How Trudeau is winning my vote

[cybercoma]

Then you know that only one Supreme Court Judge found that it was a constitutional right to have an abortion? In other words, all others ruled against Trudeau's Abortion on Demand.

That is not correct. The Supreme Court found the criminalization of abortion to be a violation of people's Charter Rights.

[cybercoma]

I have actually.

Then you know that Justice Wilson said in her decision that the legal value placed on the fetus should be proportion to the length of gestation, even though she says in a free and democratic society abortion is a matter of individuals' consciences. The fact is that the Supreme Court overturned the panel of doctors rule in the Criminal Code. It did not say that there could be no legislation around abortion and even the most supportive justice suggested that legislation should be proportional to the length of the pregnancy.

Like I said, I disagree that we should introduce legislation into late term abortions because the problems with that far outweigh the benefits to society. Late term abortion simply is not a problem here. There are very few doctors who can do it and there are virtually no doctors who will do it for no good reason. It would introduce unnecessary barriers to what is an extremely difficult decision to make. It also gives jurisdictions like New Brunswick, which has significant delays to care due to regulations, an incentive to delay care until it's illegal so they won't have to pay for it.

Quite simply, we shouldn't be creating legislation to fix problems that don't exist because in doing so we create problems that didn't exist before.

[Boges]

Found that Wedding shot of JT kissing a bride rather unseemly. The groom really approved of that? DaFuq?

Edited September 22, 2014 by Boges

[Keepitsimple]

That is not correct. The Supreme Court found the criminalization of abortion to be a violation of people's Charter Rights.

Sorry - but it is very correct. Criminality is a separate issue - but it appears that I was wrong because no judges found Abortion on Demand to be a constitutional right (I had said there was one). Reading the reasoning behind each judge's decision is enlightening for everyone - but especially for those who subscribe to Abortion on Demand - and it accentuates why so many Canadians are torn on the issue.

None of the seven judges held that there was a constitutional right to abortion on demand. All of the judges acknowledged the state has a legitimate interest in protecting the unborn. Since this ruling, there have been no criminal laws regulating abortion in Canada.

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._v._Morgentaler

Edited September 22, 2014 by Keepitsimple

[The_Squid]

None of the seven judges held that there was a constitutional right to abortion on demand. All of the judges acknowledged the state has a legitimate interest in protecting the unborn. Since this ruling, there have been no criminal laws regulating abortion in Canada.

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._v._Morgentaler

The position that Harper supports is the status quo. So his position is exactly the same as Trudeau's and is what you call the "abortion on demand" position.

[guyser]

60% do not want Abortion on Demand. They want SOME form of restriction. It could be as minor as mandatory counselling - or like New Brunswick - getting two doctors' opinions. Point is, we're not ALLOWED to have that discussion - and certainly not within the Liberal Party.

Too bad that isnt what the graph says.

[Argus]

No, we're always in transition. At one point the people who would have voted for segregation were the majority, not extremists. I chose those examples to illustrate that issues of ethics or rights shouldn't hinge on popular opinion.

Again, you're presuming that those who believe there ought to be laws governing this are socially backward -- like the Swedes and Fins and Icelanders and French and Germans and Belgians ,and other nations which are demonstrably more socially progressive than we are.

[cybercoma]

Sorry - but it is very correct. Criminality is a separate issue - but it appears that I was wrong because no judges found Abortion on Demand to be a constitutional right (I had said there was one). Reading the reasoning behind each judge's decision is enlightening for everyone - but especially for those who subscribe to Abortion on Demand - and it accentuates why so many Canadians are torn on the issue.

