waldo Posted September 23, 2014 Report Posted September 23, 2014 your claimed American opinion is noted. Carry on. Quote
overthere Posted September 23, 2014 Report Posted September 23, 2014 Your claimed American opinion is appreciated and valued. We are an egalitarian forum that seeks opinions , with some exceptions, none of them notable. Carry on Quote Science too hard for you? Try religion!
Argus Posted September 23, 2014 Report Posted September 23, 2014 (edited) I'm economically illiterate? Totally. Have you seen the cost of criminalizing abortion? Who cares? Nobody is talking about criminalizing abortion. You were talking about national daycare and child poverty and help for unwed mothers and the like. You don't get to change the narrative now. 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. No, I'm one of those people whose pockets you keep wanting to reach into so you can 'help' people who don't need your bloody help. Not that the difference between 'want' and 'need' is something you have ever actually understood. Edited September 23, 2014 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
eyeball Posted September 23, 2014 Report Posted September 23, 2014 Who cares? Nobody is talking about criminalizing abortion. People are talking about legally interfering with it. You were talking about national daycare and child poverty and help for unwed mothers and the like. You don't get to change the narrative now. These are the very things that cause most women to choose abortion, it's always been part of the narrative. Put an obscure law on the books today amidst some stated intent to never or rarely use it and who's to say people won't edit, overlook or simply ignore the narrative that attended it's creation and use it a lot more often? I doubt it will be tomorrow's grand-daughters. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
PIK Posted September 23, 2014 Report Posted September 23, 2014 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? He really screws up when asked about the terrorists of the world and for some reason he will not take any questions from sun news. He is everything that the left said about harper. Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
Keepitsimple Posted September 23, 2014 Report Posted September 23, 2014 (edited) So by your own admission, legislation would at best reflect the status quo. That's a very poor argument for legislation. You will not get any argument for legislation from me. The only point that I have been trying to make (poorly I guess) is related to those who argue that any restrictions on abortion is "anti-abortion" and "anti-choice" etc. in such a self-righteous, smug manner. As has been pointed out, we have outsourced our social conscience to the medical establishment - and in doing so, that establishment can and does deny abortions for various reasons - an important point that the Abortion on Demand camp usually doesn't speak about. That's a double-standard - because almost everyone is saying exactly the same thing - the Status Quo is working but there are instances that concern many Canadians and they trust that the medical establishment will handle those cases with the greatest of care and thought. Edited September 23, 2014 by Keepitsimple Quote Back to Basics
waldo Posted September 23, 2014 Report Posted September 23, 2014 He really screws up when asked about the terrorists of the world and for some reason he will not take any questions from sun news. He is everything that the left said about harper. more talking points, hey PIK? Of course, Harper Conservatives continue to play up that JT comment about needing to look for the "root causes behind domestic terrorism"... of course, they do so while ignoring like past comments from Harper himself; comments like: We need to know as much as we can about terrorists, their tactics, and the best solutions to protect people… We will engage Canada’s best and brightest minds, and we will provide funding for publications, conferences and research projects – anything that can help us build the knowledge base we need to effectively counter terrorism. whether your comment about Sun News is accurate or not, it allows for a handy revelation on just who/what was the go-to travelling media that needed accreditation for Harper's upcoming speech to the UN (of course, that Postmedia rep is already Washington based)... where's the Media Party representation, hey PIK? By the by PIK, just how many "official photographers" are needed to capture Harper in the magical light? Quote
Keepitsimple Posted September 23, 2014 Report Posted September 23, 2014 more talking points, hey PIK? Of course, Harper Conservatives continue to play up that JT comment about needing to look for the "root causes behind domestic terrorism"... of course, they do so while ignoring like past comments from Harper himself; comments like: Thank you Waldo - that's a perfect differentiator between Trudeau and Harper. Trudeau wants to do social work to get to the root causes of terrorism - the old hug-a-thug, apologist routine......while Harper wants to learn as much as he can about the tactics of terrorism so he can protect Canadians. Quote Back to Basics
