Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Recommended Posts

An Ontario MP, former lawyer, wants to have a debate on when is a embryo defined as human being. If we thought the gun registry had fire works, I think this is going to be worst. Now, Harper, has said in the past that he didn't want to open this topic but last night, the MP bringing this forward, was asked if he has talked to Harper about this and first he said he wasn't going to say what was said and then being a lawyer, he said I'm not going to say if have or have not talked to Harper about this. So what happens if the results are it is a human being and who makes the decision and then is the Tories going to over turn the 1988 law with abortion. Is the Tories doing this to talk the heat off the F-35, the robocalls or try to get Quebec back? I think this could get ugly for MP's, especially if they vote what THEY believe and not what their constituents want. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/backbench-tory-poised-to-trigger-abortion-debate-in-parliament/article2414177/

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 404
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

So what happens if the results are it is a human being and who makes the decision and then is the Tories going to over turn the 1988 law with abortion.

I'd turn to Conservative MP Rob Nichols for a clue, "We're just getting started".

Every sperm is sacred.

Every sperm is great.

If a sperm is wasted,

God gets quite irate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the Tories doing this to talk the heat off the F-35, the robocalls or try to get Quebec back?

To take the heat off F35 ? That's pretty crazy. The analogy would be "I had a sore foot, so I set my hair on fire."

To try to get Quebec back ?

Harper doesn't want this. Why would he ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do think the lack of any restrictions on abortion whatsoever are problematic.

For example gender-based abortions where immigrants to this country are getting abortions because their child is a girl.

Is that the kind of stuff the government should really be funding?

Link to post
Share on other sites

To take the heat off F35 ? That's pretty crazy. The analogy would be "I had a sore foot, so I set my hair on fire."

To try to get Quebec back ?

Harper doesn't want this. Why would he ?

We all know that IF Harper doesn't want something it doesn't get done. So, one has to figure that Harper hasn't said no to the MP so he had to have said yes for the debate. Isn't this issue more an religious issue than a moral one? I think they are preparing for the next election and trying to get the more supporters through people who really don't support them but would under the a new abortion law.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We all know that IF Harper doesn't want something it doesn't get done. So, one has to figure that Harper hasn't said no to the MP so he had to have said yes for the debate. Isn't this issue more an religious issue than a moral one? I think they are preparing for the next election and trying to get the more supporters through people who really don't support them but would under the a new abortion law.

Give me a break. The anti-abortionists are likely all out for Harper now.

If Harper is aware of this, then he's letting the MP submit this for conscientious reasons. You may not agree with it, but if the MP wants to submit it, and skewer his career in the process, then shouldn't he be able to do so ?

Or would we all jump on Harper simultaneously for squelching an MP who wanted to submit something for free vote.

Link to post
Share on other sites

perhaps what is happening is that there are more MP's that want to revisit this issue and Harper feels he has no choice or he'll lose more MP's, so he staying out of it, voting against the motion and letting the lawyer MP bring this forward and once they can prove that its a human being BEFORE birth, it will be against the Canadian law to have an abortion, kinda back dooring the issue, to get what they want. Personally, I feel women should have choice and who are we to judge what another person should do with their body as long as it doesn't hurt us and besides the only judge should be God. Before anyone says God has with the ten commandants, with thou shall not kill, man has already broken that rule with war.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If Harper is aware of this, then he's letting the MP submit this for conscientious reasons. You may not agree with it, but if the MP wants to submit it, and skewer his career in the process, then shouldn't he be able to do so ?

Or would we all jump on Harper simultaneously for squelching an MP who wanted to submit something for free vote.

In response to an NDP MP in QP regarding the debate, Rob Nicholson said unlike the NDP the Conservatives don't muzzle their members. Obviously a dig regarding the NDP's whipped vote on the long gun registry that saw NDP Hyer quit and sit as an Independent.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not really against this...

Canada has no abortion laws.

It's not that it is illegal.

It's not that it is legal.

It's just not legislated. It's a grey area without any limits.

Many civilized nations won't give abortions when the baby could survive outside of the womb (24 weeks).

In Canada, you could abort the baby the day before it is born...

Personally, if people want to abort, I say sure. I mean, it's really just darwin at work, limiting those genes from the gene pool.

But, maybe we should have some ethical/sensible limits on it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do think the lack of any restrictions on abortion whatsoever are problematic.

For example gender-based abortions where immigrants to this country are getting abortions because their child is a girl.

Is that the kind of stuff the government should really be funding?

Maybe it becomes illegal after the ultrasound that determines sex?

For some reason, I don't think women will support killing future women...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe it becomes illegal after the ultrasound that determines sex?

For some reason, I don't think women will support killing future women...

Women who have abortions are, well golly, jist as smart as you and me! Honest!

