Trudeau’s abortion move guarantees renewed debate within Conservative party


mentalfloss
+1
#1
This kid is a frikkin genius.

Trudeau’s abortion move guarantees renewed debate within Conservative party

“That awful Mr. Trudeau,” my grandmother would say, half-meaning it, half-not. “Look what he’s gone and done now.”

It becomes increasingly difficult to argue this one trait of Pierre Trudeau’s, at least, has not been passed on in carbon copy to his eldest son; that is, his ability to drive people barmy. Case in point, the furor over Justin Trudeau’s declaration that the Liberal party is now “resolutely” pro-choice, and will screen potential candidates accordingly. That was last Wednesday. In response, much outrage. How could he? How dare he? He promised better!

It is certainly fair to knock Trudeau for not meeting the very high expectations he raised, especially during his drive for the Liberal leadership, that his brand of politics would be revolutionary, that all MPs would henceforth wallow in sublime liberty, and that every Liberal riding association would become its own little free-standing republic. But the fault was more in the over-promising than in what has come since.

As a practical matter, party leaders must retain ultimate oversight over their nomination processes to protect their brands, to weed out the catastrophically divisive, incompetent or untrustworthy, and to prevent Trojan horse incursions by candidates with agendas inimical to the party’s. Every political organization does this. To suggest the Liberals should not, and become a kind of Aquarian kindergarten in which all the kids do whatever they please all the time, is disingenuous. Trudeau should not have gone as far as he did in proffering his anarchic utopia, and he is wise to have placed limits on it.

Consider the history. The seminal Grit leadership convention of the modern era took place in Calgary in 1990. Pretty much everyone at that convention, if memory serves, despised and mistrusted everyone else, and continued to do so through the decade that followed. In the late 1990s and early 2000s there were two major factions and a couple of smaller ones warring within the bosom of the party. In 2004 and 2006 this cost them dearly, as organizers and workers on the outs with the ruling cabal sat on their hands.

Which brings us to abortion. It is true, of course, that a majority of Canadians would support some restrictions. A nationwide survey by Ipsos, commissioned by Postmedia News and Global TV in 2012, showed that just 49 per cent of respondents supported abortion “whenever a woman decides she wants one.” A plurality, 60 per cent, said they would support “the introduction of a law in Canada that places limits on when a woman can have an abortion during her pregnancy, such as during the last trimester.”

Hence the view that the debate is not settled, despite there having been no abortion law in Canada since 1988, and the notion that Canadians eager to argue about it are somehow being restrained from doing so, because of cowardly leadership.

Here’s what’s been lost in the argument: For one, the Ipsos 2012 data also showed that only six per cent of Canadians, almost a rounding error, would like to see abortion banned outright. Second, third-trimester abortions are already restricted, albeit not through federal law, and are very rare. Sex-selective abortion, practiced in cultures where boy children are prized over girl children, is viscerally unacceptable to many Canadians. But here again, federal legislation is not the only possible remedy. It is increasingly common for doctors and other health workers to refuse ultrasounds simply to reveal the gender of a fetus. Postmedia’s Sharon Kirkey reported in February that both the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada and the Canadian Association of Radiologists have criticized “entertainment” ultrasounds, as has the Canadian Medical Association Journal. This problem can be addressed, in other words, without the blunderbuss of the federal government getting involved.

As for politics? The question is indeed settled. If it weren’t the federal Conservative party, which has a powerful social conservative wing and has – again, according to Ipsos data – drawn large numbers of conservative Roman Catholics away from the Liberals in the past decade, would be proposing to restrict late-term abortions, at the very least. That hasn’t happened because a) such procedures are already restricted; and b) the Tories know the ensuing debate would be wrenching, extend far beyond the partial measures being discussed now, because so many abortion opponents insist on a total ban, and would be catastrophic electorally. This, by the way, is the most important immediate consequence of Trudeau’s move: It guarantees the debate within the Conservative party on abortion will be renewed, which can’t help but cause Prime Minister Stephen Harper grief.

Amid all this, and given an entire generation of women and men in Canada have come of age since 1988, with no obvious disastrous effects, it’s somehow appalling for Trudeau to say aloud that he and his party are now “resolutely pro-choice?” Well, no. Not really. It was an obvious move and one that will benefit the Liberals, down the road.

Michael Den Tandt: Justin Trudeau’s abortion move guarantees renewed debate within Conservative party
Last edited by mentalfloss; May 21st, 2014 at 06:04 AM..
 
relic
Free Thinker
+4
#2
I can't believe how many people are against choice.
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
+1
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by relicView Post

I can't believe how many people are against choice.


From my prospective the SUBJECT of the matter doesn't have a choice!
 
mentalfloss
#4
Word play on 'choice' doesn't make a convincing argument.
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
+1
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

Word play on 'choice' doesn't make a convincing argument.