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._v._Morgentaler

Sorry, but the court doesn't get into "state interests." They interpret laws. The legal interpretation was that a person has the right to life, liberty, and security of the person. This means that if they don't want to be pregnant, they ought not have to go through an arbitrary decision by a panel of doctors to end their pregnancy. It is a decision that is up to the pregnant person's conscience alone. Further to that, Justice Wilson noted that any legal rights of the fetus ought to be commensurate with the length of the pregnancy. That's it. Nothing about state interests or politics at all. It was a legal interpretation and that's it. There's no way you can look at that interpretation and not see that 1) it's up to a the pregnant person alone to decide whether or not to continue her pregnancy, and 2) the government cannot create any arbitrary barriers to the pregnant person's life and liberty.

But what about the life and liberty of the fetus? Wilson suggested that fetus rights are contingent on the length of the pregnancy. Essentially, a fetus has absolutely no rights over the body of the mother at the beginning. A fetus will have rights to life and liberty likely when it's capable of surviving on its own without a host. No one has the right to force someone into being that host against their will, not even the fetus.

[On Guard for Thee]

I agree Cyber. As I said, I have read the finding and am aware they took away what PET had put in place which was the so called panel of 3 doctors, and decriminalized it. As you point out, the medical profession essentially handles the "length of gestation" issue w/o laws so why bother revisiting a done deal.

[Keepitsimple]

Too bad that isnt what the graph says.

Yes it is......so I'll post it again - and it's not 60% - it's 62% to be precise. Remember - this isn't Abortion on Demand vs. Right to Life....it's about what all the other Western countries have accomplished - minimal restrictions to balance a Woman's right with protection of a fetus.

Do you support the introduction of a law that places limits on when a woman can have an abortion during her pregnancy, such as during the last trimester?

Support: Men - 57%

Women - 62%

Total - 60%

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

[cybercoma]

I love how all you guardians of fetuses care so much about them when they're in the womb and couldn't possibly give a shit less about them once they're born. What child poverty reduction strategies have the Conservatives implemented? How about a national early childhood care program? How about things in place to help struggling new mothers?

Give me a damn break with your fake concern for fetuses.

[Keepitsimple]

The position that Harper supports is the status quo. So his position is exactly the same as Trudeau's and is what you call the "abortion on demand" position.

Their positions might by default be the same on the surface. The way they implement them are completely different. Reflecting the variation of Canadian opinion, Harper will not prevent that diversity from being represented at the MP level. Trudeau has taken the approach that it's his way or the highway on this matter of deep, personal conscience. See it the way he does - or don't think about being a Liberal MP. Same goes for his Riding Associations - don't even think about bringing forward such a candidate - or I'll veto it.

[On Guard for Thee]

Oops, wrong on that one too. You can have whatever views you wish as Liberal MP, you just have to vote pro choice. What's the difference between that and not being able to vote on the issue at all under Harper?

[waldo]

Their positions might by default be the same on the surface. The way they implement them are completely different. Reflecting the variation of Canadian opinion, Harper will not prevent that diversity from being represented at the MP level.

hey Simple, what's the practical extension of that/your claimed Harper Conservative diversity representation at the MP level? How does one see that so-called diversity on display?

.

[Argus]

I love how all you guardians of fetuses care so much about them when they're in the womb and couldn't possibly give a shit less about them once they're born. What child poverty reduction strategies have the Conservatives implemented? How about a national early childhood care program? How about things in place to help struggling new mothers?

Give me a damn break with your fake concern for fetuses.

This is the cliche'd view the Left holds, that they're morally superior.

"Oh we CARE about the poor and downtrodden! We show it by being willing to spend billions of your dollars on them!"

I think the differences between Left and Right can be boiled down to the fact the Left believes there is an endless pool of other people's money they can use to assuage their bleeding hearts with.

You aren't morally superior, Cyber, you're simply economically illiterate.

[Peter F]

Perhaps economically illiterate but definitely morally superior.

[On Guard for Thee]

The hypocracy in the anti-abortion camp has been shown time and time again. Happy to surround a clinic with placards to intimidate patients from entering and then go home and put their feet up. Maybe do a little God praising.

[Keepitsimple]

The hypocracy in the anti-abortion camp has been shown time and time again. Happy to surround a clinic with placards to intimidate patients from entering and then go home and put their feet up. Maybe do a little God praising.