They already know it's slightly better than 50/50.

At any rate, and on second thought, there's no way that you meant any of this, anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Women who have abortions are, well golly, jist as smart as you and me! Honest!

They already know it's slightly better than 50/50.

At any rate, and on second thought, there's no way that you meant any of this, anyway.

Lol. You seem to have missed the target.

Female fetuses are being killed after being detected for the sole reason of the fact that they were female. If feminists support the practice of killing female fetuses because they want a male one, I'd be surprised.

Completely legal in our "right to choose" society.

Edited by MiddleClassCentrist
Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol. You seem to have missed the target.

Female fetuses are being killed after being detected for the sole reason of the fact that they were female. If feminists support the practice of killing female fetuses because they want a male one, I'd be surprised.

Completely legal in our "right to choose" society.

I still don't get what you mean. Leaving aside what "feminsists support"--not really the topic here--very few Canadian women who have abortions take the sex of the fetus into account. It's not the reason for abortions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe it becomes illegal after the ultrasound that determines sex?

For some reason, I don't think women will support killing future women...

We have seen in the past that people on the left will compromise their views on women's rights if they come in direct conflict with their quest for multiculturalism.

That baby girl isn't real anyway. I guess if you just don't want the baby because it'd ruin your social live it's cool, but is it cool if you want a baby but just not a girl.

The other question is the issue of mental retardation. It can be detected if a child has Down's Syndrome before birth. Is it ethical to abort the fetus then if you want a child but just not . . . that child.

Because once the child is born the same people that fight for the right of him/her to be killed will fight for public funding to go for special treatment for the child.

It's always an interesting paradox.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I still don't get what you mean. Leaving aside what "feminsists support"--not really the topic here--very few Canadian women who have abortions take the sex of the fetus into account. It's not the reason for abortions.

Maybe not in our Anglo-Saxon enlightened world. But as the doors of this country are opened to people that don't have the same values as we do, you can definitely see it happening.

Isn't there a shortage of women in China because the parents there only want men?

Link to post
Share on other sites

We have seen in the past that people on the left will compromise their views on women's rights if they come in direct conflict with their quest for multiculturalism.

Well, when principles come into conflict everyone has to make a choice regardless of their politics. Rightists have to choose between free enterprise and individual rights sometimes too.

The only example I can think of the dilemma you discussed, was expressed by a feminist in a CBC radio interview I heard years ago and she opined that the practice of selective abortion should be illegal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, when principles come into conflict everyone has to make a choice regardless of their politics. Rightists have to choose between free enterprise and individual rights sometimes too.

The only example I can think of the dilemma you discussed, was expressed by a feminist in a CBC radio interview I heard years ago and she opined that the practice of selective abortion should be illegal.

That would call for legislation to restrict abortion in some ways. It opens a pandora's box. Why then can't we restrict late term abortions or abortions of children that have disabilities.

Which are things I support, but it illustrates that the abortion issue isn't black or white as people on the opposite ends of the issue would like to think. There is room for debate about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That would call for legislation to restrict abortion in some ways. It opens a pandora's box. Why then can't we restrict late term abortions or abortions of children that have disabilities.

It's called a dilemma, and as I pointed out they exist whenever you hold more than one principle that aren't exactly parallel.

We can restrict late term abortions. We can even ban abortion.

Why do you think we can't ?

Which are things I support, but it illustrates that the abortion issue isn't black or white as people on the opposite ends of the issue would like to think. There is room for debate about it.

It's divisive, though. More importantly, it's not a priority. Nothing much will change from us discussing this issue.

On the other hand, there are issues that we need to discuss urgently, such as healthcare management and even public discussion itself.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On the other hand, there are issues that we need to discuss urgently, such as healthcare management and even public discussion itself.

That's another debate where the people on one end won't entertain the idea of altering our unsustainable healthcare system.

Edited by Boges
Link to post
Share on other sites

That's another debate where the people on one end won't entertain the idea of altering our unsustainable healthcare system.

You won't get people "on the ends" to engage reasonably in many cases.

The people in the middle can be prepared for reasonable discussion but the problem is:

- The details of the debate are entirely mundane and not of interest to most

- "The public" (whatever that means) is used to this discussion being framed around two simple choices

- Somehow the discussion of service delivery here has become wrapped in identity issues

- The agendas at play are huge on all sides

So how can "we" discuss the issues when we have complicated questions that need one-on-one discussion, and an interested public that can make informed choices ?

We can't, with the tools we have. We have mass media, which are owned or controlled by large interests without the presence of an informed public to discern information and make choices.

How do we fix this ? To my mind we need to create a new public to debate healthcare. It's a strange idea, but we have to create a forum whereby choices can be discussed openly and 3rd-way solutions can be synthesized.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Announcements




×
×
  • Create New...