How Trudeau is winning my vote

Boges · September 22, 2014

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.

But you're saying late term abortions are effectively banned.

I'm telling you simple possession of pot is effectively decriminalized.

Logic stays the same.

Black Dog · September 22, 2014

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.

In a discussion of regulation around late term abortions, the incidence of such things is extremely relevant, just as the existence of unicorns is extremely relevant to the issue of licensing unicorn ownership.

On Guard for Thee · September 22, 2014

Boges, effective legalization means NO law.

The_Squid · September 22, 2014

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.

Yes, political parties do force views upon their MPs at times.

To say thaey can't be a Liberal MP if they are anti-abortion, that's simply disingenuous. They can hold any view they want. They just can't vote against abortion rights.

But, in practice, the views on abortion by both party leaders is exactly the same. The status quo stands and there will be no vote, regardless of MPs views, that will change that. Harper = Trudeau

overthere · September 22, 2014

Boges, effective legalization means NO law.

or, it can mean no enforcement of a law, which is often the case with possession of weed now.

A recent example would be the long gun registry, very few violators were charged and the cops and Crown just stopped trying..

eyeball · September 22, 2014

or, it can mean no enforcement of a law, which is often the case with possession of weed now.

Really? Charges for marijuana increased over 40% after Conservatives came into power.

The really misinformed case you're trying to making here is a perfect example of why we should never ever leave it up to voters to determine our rights for us.

Especially Conservative voters.

Edited September 22, 2014 by eyeball

cybercoma · September 22, 2014

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.

I'm economically illiterate? Have you seen the cost of criminalizing abortion? Do you know what effect it has on those unwanted children? Do you know what their outcomes are like?

I've read far more into the economics of this than you have obviously.

Oh but, then again, you're one of those people who doesn't care what happens over 20 years. You just care about protecting your pension and squeezing as much out of the system for yourself before you kick off.

Keepitsimple · September 23, 2014

In a discussion of regulation around late term abortions, the incidence of such things is extremely relevant, just as the existence of unicorns is extremely relevant to the issue of licensing unicorn ownership.

You're missing the point. It's a question of what your conscience tells you. If you don't believe in late term abortions (how late?) or don't believe in changing your mind after 4 or 5 months because it's a boy......if that's what your conscience says - then you really aren't in favour of Abortion on Demand......and then it's really a question of what restrictions your conscience would favour. No one here that I can see wants to re-open the debate and are reluctantly comfortable with the status quo......but I think it's somewhat disingenuous for some of our posters to imply that they would be OK with these rare or hypothetical situations - or is it - maybe they are prepared to accept these outcomes? Again, other Western countries have legislated against these rare occurrences. If people were honest with themselves, they'd see that there's very little difference between those that are wailing blindly about the Charter and Womens' Rights - and those who theoretically might want some minor restrictions.

On Guard for Thee · September 23, 2014

The only "wailing blindly" I hear here is this "abortion on demand" cry. You seem to think you can just go into any doctors office and demand he do an abortion regardless the circumstances. And I'm not reluctantly comfortable, I'm just plain comfortable. Hypothetical situations are just that so let's leave them aside. Rare situations do occur such as medical complications and that's again when a medical proffesional is needed for advice.

cybercoma · September 23, 2014

You're missing the point. It's a question of what your conscience tells you.

Exactly. It's a question of individual conscience. Not your conscience telling my wife's conscience what she should do with her body.

jbg · September 23, 2014

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....

I was wondering what this portion of the thread has to do with the fact that someone who's intellectually challenged and sounds like a second-rate social worker is running for PM.

Black Dog · September 23, 2014

You're missing the point. It's a question of what your conscience tells you. If you don't believe in late term abortions (how late?) or don't believe in changing your mind after 4 or 5 months because it's a boy......if that's what your conscience says - then you really aren't in favour of Abortion on Demand......and then it's really a question of what restrictions your conscience would favour.

