Pro Life? Then Don't Run Under Liberal Banner

[Argus]

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.

I'd like to hear what you have against Sweden's abortion law.

[TimG]

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.

The same argument could be made about putting a severely disabled child to death. There is an arbitrary line that everyone draws that decides whether killing is justified. Where one puts that line is a personal choice. It is not fact. Edited May 9, 2014 by TimG

[monty16]

It's going to force some Conservatives to take a position and that is going to cause division within. Smart move by JT. But he's going to have to nip this anti pro-life label in the bud and make sure it's referred to as "pro-choice.

[Peter F]

I'd like to hear what you have against Sweden's abortion law.

Simple. Any abortion no matter the circumstance requires the permission of the National Board of Health and Welfare. IE others are making her decision for her.

[Argus]

Simple. Any abortion no matter the circumstance requires the permission of the National Board of Health and Welfare. IE others are making her decision for her. [/size]

That's not what it very clearly says. That applies to termination of pregnancy after 18 weeks only.

[dre]

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?

I dont think its about being radical or extremist... I just think this is all a waste of time. Politicians should be trying to solve real problems, not problems that dont even exist. When abortions should and shouldnt happen is a medical ethics question, and from what I can tell doctors are doing a good job and late term abortions are extremely rare.

Government womb control is just not necessary.

[On Guard for Thee]

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.

Afraid not. Perhaps you've never heard of Mark Warawa or Stephen Woodworth. Ask them if they didn't get smacked down. Harper has always said he would never re-open the abortion debate and on at least that one issue, he has been quite clear.

[dre]

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.

I know it might seem incredible to you, but some threads are not about climate change and you rehashing the same tired arguments for the 10 thousandth time.

[cybercoma]

I know it might seem incredible to you, but some threads are not about climate change and you rehashing the same tired arguments for the 10 thousandth time.

I'm ignoring him for a reason; his comments are completely irrelevant here.

[Mighty AC]

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.

The same argument could be made about putting a severely disabled child to death. There is an arbitrary line that everyone draws that decides whether killing is justified. Where one puts that line is a personal choice. It is not fact.

You're both right here. We do need to find a way to allow for the sensible termination of pregnancies and autonomous lives. However, the lines we draw to define sensible, understandable, allowable, moral, etc. are arbitrary.

I believe we should be able to legally terminate ourselves and birthed dependent children in circumstances that involve permanent physical suffering or low quality of life. I also believe potential lives, in utero, can be terminated for a larger variety of reasons. Some believe my views are too conservative. While others believe that even the use of birth control is equivalent to taking a life.

We do need clear guidelines on what is acceptable but with such an extreme range of opinion on this subject, who do we trust to make them? Some use poll numbers in arguments but ethical decisions should never be subject to a popularity contest.

Black and white rules make decisions quick and easy but they also lead to situations where unforeseen circumstances lead to laws preventing the most logical and ethical outcome. Leaving a grey area or room for judgement by assigned decision makers can create delays and outcomes that get seized as political footballs.

On this I am glad JT set a party position on such an important ethical issue. I think decisions such as this are necessary when a party plans to allow MPs to think, speak and engage with their constituents autonomously.

Edited May 9, 2014 by Mighty AC

[TimG]

I know it might seem incredible to you, but some threads are not about climate change and you rehashing the same tired arguments for the 10 thousandth time.

It was relevant given CC's grossly hypocritical position that taking a minority view does not make one wrong on this topic. Further discussion of this tangent is not worthwhile.

[PIK]

It's going to force some Conservatives to take a position and that is going to cause division within. Smart move by JT. But he's going to have to nip this anti pro-life label in the bud and make sure it's referred to as "pro-choice.

All JT is doing is proving to the people he is bald face liar. This is not a open and transparent party, but the exact opposite. And the conservatives have tried to bring it to the front and have been shot down by the leader who said he will not touch this as long as he is leader, so if that is JT idea , he just screwed up royally. And when you look at the polls that show peolpe most likely to vote puts harper on top and the people most likely to vote are older people and alot are catholics. JT knows the young are very foolsih and will suck up anything he says as god's word, but we will see if they show up when it matters.

[PIK]

You're both right here. We do need to find a way to allow for the sensible termination of pregnancies and autonomous lives. However, the lines we draw to define sensible, understandable, allowable, moral, etc. are arbitrary.

I believe we should be able to legally terminate ourselves and birthed dependent children in circumstances that involve permanent physical suffering or low quality of life. I also believe potential lives, in utero, can be terminated for a larger variety of reasons. Some believe my views are too conservative. While others believe that even the use of birth control is equivalent to taking a life.

We do need clear guidelines on what is acceptable but with such an extreme range of opinion on this subject, who do we trust to make them? Some use poll numbers in arguments but ethical decisions should never be subject to a popularity contest.