That's the other extreme side of the coin - they've got a right to their opinion but I wouldn't like them trying to impose their moralistic ways on other people - much the same as I don't like the attitude of the Abortion on Demand crowd that attempts to impose their view that says ANY abortion is just fine. The fact that late-term abortions "don't happen" or that a mother changes her mind at 5 months because it's a boy is all irrelevant - because the Abortion on Demand camp says it's a woman's choice. That said, I can't recall ever seeing an anti-abortion poster taking part in our discussion - don't think there is anyone who is not fully behind Womens Rights either.......unless you're referring to those 62% of women who would be OK with some minor restrictions on abortions. So why bring up your "God praising" comment?

[bush_cheney2004]

Perhaps economically illiterate but definitely morally superior.

Hmmmmm...."morally superior".....now where have I heard/read that before ?

[On Guard for Thee]

simple I think you'll have a hard time finding a doctor that will perform an abortion late enough in the pregnancy that gender can be a factor. According to statscan, none are done in Canada after 20 weeks unless it's due to a life threatening developement. That's about how old you have to be for an ultrasound to be able to determine gender, if it even can then. A doctor would be breaking established proffesional ethics to perform such a gender specific abortion in this country. Once again, the reality already achieves what your graph attempts to suggest.

[Boges]

simple I think you'll have a hard time finding a doctor that will perform an abortion late enough in the pregnancy that gender can be a factor. According to statscan, none are done in Canada after 20 weeks unless it's due to a life threatening developement. That's about how old you have to be for an ultrasound to be able to determine gender, if it even can then. A doctor would be breaking established proffesional ethics to perform such a gender specific abortion in this country. Once again, the reality already achieves what your graph attempts to suggest.

Interesting that you'd that that position. Yet it IS LEGAL to do a late-term abortion for whatever reason.

Now when it comes to simple possession of pot, you'll have a "hard time" finding a cop willing to prosecute simple possession but people still feel the need to have it decriminalized or legalized based on the premise that people are being given criminal records for a drug that's no worse than alcohol.

Are we accepting unwritten laws in once sense and not the other?

Edited September 22, 2014 by Boges

[On Guard for Thee]

No we're not. Abortion is not illegal. Pot should not be illegal. Where's your confusion?

Since you bring up pot though, Harper wants to throw you in jail for growing pot for your own consumption. That is going the WRONG way.

[Keepitsimple]

simple I think you'll have a hard time finding a doctor that will perform an abortion late enough in the pregnancy that gender can be a factor. According to statscan, none are done in Canada after 20 weeks unless it's due to a life threatening developement. That's about how old you have to be for an ultrasound to be able to determine gender, if it even can then. A doctor would be breaking established proffesional ethics to perform such a gender specific abortion in this country. Once again, the reality already achieves what your graph attempts to suggest.

So are you against late term abortions? And what would you call late term? Or am I right that the Abortion on Demand camp doesn't care. Irrelevant or not - what is your view? Careful now - you don't what to get an anti-choice label pinned on you....

[Black Dog]

You seem to be confused. You were the one who said we already have these rules. Now you claim there are no rules. Frankly, while I'm generally pro-choice I don't like the idea of no rules.

See, I thought you were into small government. Odd that you'd want to add a bunch of bureaucratic folderol onto a system that is basically self-regulating.

Having rules for late term abortions makes about as much sense as establishing licensing requirements for unicorn ownership.

As for the subject of public opinion on this matter, I wonder how many people who say they want regulations around late term abortions are actually aware that, for all practical intents and purposes, there's no such thing as late term abortions,

Edited September 22, 2014 by Black Dog

[On Guard for Thee]

You seem to have a penchant for using this "abortion on demand" thing like some sort of bludgeon. I am, as I have already stated, quite happy with the status quo on this issue. The only anti label I will ever get will be anti infringement of a woman's rights, with regards to this issue. Careful, make sure you understand me.