On matters of public policy, my conscience is completely irrelevant.

No one here that I can see wants to re-open the debate and are reluctantly comfortable with the status quo......but I think it's somewhat disingenuous for some of our posters to imply that they would be OK with these rare or hypothetical situations - or is it - maybe they are prepared to accept these outcomes?

I'm prepared to accept these outcomes precisely because they are rare/hypothetical and therefore, in the balance, not the basis of an argument for restrictions.

Again, other Western countries have legislated against these rare occurrences. If people were honest with themselves, they'd see that there's very little difference between those that are wailing blindly about the Charter and Womens' Rights - and those who theoretically might want some minor restrictions.

Except no one in favour of following other countries' lead on regulations has really produced an argument as to why regulations are required beyond "well, other countries have them."

Keepitsimple · September 23, 2014

Exactly. It's a question of individual conscience. Not your conscience telling my wife's conscience what she should do with her body.

What does your conscience tell you? Most everyone has one. Are you OK with late term abortions or someone changing their mind about having a boy after 4 or 5 months? As rare or irrelevant as you might think they are, these are the matters of conscience that Canadians wrestle with. Again, no one here is arguing to re-open the debate - precisely the opposite - I think Trudeau has irresponsibly done that as can be seen in this thread. That said, these matters of conscience tend to have a "collective" social conscience to them - where society as a whole comes to a comprimised conclusion as to what they want their society to look like. Canada has handled it in our own way and it seems to be working quite well at this point in time. Nonetheless, there is incessant screaming from the Left about Charters and Women's Rights and old white men - when in fact, if the debate was ever to re-open - any resulting legislation would likely mirror the de-facto guidance of the medical establishment. That does not dismiss the fact that the majority of Canadians are counting on that very establishment to be our social "collective conscience". That's why I've posed the question to you about your conscience. Care to answer?

Edited September 23, 2014 by Keepitsimple

waldo · September 23, 2014

What does your conscience tell you? Most everyone has one. Are you OK with late term abortions or someone changing their mind about having a boy after 4 or 5 months? As rare or irrelevant as you might think they are, these are the matters of conscience that Canadians wrestle with. Again, no one here is arguing to re-open the debate - precisely the opposite - I think Trudeau has irresponsibly done that as can be seen in this thread. That said, these matters of conscience tend to have a "collective" social conscience to them - where society as a whole comes to a comprimised conclusion as to what they want their society to look like. That's why I've posed the question to you about your conscience. Care to answer?

Simple, this is simply another wrinkle in your past "morality play"... you know, where you were called out on your past related posts in your more direct calls for legislated morality!

Keepitsimple · September 23, 2014

Simple, this is simply another wrinkle in your past "morality play"... you know, where you were called out on your past related posts in your more direct calls for legislated morality!

Sorry Waldo - I have never called for any legislation or even re-opening the debate.....but I've continually pointed out that we have never had a meaningful debate to bring everything to a conclusion - as have virtually all Western countries. That's just a fact. As I've said - what we have today seems to be working - but that certainly does not mean that Canadians are comfortable with Abortion on Demand......and people will always have opinions - or this Forum would be pretty boring.

Edited September 23, 2014 by Keepitsimple

waldo · September 23, 2014

Sorry Waldo - I have never called for any legislation or even re-opening the debate.....

what do you call your incessant, thread after thread, comparative references to "other western countries" legislation? Or references like:

I think her point is that without ANY law, our perceived message COULD be that a woman can do anything she wants anytime, without any thought of the fetus/baby - or her own welfare. Again - our lack of laws COULD be perceived as an inconsequential matter....and of course it's not.

With regards to the state having no place in the uteri of the nation......sounds nice.....but the state also has an obligation to safeguard those who cannot protect themselves......that's where you get laws that protect against late-term abortions and provide counselling to women so that they do not end up hating themselves.....so that they understand how an abortion can affect their future well-being.