Only if you are not the one being denied the choice!
 
mentalfloss
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

Only if you are not the one being denied the choice!

Playing with words is the healthy choice.
 
petros
#7
Hmmmmm. Import people or make your own?

A tough decision for any government.
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
+2
#8
This will JT's swan song.

He hasn't opened any debate within the Conservative Party other than the discussion of whether he is an idiot OR of he's a fool and an idiot

Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

This kid is a frikkin genius.


Maybe you mean idiot savant as opposed to genius.

Betcha he can play the piano really well
 
Colpy
Conservative
#9
You see, in the Conservative Party, we can deal with a little debate.

Unlike the Liberals, obviously.
 
Locutus
+1
#10
the kid got called on saying something stupid that was proved wrong so the spinners try to find the bright side to the story.
 
mentalfloss
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

You see, in the Conservative Party, we can deal with a little debate.

Unlike the Liberals, obviously.

Harper says no plans to reopen abortion debate as issue simmers in N.B. | CTV Atlantic News

Poor prolifers have nowhere left to go.
 
Colpy
Conservative
#12
Absolutely.

But Harper does not pretend to be Big Brother, and sic the Thought Police on his MPs.

As I said before, the idiot move by Mr. Fluffy could send some ex-Liberals to the Conservative Party, and if they are politically involved, they could tip the balance and change current Conservative Party policies, tipping at least one major party against abortion extremism.

But that won't happen quickly.

And it won't happen while Harper is leader.
 
mentalfloss
#13
Harper keeps debate closed on an issue his party will increasingly have to deal with.

The Liberals have a strong position and in the long term, won't need to deal with this frivolous problem.

I wish the Cons luck with their newfound members. I'm sure the Libs will enjoy the Cons who strongly supported abortion too.
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
#14
Trudeau isn't 'debating' anything.. He issued his decree from up on high and apparently won't accept any other POV

Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

Poor prolifers have nowhere left to go.

To the Greens, NDP and Conservatives.
 
Colpy
Conservative
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

Harper keeps debate closed on an issue his party will increasingly have to deal with.

The Liberals have a strong position and in the long term, won't need to deal with this frivolous problem.

You still are not dealing with the fact that most Canadians want to restrict abortion to some degree.

Harper is maintaining a "big tent" party.

Trudeau is a moron.
 
IdRatherBeSkiing
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

Trudeau isn't 'debating' anything.. He issued his decree from up on high and apparently won't accept any other POV



To the Greens, NDP and Conservatives.

NDP has bee pro-choice for some time. I guess you could say Justine is doing what his Daddy did and stealing NDP policies and claiming them as his own.
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by IdRatherBeSkiingView Post

NDP has bee pro-choice for some time. I guess you could say Justine is doing what his Daddy did and stealing NDP policies and claiming them as his own.


A pertinent question RE: the Dippers is; Will they allow alternate POVs in their Party?
 
mentalfloss
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

To the Greens, NDP and Conservatives.

They won't go Green and they definitely won't go NDP.

They will continue to be ignored under the Conservative banner as the abortion debate there is closed folks.

Buh bye!

Quote: Originally Posted by IdRatherBeSkiingView Post

NDP has bee pro-choice for some time. I guess you could say Justine is doing what his Daddy did and stealing NDP policies and claiming them as his own.

That's EXACTLY what he's doing.

The country is moving left and the Liberals are capitalizing on that.
 
taxslave
No Party Affiliation
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

You still are not dealing with the fact that most Canadians want to restrict abortion to some degree.

Harper is maintaining a "big tent" party.

Trudeau is a moron.

Unfortunately he is the moron we may very well be saddled with for PM for one term anyway.
Going to have to toss the chicken bones tonight and see what the outcome will be.

If just-in can get someone with an ounce of brains to speak for him on economics and foreign policy he has a good shot at winning.
 
Locutus
+2
#20
I don't get all this glee over killing a fetus because now you don't want it thing.

I just don't.

I'm not a religious guy by any means but fighting for this 'right' is insane in my opinion.
 
taxslave
No Party Affiliation
+1
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by LocutusView Post

I don't get all this glee over killing a fetus because now you don't want it thing.

I just don't.

I'm not a religious guy by any means but fighting for this 'right' is insane in my opinion.

That is largely because you are not a woman. Or an unwilling parent to be.
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
+1
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

That is largely because you are not a woman. Or an unwilling parent to be.

Abortion as a form of retroactive birth control ain't cool
 
mentalfloss
#23
Prolifers are speciesist.

Speciesism

Abortion supporters like Peter Singer classify a view that places a higher value on human life as opposed to animal life as "speciesist," because, he argues, that it unfairly discriminates against non-human persons.

He writes:

...those I would call ‘speciesists’ give greater weight to the interests of members of their own species when there is a clash between their interests and the interests of those of other species.

