Pro Life? Then Don't Run Under Liberal Banner

[cybercoma]

your comment is nothing but trite moralizing - shallow comments in the face of a complex issue.

you claimed women impulsively decide to end their pregnancies in the third trimester. That assertion means you don't trust them with the decision. After all, they're just impulsive emotional women. Was it you or PIK who also claimed they vote with their vaginas? I can't tell you two partisans apart. Nevertheless, put up numbers for your claim of impulsive decisions to end pregnancies in the third trimester for no other reason. Edited May 10, 2014 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

Given how hard it is and how long it takes to get an appt with a GP much less a specialist, the fetus would be a teenager by the time the procedure was done.

exactly the problem. I've been on the family doctor waitlist for over 2 years. Women need 2 referrals though?

[cybercoma]

The issue was the declaration by JT that if you are pro-life then you will not run under the Liberal banner. This is a major shift in the traditional Liberal policy. He has obviously drawn a line in the sand. He has also declared the Liberal position on the Senate, same sex marriage and marijuana use. Critics have been bemoaning the fact that he has no policy - looks like he has. Is this too early in the game to paint yourself into a policy corner.

he's defining a party that has lacked definition. This is what people wanted. Now that they're getting it, he's criticized for it.

[overthere]

overthere, on 10 May 2014 - 10:15 AM, said:

Given how hard it is and how long it takes to get an appt with a GP much less a specialist, the fetus would be a teenager by the time the procedure was done.

exactly the problem. I've been on the family doctor waitlist for over 2 years. Women need 2 referrals though?

Gender inequity aside, I noticed you did not object to the idea of retroactive abortions for teenagers.

Nobody with experience with teenagers could object to that.

[Smallc]

he's defining a party that has lacked definition. This is what people wanted. Now that they're getting it, he's criticized for it.

We have to agree with the way he's defining the party? We have to agree with the fact that he doesn't seem to give any thought to the opinions of anyone else in the caucus/party?

[cybercoma]

You don't have to agree with how he's defining the party. You're a Harper Conservative.

In any case, the objections seem to be that he's exerting too much control. That's exactly at people said the LPC needed. Now people are complaining. Frankly, this is what the LPC needs. They need definition. They need to stop being a brokerage party. They need to be clear about what it is that they stand for. And honestly, the CPC should do the same.

[Argus]

We can't sit on these forums and complain that the Liberals need a direction and purpose, that they've been a brokerage party that stands for nothing for too long, only to turn around and complain when the new Liberal leader stands firm on things and gives the party purpose and an identity.

So when Harper does it he's a dictator and when Trudeau does it he's giving 'purpose and identity'?

[Argus]

Argus, some of us think that anybody who takes a totally con stand on abortion shouldn't be allowed to be an MP. It's the kind of irrational dogma they immerse themselves in south of the border. JT obviously understands there are sensible limitations but he's going to let Harper's boys and girls spew out their hate on the issue. Regardless of whether Stephen is afraid of it or not.

if you think Trudeau was correct then why change what he said? He didn't say 'totally con' which I presume you mean no abortion ever, under any circumstances, he said any legislation at all his caucus would be required to vote pro choice. In other words, if a law like that in Sweden was introduced, his caucus would have to vote against it. Do you think Sweden is full of the 'irrational dogma from south of the border'?

[Keepitsimple]

And who would you suggest give them this information if not their doctor?

Depends who they are - and what their situation is. I'm no expert but I know there are counsellors out there who specialize in vulnerable youth for one thing. There's medical advice - and there is personal "life" advice. Surely you've been there before - youth often have trouble looking past the present and they sometimes can use a counsellor to give life - their life - some context. In some cases - perhaps only a few, perhaps more than I know - having a child can give meaning and focus to someone's life........and if the father has the capacity to play a meaningful role, that might play into the counselling. Your tone suggests you don't really care about any of this - you just want to get it over with.