What I've said on "morality" is that without legislation, we are dependent on the morality of physicians to do abortions for the right reasons.

Edited September 23, 2014 by waldo

Keepitsimple · September 23, 2014

what do you call your incessant, thread after thread, comparative references to "other western countries" legislation? Or references like:

I call them simply stating facts. As I said, I have never called for legislation - simply countered the argument by the Left that the issue has been settled and that the law of the land is Abortion on Demand. There is no law. Polls and surveys continually show that the issue is not "settled" - only that we are reluctantly comfortable with allowing the medical establishment to be our "proxy social conscience". Other than having the last word, what is it that you disagree with me on in substance?

Edited September 23, 2014 by Keepitsimple

Black Dog · September 23, 2014

What does your conscience tell you? Most everyone has one. Are you OK with late term abortions or someone changing their mind about having a boy after 4 or 5 months? As rare or irrelevant as you might think they are, these are the matters of conscience that Canadians wrestle with.

I can't tell people what to think, but wrestling with one's conscience over matters that are essentially non-issues seems like a waste of time for anyone who isn't a philosopher or ethicist.

Again, no one here is arguing to re-open the debate - precisely the opposite - I think Trudeau has irresponsibly done that as can be seen in this thread. That said, these matters of conscience tend to have a "collective" social conscience to them - where society as a whole comes to a comprimised conclusion as to what they want their society to look like. Canada has handled it in our own way and it seems to be working quite well at this point in time.

So why the need for legislation?

Nonetheless, there is incessant screaming from the Left about Charters and Women's Rights and old white men - when in fact, if the debate was ever to re-open - any resulting legislation would likely mirror the de-facto guidance of the medical establishment. That does not dismiss the fact that the majority of Canadians are counting on that very establishment to be our social "collective conscience". That's why I've posed the question to you about your conscience. Care to answer?

So by your own admission, legislation would at best reflect the status quo. That's a very poor argument for legislation.

waldo · September 23, 2014

I call them simply stating facts. As I said, I have never called for legislation - simply countered the argument by the Left that the issue has been settled and that the law of the land is Abortion on Demand. There is no law. Polls and surveys continually show that the issue is not "settled" - only that we are reluctantly comfortable with allowing the medical establishment to be our "proxy social conscience". Other than having the last word, what is it that you disagree with me on in substance?

on substance? Why, you have none!

in your claimed "simply stating facts" mode:

- what do you intend by referencing the laws that may exist in other countries?

- what do you intend by speaking to "doctor's morality" (in the absence of legislation)?

- although you've refused to answer this question put to you repeatedly in relatively recent posts within this thread, again, when you speak to needed restrictions on what you falsely label "Abortion on Demand", just what restrictions are you calling for... specifically calling for... and how would you presume to have them enforced?

- when you claim the "issue has not been settled", what... settling... are you calling for?

- again, why do you insist in using the label "Abortion on Demand"? Is there a specific gestation point that you attach this label to... or is it simply your across the board labeling for any abortion, at any time?

- what is your intent when you speak to "WE" being, "reluctantly comfortable with allowing the medical establishment to be our proxy social conscience"... what are you calling for to deal with/manage that "reluctant comfort"?

.

jbg · September 23, 2014

on substance? Why, you have none!

in your claimed "simply stating facts" mode:

- what do you intend by referencing the laws that may exist in other countries?

- what do you intend by speaking to "doctor's morality" (in the absence of legislation)?

- although you've refused to answer this question put to you repeatedly in relatively recent posts within this thread, again, when you speak to needed restrictions on what you falsely label "Abortion on Demand", just what restrictions are you calling for... specifically calling for... and how would you presume to have them enforced?

- when you claim the "issue has not been settled", what... settling... are you calling for?

- again, why do you insist in using the label "Abortion on Demand"? Is there a specific gestation point that you attach this label to... or is it simply your across the board labeling for any abortion, at any time?