***

To give preference to the life of a being simply because it is a member of our species would put us in the same position as racists who give preference to those who are members of their race.1

Of course, the problem with racism is that it discriminates against one human compared to another based on skin colour, an arbitrary trait. But Singer’s point is that discriminating against non-humans is just as arbitrary.

Singer takes his argument further, however. He states that individuals should be valued not by their existence, but instead by their function. That is why he is willing to concede that the pre-born are biological human beings but not persons. He says,

The fetus, the grossly retarded ‘human vegetable’, even the newborn infant—all are indisputably members of the species homo sapiens, but none are self-aware, have a sense of future, or the capacity to relate to others.

Pro-lifers then, according to Singer, are speciesist because they fight for the right to life for human ‘non-persons’ but not for animals that ‘are’ persons.

Speciesism
 
coldstream
#24
The Conservative Party has been in the hands of the Old Reform Party since the Shotgun wedding of the PCs and Reform years ago. The Reform Party is NOT a socially conservative party.. it is a Libertarian Party.

Glen Beck is the best articulator of Libertarian philosophy and he knows it is antithetical to social conservatism. He supports homosexual 'marriage', euthenasia and abortion.. because he is against any government control of human behaviour, economic or moral. True conservatism is based on institutional consensus, social cohesion and traditional ethos.

Harper is a Reformer. It was my prediction that the newly minted Conservative Party would tear itself to pieces over its own internal contradictions. Harper has managed to keep it together.. not because he believes in conservatism.. because he know Libertarianism in and of itself will never define and electoral plurality. But sooner or later.. something will bring these divisions to a boil.
Last edited by coldstream; May 21st, 2014 at 01:16 PM..
 
taxslave
No Party Affiliation
+1
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

Abortion as a form of retroactive birth control ain't cool

I view it as a backup plan. Also beats hell out of 14 year old mothers which in the end cost taxpayers plenty.
 
Corduroy
+1
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

You see, in the Conservative Party, we can deal with a little debate.

Unlike the Liberals, obviously.

This is basically a conservative talking point, and like all good talking points it's the opposite of reality. The Liberals did this to bring up the debate. It's a debate they will most likely win. The Conservatives are the one's that stand to lose the most from this debate and it's evidence in the fact that they expressly avoid it.
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by CorduroyView Post

This is basically a conservative talking point, and like all good talking points it's the opposite of reality. The Liberals did this to bring up the debate. It's a debate they will most likely win. The Conservatives are the one's that stand to lose the most from this debate and it's evidence in the fact that they expressly avoid it.

What is it about the abortion situation that people want Harper to change?
 
mentalfloss
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by CorduroyView Post

This is basically a conservative talking point, and like all good talking points it's the opposite of reality. The Liberals did this to bring up the debate. It's a debate they will most likely win. The Conservatives are the one's that stand to lose the most from this debate and it's evidence in the fact that they expressly avoid it.

This will put pressure on them to take a side.

By keeping debate closed Harper is essentially committing doublespeak on the issue by trapping his own caucus (and their constituents).
 
Colpy
Conservative
+1
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

Prolifers are speciesist.

Speciesism

Abortion supporters like Peter Singer classify a view that places a higher value on human life as opposed to animal life as "speciesist," because, he argues, that it unfairly discriminates against non-human persons.

He writes:

...those I would call ‘speciesists’ give greater weight to the interests of members of their own species when there is a clash between their interests and the interests of those of other species.

***

To give preference to the life of a being simply because it is a member of our species would put us in the same position as racists who give preference to those who are members of their race.1

Of course, the problem with racism is that it discriminates against one human compared to another based on skin colour, an arbitrary trait. But Singer’s point is that discriminating against non-humans is just as arbitrary.

Singer takes his argument further, however. He states that individuals should be valued not by their existence, but instead by their function. That is why he is willing to concede that the pre-born are biological human beings but not persons. He says,

The fetus, the grossly retarded ‘human vegetable’, even the newborn infant—all are indisputably members of the species homo sapiens, but none are self-aware, have a sense of future, or the capacity to relate to others.

Pro-lifers then, according to Singer, are speciesist because they fight for the right to life for human ‘non-persons’ but not for animals that ‘are’ persons.

Speciesism

****ing right I am "specieist"

Only a complete drooling moron is not.

Dr. Singer qualifies.
 
Tonington
+2
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

But Harper does not pretend to be Big Brother, and sic the Thought Police on his MPs.

Delusional.

Bill Casey, booted from caucus by Harper and his thought police for voting his conscience. The riding association nominated Casey again for the Conservative candidate in Cumberland-Colchester-Musquodoboit, and the party refused the nomination, suspended the association, and parachuted a candidate in- who lost handily to Casey who ran as an independent. I voted for Casey and would have continued to vote for him had he ran again, and if I lived in Bible Hill still.

You were sayin'? You're right, Harper doesn't pretend, he doesn't have to pretend. Maybe that's what you meant?
 
no new posts