them.

Look, some of you on the Left are portraying this as an issue where only 'radicals' or extremists want any kind of restrictions on abortions. The polls just don't support you, here, or anywhere. Opposition to abortion is widespread all over the world, and it's not coming from a few extremists. Even middle-of-the roaders generally feel their ought to be some guidelines and legislation.

HEre is Swedens' fairly uncomplicated law, and I don't think many would consider the Swedes to be radical conservatives on social issues. http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/population/abortion/SWEDEN.abo.htm

I don't care if every single person on the planet was against abortion, except for me. That's not a logical argument as to why that position is correct.