- what is your intent when you speak to "WE" being, "reluctantly comfortable with allowing the medical establishment to be our proxy social conscience"... what are you calling for to deal with/manage that "reluctant comfort"?
.

As I asked before (link) is this an abortion thread or a thread about a juvenile party leader? My thoughts on this thread:

The problem with thread drift is that the Forum table of contents becomes useless as a result of it. A thread that's supposed to be about global warming, say, morphs into one on military policy. So the natural audience for a discussion is not there.

Edited September 23, 2014 by jbg

overthere · September 23, 2014

Polls and surveys continually show that the issue is not "settled" - only that we are reluctantly comfortable with allowing the medical establishment to be our "proxy social conscience"

Nope. What is settled in Canada is that abortion is a medical issue. The only opinions that are involved are those of the woman , and she has the right to consult her physician on the issue. Or not. Up to her. If that involves a crisis of morality for the woman, it involves her and only her, or others as she alone chooses.

I know it hurts to be permanently out of that loop, but your only recourse is to obtain your own uterus.

So why the need for legislation?

That is an easy one. Legislation CREATES court battles, and induces changes to legislation on abortion. It does not really matter what the law says, as long as it exists there is a crack to work on. The prolifers know this very well and would be in court continuously from every angle all the time. The US, with Roe vs Wade and countless cases derived from it, have cases before the courts in many states all the time. That results in a fractured and expensive regime of abortion laws across the country. It's a war of attrition and never ends.

By contrast, Canada has no law, so there is little in the way of case law to challenge, anywhere. It must be maddening to the prolifers. They have lots of money and plenty of committed people, and they cannot begin to begin.

waldo · September 23, 2014

As I asked before (link) is this an abortion thread or a thread about a juvenile party leader? My thoughts on this thread:

it's a thread that speaks to "vote winning"... winning votes is predicated upon agreeing with (or not) policy/position. You know, like the subect you presume to use to cover your personal disdain for JT.

you didn't get any bites on your linked post, so let me summarize your (claimed) U.S. citizen's summary assessment, your foreign interloper summary assessment in labeling JT as "juvenile, intellectually challenged and a second-rate social worker". Have I captured that succintly? Anything more you'd like to put out there?

Edited September 23, 2014 by waldo

jbg · September 23, 2014

it's a thread that speaks to "vote winning"... winning votes is predicated upon agreeing with (or not) policy/position. You know, like the subect you presume to use to cover your personal disdain for JT.

you didn't get any bites on your linked post, so let me summarize your (claimed) U.S. citizen's summary assessment, your foreign interloper summary assessment in labeling JT as "juvenile, intellectually challenged and a second-rate social worker". Have I captured that succintly? Anything more you'd like to put out there?

I watched the Mansbridge interview. I don't remember if it was on a CBC or CPAC feed since I don't get your TV down here in the States. He did not impress me.

By the way I happen to agree with his abortion stance, though not making it, as a matter of conscience, mandatory on his slate of candidates.

Can you educate me as to why you continue to challenge the fact that I am an American?

waldo · September 23, 2014

He did not impress me.

and the basis for "second rate social worker"?

Can you educate me as to why you continue to challenge the fact that I am an American?

you simply claim it... like you claim to be progressive... like you claim to be a lawyer... like you claim to be liberal... like you claim to be a Democrat... like you claim to be successful, etc., etc., etc. It seems your posting history belies much of what you claim.

jbg · September 23, 2014

and the basis for "second rate social worker"?

His use of the language, amount or lack of poise, and my general impression. Your question is asking me to explain why I like cheddar cheese more than American cheese.

you simply claim it... like you claim to be progressive... like you claim to be a lawyer... like you claim to be liberal... like you claim to be a Democrat... like you claim to be successful, etc., etc., etc. It seems your posting history belies much of what you claim.

All of the above assertions happen to be true though I will allow that some people do not consider my views liberal or progressive. Others do. That is a matter of opinion just as my view of Trudeau as a "second rate social worker" is a matter of opinion.