[Argus]

read section 4

Section 1 is the pertinent one. It says:

On a woman requesting the termination of her pregnancy, an abortion may be performed if the measure is taken before the expiry of the 18th week of pregnancy and cannot be presumed, on account of illness on the woman's part, to entail any serious danger to her life or health.

Only in the case where this is turned down, perhaps because it would endanger her life, as it says above, would it be referred to the board.

[Keepitsimple]

you claimed women impulsively decide to end their pregnancies in the third trimester. That assertion means you don't trust them with the decision. After all, they're just impulsive emotional women. Was it you or PIK who also claimed they vote with their vaginas? I can't tell you two partisans apart. Nevertheless, put up numbers for your claim of impulsive decisions to end pregnancies in the third trimester for no other reason.

My God man - do you even bother to read my posts? I've never even mentioned anything about a third trimester abortion - which is a horrible thing to contemplate! Do you even know what the third trimester is? It's the period from 6 to 9 months. In most cases, the fetus is completely viable. Let's not even go there with this discussion.....but please, read my posts before you start making crap up.

[On Guard for Thee]

Depends who they are - and what their situation is. I'm no expert but I know there are counsellors out there who specialize in vulnerable youth for one thing. There's medical advice - and there is personal "life" advice. Surely you've been there before - youth often have trouble looking past the present and they sometimes can use a counsellor to give life - their life - some context. In some cases - perhaps only a few, perhaps more than I know - having a child can give meaning and focus to someone's life........and if the father has the capacity to play a meaningful role, that might play into the counselling. Your tone suggests you don't really care about any of this - you just want to get it over with.

Nothing would make me happier than if there was never another abortion ever, anywhere. But if they are going to happen, and they are, I don't want them to happen in less than proper clinical conditions, which certainly did happen when they were illegal.

[Keepitsimple]

You don't have to agree with how he's defining the party. You're a Harper Conservative.

Funny you should say that about Smallc. I noticed last year that he was quite disgusted with the Conservatives and disappeared for a while until the last few months. I could be wrong but he's probably like a lot of Canadian voters - including me.....we know that Canada needs two strong, viable parties that give people a real choice - with a leader we can respect, if not be proud of. For us Center/Center Right voters, we are again disillusioned by the Liberal choice of leader and their continuing search for the short-cut/easy way back to power. I've voter Liberal before and I could do so again - but not with an empty vessel like Justin Trudeau. So yes, I'm still stuck with the devil I know. You on the other hand, show no such flexibility - and you define what an ultra partisan is. Good luck with that.

By the way Smallc - it's good to see you posting again.

[Smallc]

You don't have to agree with how he's defining the party. You're a Harper Conservative.

I was a card carrying Liberal under Paul Martin. I left not long after Stephane Dion came along.

[Smallc]

By the way Smallc - it's good to see you posting again.

I was always posting, just not as much. I spent a lot less time here because of a personal situation that turned out for the better in the end. I agree with your assessment. I'm not that happy with the Conservatives. They stopped supporting many of the priorities that are personally important to me (a strong national defence being very important among them) and put int too many boutique tax cuts for my liking, but it looks like they're going to start spending money on national infrastructure again, so I'm happy with that.

I'd love a better alternative....but there isn't one at the moment.

[Argus]

I think Andrew Coyne's take on this is probably reasonably accurate. Generally speaking, he says this isn't a matter of principal, just an example of style over substance again. An unnecessary decision made to look good.

Let no one think some great matter of principle was at stake in Justin Trudeau’s sudden decree forbidding dissenters from Liberal orthodoxy on abortion from running as candidates for the party. Nothing necessitated it. There is no imminent likelihood of a vote on abortion, and even less chance of one passing. The Liberal party would still be a pro-choice party, and seen as such, even with a few pro-lifers sprinkled in the mix. It just couldn’t be as hysterical about it.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/05/09/andrew-coyne-liberal-ban-pro-abortion-orthodoxy-implies-the-issue-is-settled-it-isnt/

[cybercoma]

Coyne, as usual, is right. It's just like the Senate nonsense. But I still say he's attempting to give the party a defined sense of being, which it was sorely lacking since Chrétien.

