63 replies to this topic

[cybercoma]

punked, how many times do I have to poke fun at you? It's riding.

[punked]

punked, how many times do I have to poke fun at you? It's riding.

Damn it I will never get that one.

[Derek L]

If it wasn't passed at convention then this Member could have put forward a motion at convention and if it passed the whole NDP policy would have to shaped around it. If this member wanted change party policy on the Gun registry there is a mechanism to do that the problem is he would not have the votes. Policy in the NDP is decided by the membership.

So did the NDP decide at their last convention to reintroduce another LGR?

[The_Squid]

So did the NDP decide at their last convention to reintroduce another LGR?

Do some research, Start a new thread....

[Newfoundlander]

I was surprised to see Nikki Ashton struggle a bit on The Wet Block on Stephen Woodworth's motion, she was not as strong as she was during the NDP leadership "debates".

[Derek L]

Do some research, Start a new thread....

Why, have you become a moderator? Like the NDP, you wish to stifle discussion on one’s perceived morality? We’re discussing an MP’s ability to break ranks from a party’s given policy……..In the OP, a Tory MP can bring up abortion and face no negative consequences from his/her party, but an NDP MP can’t side with the Government (and his constituents?) on the LGR.

[Vendetta]

One part of the discussion that never seems to happen, is why the man has no say at all over if he wants to be a father. It was mentioned that we can't have a man purposely using a leaky condom and then forcing the woman to have his baby, but what about if a woman sabotages birth control to get pregnant without the man's consent? He has no "choice" but to pay "child support" for the next 18-25 years of his life, that may or may not even be spent on the support of that child. Maybe his money goes to support the woman's drug habit, or to pay for her to entertain her new boyfriends. Maybe men ought to be able to "abort " their financial responsibilities to supporting a pregnancy that they did not want? Maybe that choice should be limited to the first trimester, can't have deadbeat dads wanting to abort their financial responsibilities to the children they decided to have. I know that is pretty controversial but why don't men get any say in whether they want to be a parent? You can say "well if they don't want to have a child, don't have sex", but wouldn't that apply equally to females? The man should not be able to decide what a woman does with her body, the choice to keep or abort a pregnancy should be the woman's alone, but maybe the man should also have a choice on whether or not to participate in raising the resulting child, since he has no choice in whether the pregnancy should be allowed to continue?

[punked]

So did the NDP decide at their last convention to reintroduce another LGR?

I was not at the last one so I could not tell you. Although I can tell if they didn't there will be a debate on it next convention and the Whip will come depending on what is decided. This is the main reason why the MP left is because he knows that he will be held to what the grassroots decided we will run on next election.

[punked]

One part of the discussion that never seems to happen, is why the man has no say at all over if he wants to be a father.

No that part of discussion did happen. It happened at the Supreme court. The ruling was the man gets no say. Don't like it take it up with Harper.

I will also point out on the abortion bill that every single NDP MP voted against. This was not a whipped vote. All NDP MPs are pro choice sorry to break the news to you guys.

Edited by punked, 29 April 2012 - 10:50 AM.

[Vendetta]

No that part of discussion did happen. It happened at the Supreme court. The ruling was the man gets no say. Don't like it take it up with Harper.

I really don't care enough, and even if I did I would never take anything up with Harper. I can't stand the man, he makes my skin crawl. I just think that its interesting that nobody cares at all about the rights of men in this context. If the woman is the only one who gets to decide if a pregnancy results in a child then maybe she should also bear the financial weight of that choice. Does anyone really think that no woman ever gets pregnant on purpose to try and "keep" a man, or the financial support she expects him to provide?

[Vendetta]

No that part of discussion did happen. It happened at the Supreme court. The ruling was the man gets no say. Don't like it take it up with Harper.

I will also point out on the abortion bill that every single NDP MP voted against. This was not a whipped vote. All NDP MPs are pro choice sorry to break the news to you guys.

I am pro-choice, and I support the NDP position. I just question whether both genders should have a choice to make. Right now one gender has the choice made for them, so I find that situation a little sexist and unfair.

[punked]

I am pro-choice, and I support the NDP position. I just question whether both genders should have a choice to make. Right now one gender has the choice made for them, so I find that situation a little sexist and unfair.

I understand that but that was the ruling based on our Charter in 1989. The only way you might be able to change this is to open the Charter.

[-TSS-]

We here in Europe have the 26-week rule regarding abortions. I wonder whether such a rule is in force in the liberal US states.

[Argus]

I think you really have to follow the history of this ruling. A year later in Tremblay v. Daigle the court found that the fetus is not a person and that you would have to reopen the Charter to make it one.

Having just looked into this case you cite, it appears the court decided this under the Quebec Charter of Human Rights, and the civil code.

The Court also declined to address the question of fetal rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, noting that the Charter applies to government; it has no force in legal disputes between private citizens, which was the case in Tremblay v. Daigle.

Again, there's no evidence that regulating abortion would require a change to the Charter.

[g_bambino]

Ah, i dont think the fetus/baby is delivered in the usual sense before it is 'aborted', so maybe not.

I think you mean: an abortion is not carried out in the same manner as a premature delivery; the baby is killed, despite the possibility that it could survive outside the womb. Correct? If so, then, that doesn't seem right at all.