dre Posted September 23, 2014 Report Posted September 23, 2014 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. No its not much the same... The pro choice crowd isnt trying to impose their views or moralistic ways on anyone. People that dont like abortion are not forced to have them, they can still make their own decision, and they can base it on whatever they want. The pro-life crowd IS attempting to impose their moralistic decision on others. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Black Dog Posted September 23, 2014 Report Posted September 23, 2014 You will not get any argument for legislation from me. The only point that I have been trying to make (poorly I guess) is related to those who argue that any restrictions on abortion is "anti-abortion" and "anti-choice" etc. in such a self-righteous, smug manner. As has been pointed out, we have outsourced our social conscience to the medical establishment - and in doing so, that establishment can and does deny abortions for various reasons - an important point that the Abortion on Demand camp usually doesn't speak about. Uh. What? How is that an important point and who is the "abortion on demand camp"? That's a double-standard - because almost everyone is saying exactly the same thing - the Status Quo is working but there are instances that concern many Canadians and they trust that the medical establishment will handle those cases with the greatest of care and thought. Again: the "cases that concern Canadians" are either non-existent or at the very least statistically insignificant. Quote
Keepitsimple Posted September 23, 2014 Report Posted September 23, 2014 Exit abortion discussion.... Quote Back to Basics
dre Posted September 23, 2014 Report Posted September 23, 2014 As has been pointed out, we have outsourced our social conscience to the medical establishment - and in doing so, that establishment can and does deny abortions for various reasons - an important point that the Abortion on Demand camp usually doesn't speak about. They do speak about that, and its a good thing. Doctors that are experts on the subject are working directly with the patients to determine the best course of action in each case. The alternative is that the choice is made by some politician that knows nothing about the subject, nothing about the patient, and nothing about the situation. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
On Guard for Thee Posted September 23, 2014 Report Posted September 23, 2014 (edited) If anybody happened to tune into question period today, you wouldn't even have to go as far as looking to JT for whom vote, you could conclude we'd be as well off with Idi Amin than what we now have.. Paul Calandra, one of the most irritating assholes of the mostly asshole party, clearly broke house rules when Mulcair asked him his opening question on our involvement in Iraq. Calandra went off on some idiotic and completely irrelevant rant about Israel. Mulcair tried twice more and got the same nonsense and when he complained to the speaker, Andrew Shear amazingly stopped Mulcair from asking another question He should be thrown out of his seat as house leader as he demonstrated clearly he is NOT neutral. The Harper dictatorship stance seems to be completely permeating the party. I don't think this one is going to go away easily, nor should it. Edited September 23, 2014 by On Guard for Thee Quote
waldo Posted September 23, 2014 Report Posted September 23, 2014 Thank you Waldo - that's a perfect differentiator between Trudeau and Harper. Trudeau wants to do social work to get to the root causes of terrorism - the old hug-a-thug, apologist routine......while Harper wants to learn as much as he can about the tactics of terrorism so he can protect Canadians. well... that's certainly the partisan slant you're taking on it. You kind of have a skewed take on "root causes" there, hey? The "root causes" that JT speaks to in that short sound-bite that gets played up to no end by Harper Conservatives/supporters are to you, of course, "hug-a-thug apologist" root causes, while Harper's "root causes" is all about seeking "tactical advantage and protecting". So Simple... all this focus on why certain young Canadians are being "radicalized towards terrorism", to you/Harper, there's no "tactical advantage" in presuming to attempt to understand what's drawing these certain young Canadians in that direction? Really? Quote
overthere Posted September 23, 2014 Report Posted September 23, 2014 You will not get any argument for legislation from me. The only point that I have been trying to make (poorly I guess) is related to those who argue that any restrictions on abortion is "anti-abortion" and "anti-choice" etc. in such a self-righteous, smug manner. As has been pointed out, we have outsourced our social conscience to the medical establishment - and in doing so, that establishment can and does deny abortions for various reasons - an important point that the Abortion on Demand camp usually doesn't speak about. That's a double-standard - because almost everyone is saying exactly the same thing - the Status Quo is working but there are instances that concern many Canadians and they trust that the medical establishment will handle those cases with the greatest of care and thought. What a dishonest post. I just did point out that your premise on doctors being the social conscience on this issue is complete baloney. Now you are claiming it was' pointed out', as if you alone stating it makes it so. Doctors are the technicians in the process. The moral compass comes from pregnant women. Another fat lump of dishonesty: there is no Abortion on Demand camp. There is a very large camp in Canada that is pro choice, yet you consistently portray this as being pro abortion. You are free to misrepresent yourself, do not have the blithe arrogance of misrepresenting this majority of Canadians. Just so you understand clearly, being pro choice means that women can choose to have an abortion or not have an abortion. The other side, the laughably named prolife, would forbid women from making that choice. Quote Science too hard for you? Try religion!