[Smallc]

It's just not the right way to go about it.

[Argus]

Coyne, as usual, is right. It's just like the Senate nonsense. But I still say he's attempting to give the party a defined sense of being, which it was sorely lacking since Chrétien.

Did you read the cite?

Why was abortion, in common with similarly fraught issues such as the death penalty — assisted suicide would be a contemporary example — once the preserve of individual MPs to decide, in a free vote? Because we did not wish to do violence to others’ consciences. By their nature these issues engaged people’s deepest moral convictions, often rooted in religious faith. There was then still respect for the idea that every individual, even in public life, was permitted a kind of moral space, a small inviolable sanctum of belief over which they were sovereign.

It was one thing to lay down a party line on taxes or trade, to which prospective candidates or members would be expected to swallow their objections, but decency forbade obliging them to choose between their livelihood and their conscience. To insist on their conformity on such questions would impose, not compromise, but humiliation, a negation of an important aspect of their identity

Does this sound like the work of a guy who is going to empower MPs? Or another dictator, perhaps worse than Chretien and Harper?

[On Guard for Thee]

Take a look around. No party want's to get into the abortion debate. They just have different ways of saying so. And this is one issue, albeit an important one. Trudeau also set his liberal senators free from the caucus so they can do as they wish. So maybe you can call him a dictator on the one hand, and the opposite of a dictator on the other. I don't think defining party policy is a bad idea.

[cybercoma]

And he's saying future candidates need to have their values and consciences aligned with the party stance on these things. If you don't support a woman's full bodily autonomy then you don't hold the same values as your party and should not be a candidate for it. When I vote for someone on Election Day, it would be nice to know how they will vote on this issue if any of the Tory anti-choicers decide again that they want to tell women what to do with their bodies. I don't want to hope that the MP will vote a particular way only to find out later that they won't. Is it a tough position to be in as an MP? Surely. But they're not there to vote with their own feelings; they're there to represent their constituents, not themselves.

Edited May 11, 2014 by cybercoma

[On Guard for Thee]

Here's one place where the rubber hits th road in my recollection of this issue. Lot's of anti abortionist people were happy to wave signs and intimidate people, whom the last thing they needed was intimidation at that point in their lives, but where the hell would they be after the young single girl was trying to figure out how to support this newborn all on her own. They were gone home to dinner.

[Peter F]

Did you read the cite?

Why was abortion, in common with similarly fraught issues such as the death penalty — assisted suicide would be a contemporary example — once the preserve of individual MPs to decide, in a free vote? Because we did not wish to do violence to others’ consciences. By their nature these issues engaged people’s deepest moral convictions, often rooted in religious faith. There was then still respect for the idea that every individual, even in public life, was permitted a kind of moral space, a small inviolable sanctum of belief over which they were sovereign.

It was one thing to lay down a party line on taxes or trade, to which prospective candidates or members would be expected to swallow their objections, but decency forbade obliging them to choose between their livelihood and their conscience. To insist on their conformity on such questions would impose, not compromise, but humiliation, a negation of an important aspect of their identity

Does this sound like the work of a guy who is going to empower MPs? Or another dictator, perhaps worse than Chretien and Harper?

Empower MP's to vote agains their own party platform? What madman of a PM would ever be so goddam stupid.

[Peter F]

Section 1 is the pertinent one. It says:

On a woman requesting the termination of her pregnancy, an abortion may be performed if the measure is taken before the expiry of the 18th week of pregnancy and cannot be presumed, on account of illness on the woman's part, to entail any serious danger to her life or health.

Only in the case where this is turned down, perhaps because it would endanger her life, as it says above, would it be referred to the board.

Allright, so up to 18 weeks into the pregnancy the woman can freely choose to abort. After 18 weeks she cannot.

So Swedens laws suck.

[bleeding heart]

Just so. The idea that we should emulate Sweden because....well, for some unstated reason....doesn't convince me. I consider Canada's position on abortion superior to Sweden's.

Edited May 11, 2014 by bleeding heart