Black and white rules make decisions quick and easy but they also lead to situations where unforeseen circumstances lead to laws preventing the most logical and ethical outcome. Leaving a grey area or room for judgement by assigned decision makers can create delays and outcomes that get seized as political footballs.

On this I am glad JT set a party position on such an important ethical issue. I think decisions such as this are necessary when a party plans to allow MPs to think, speak and engage with their constituents autonomously.

JT has already shown , nobody but himself/ advisors will be doing the thinking, not his MP's.

[monty16]

I like how you call the young very foolish. Should people who are foolish in your opinion even be allowed to vote?

Don't you just know that some of the Conservative MP's are going to keep this issue alive for Harper?

[On Guard for Thee]

All JT is doing is proving to the people he is bald face liar. This is not a open and transparent party, but the exact opposite. And the conservatives have tried to bring it to the front and have been shot down by the leader who said he will not touch this as long as he is leader, so if that is JT idea , he just screwed up royally. And when you look at the polls that show peolpe most likely to vote puts harper on top and the people most likely to vote are older people and alot are catholics. JT knows the young are very foolsih and will suck up anything he says as god's word, but we will see if they show up when it matters.

What exactly did he lie about with this issue, and what is the difference between he is doing and what Herr Harper has done. Both will continue status quo on the abortion issue. And while this comment isn't scientificly based but I bet there will be a lot more of those "foolish young people" who will actually have to face abortion decisions than old Catholics.

[Mighty AC]

JT has already shown , nobody but himself/ advisors will be doing the thinking, not his MP's.

No, that's the road Harper chose. The Liberals plan to allow MPs to think, speak and ultimately do their intended jobs. However, ethical positions should not be subject to a popularity contest. This route is a little tougher for the oil and water party of social and progressive cons. Edited May 9, 2014 by Mighty AC

[Mighty AC]

Though cons do tend to support spilling oil in water, don't they?

[monty16]

We'll see which party shows the most dissent against their leader's interests. I'll bet there are going to be some outspoken Conservative MP's who are going to try to turn Canada's moderate approach into the US dogmatic anti-abortion sideshow!

[Black Dog]

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?

I expect most people support bans on late term abortions because they are unaware of how infrequent such things are. We're talking about less than one per cent of all abortions, likely all of which being done out of medical necessity.

Given that, can you explain what pressing need is being addressed by abortion restrictions? Seems to me the system is self-regulating on these things.

[Argus]

No, that's the road Harper chose. The Liberals plan to allow MPs to think, speak and ultimately do their intended jobs.

As trained seals? Remember, he didn't even bother to consult his caucus before imposing this rule. Just like he didn't consult them or senators before tossing out the senators. I think it's clear that Justin Trudeau is one of those lefties who can't tolerate disagreement.

[Argus]

I expect most people support bans on late term abortions because they are unaware of how infrequent such things are. We're talking about less than one per cent of all abortions, likely all of which being done out of medical necessity.

Given that, can you explain what pressing need is being addressed by abortion restrictions? Seems to me the system is self-regulating on these things.

You know this to be a fact? You're aware of the circumstances in every late term abortion which has taken place in Canada over the past several years? Doctors are incapable of doing anything unethical or immoral?

[Black Dog]

As trained seals? Remember, he didn't even bother to consult his caucus before imposing this rule. Just like he didn't consult them or senators before tossing out the senators. I think it's clear that Justin Trudeau is one of those lefties who can't tolerate disagreement.

Yeah one would hate to see some kind of crazy control freak heading up the PMO.

[Black Dog]

You know this to be a fact? You're aware of the circumstances in every late term abortion which has taken place in Canada over the past several years? Doctors are incapable of doing anything unethical or immoral?

Do you have any evidence to the contrary? Because bringing in more government controls on the basis of feelings strikes me as exactly the kind of thing you'd rail against in any other circumstance.

Edited May 9, 2014 by Black Dog

[Argus]

Do you have any evidence to the contrary? Because bringing in more government controls on the basis of feelings strikes me as exactly the kind of thing you'd rail against in any other circumstance.

First, I haven't advocated new abortion laws. I'm neutral on the subject, leaning towards some sort of Sweden style controls. Second, as far as I know nobody in Canada has done any studies. I just think everone who is suggesting this is some kind of evil right-wing scheme is silly given places like Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Norway and France have such laws in place.

The point is, though, that as far as Trudeau is concerned, if you even dare to question this you aren't fit to be a Liberal MP. Which is ludicrous.

[Argus]

Yeah one would hate to see some kind of crazy control freak heading up the PMO.

Harper is a control freak. Sure. Granted. But as I said earlier, everyone here and on the Left has railed against that for years, and yet none of them is complaining that Justin Trudeau seems to be showing signs of being even worse!

Edited May 9, 2014 by Argus