Keepitsimple Posted September 23, 2014 Report Posted September 23, 2014 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. Agreed. Well said. Quote Back to Basics
waldo Posted September 23, 2014 Report Posted September 23, 2014 Agreed. Well said. welcome back! Exit abortion discussion.... Quote
Mighty AC Posted September 23, 2014 Report Posted September 23, 2014 As has been pointed out, we have outsourced our social conscience to the medical establishment - and in doing so, that establishment can and does deny abortions for various reasons - an important point that the Abortion on Demand camp usually doesn't speak about. That's a double-standard - because almost everyone is saying exactly the same thing - the Status Quo is working but there are instances that concern many Canadians and they trust that the medical establishment will handle those cases with the greatest of care and thought. So as you just pointed out, just like 'Chemotherapy On Demand', 'Abortion On Demand' does not exist. I agree that the "status Quo is working" and "the medical establishment will handle [concerning] cases with the greatest of care and thought." JT also agrees with that point and has taken the ethical position that Liberals will not seek to reduce the level of choice currently available. Harper on the other hand has just sat on the fence and refused to talk about it. Both positions achieve the same thing. Both positions mean the same to individual MPs. Quote "Our lives begin to end the day we stay silent about the things that matter." - Martin Luther King Jr"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities" - Voltaire
On Guard for Thee Posted September 24, 2014 Report Posted September 24, 2014 Harper has "been very clear" about sitting on the fence on a ny number of issues. He hid from the climate change thingy today, but we knew he'd do that. I'm waiting for the shitstorm after todays QP. Quote
ReeferMadness Posted September 24, 2014 Report Posted September 24, 2014 How many Canadians actually do jail time for using marijuana, or possessing it in recreational quantities? I have a hunch that the number is actually miniscule, despite what pro-legalization activists might want you to think. Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favor of smarter laws around marijuana, and if the experiments in Washington and Colorado are successful, I'd support legalization too. But I see marijuana laws as an issue of minor importance, they are not something that will decide my vote. -k Stupid marijuana laws are not just about recreational pot smokers going to jail. They are about public resources wasted pursuing non-violent grow-op operators. It's about drug money going to organized crime. It's about lost tax revenue which could be used for <insert your favorite political hobby horse here>. It's about the fact that studies have shown it is easier for underage kids to get pot than beer. And even those pot smokers who don't go to jail can still have their lives ruined because they can still have criminal records. These laws are not of minor importance. Ask Marc Emery. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
On Guard for Thee Posted September 24, 2014 Report Posted September 24, 2014 Yet another reason to elect JT. Quote
Boges Posted September 24, 2014 Report Posted September 24, 2014 JT goes RoFo! http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/after-critical-remarks-about-parents-trudeau-will-not-engage-with-sun-media/article20749757/ Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau says he will “continue to not engage” with Sun Media – one of the country’s largest newspaper and media organizations – after one of its columnists and TV hosts made critical and personal remarks about Mr. Trudeau’s parents. The five-minute segment from Ezra Levant, aired last Monday, took aim at former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau and Margaret Trudeau. Mr. Levant spoke at length about the “conquests” of the two and called the former Prime Minister “a slut.” PT did have an open marriage with his wife didn't he? This came up over a weird image of JT kissing a bride surrounding a bridal party. The groom that allowed that is an absolute tool. But is certainly gives JT that special pimp status. Say what you want about the Sun but they have national print coverage with outlets in every major cities. Ezra's goal is to disturb bleep. What JT is doing here is absolutely no different that RoFo's fight with the Toronto Star. Quote
Keepitsimple Posted September 24, 2014 Report Posted September 24, 2014 Harper has "been very clear" about sitting on the fence on a ny number of issues. He hid from the climate change thingy today, but we knew he'd do that. I'm waiting for the shitstorm after todays QP. Along with the leaders of China and India - the world's biggest emitters, Australia, and even Germany - the former bastion of Green Energy who's too busy building 20 new coal plants. But never fear, the UN has appointed Leonardo DiCaprio in all his glory, has been appointed its "Messenger of Peace for Climate" - and Al Gore will be there too. Funny how the headlines leading up to the "Summit" projected the Peoples' March to have 150,000 marchers and how that would signal a re-kindling of support. Afterwards, the Star reported "tens of thousands" and today 300,000 global marchers. Guess the 150,000 fell substantially short. Do I sound jaded? Sure - because I am. The whole thing has turned into Barnum and Bailey with Science taking a backseat. Quote Back to Basics
Boges Posted September 24, 2014 Report Posted September 24, 2014 I wonder how much fossil fuel was burned getting all those people to New York. Quote
Black Dog Posted September 24, 2014 Report Posted September 24, 2014 Another fat lump of dishonesty: there is no Abortion on Demand camp. There is a very large camp in Canada that is pro choice, yet you consistently portray this as being pro abortion. You are free to misrepresent yourself, do not have the blithe arrogance of misrepresenting this majority of Canadians. Just so you understand clearly, being pro choice means that women can choose to have an abortion or not have an abortion. The other side, the laughably named prolife, would forbid women from making that choice. I don't understand why people who happily call themselves pro-choice get shirty when labeled as pro-abortion. It's like there's a tacit concession there that abortion is icky and best not discussed, but abortion is one of the consequences of choice, so if your for choice, you're for abortions. There's nothing wrong with that. Own it. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.