Trudeau’s pro-choice decree is democratic, not dictatorial
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
I'll just cherry pick that part....
It's not a contradiction. Pro-Choice means you "Choose"... which means you can choose to have an abortion, or choose to not have an abortion (For whatever reason, including religious reasons)
Thus those who are Catholic or whatever follower of whatever faith can choose to ignore that choice and not have an abortion.
Pro-Choice does not mean "Every Pregnancy must be Aborted".... that's just stupid.
With the reasoning of "Pro-Choice" you have the option to be "Pro-Life" by Choosing Not to have an abortion.... EVER.
"Pro-Life" is not a choice at all and means everybody must adhere to "Pro-Life" reasoning, thus no abortions for any reason at all.
I see no contradiction at all.
Clergy need to get some ed'ya'Kat'n up in around he'ah
This has really been much ado about nothing. The NDP dictates which ridings MUST have female candidates. How democratic is that?
For me, I couldn't care less, I don't vote for the NDP. That is where the difference is.
And I don't vote Liberal, so I couldn't care less about Justin or what people think of what he says.
Hey now.... let's not be too rash.... that's something to consider.
Nonetheless he has him pegged pretty close!
I understand, Gerry, I foolishly voted N.D.P. for 30 years until it finally sunk in they weren't supporting the "workers". -
The candidate could always just lie to Trudeau. Once elected they can then vote their conscience. Yes, it may lead to the guy being kicked out of caucus but it'd also humiliate Trudeau which sounds entertaining.
I know how it works, I just don't like it Mps used to have a lot more freedom. Now they are all yes men for their leaders. Mps should be representing their constituents in parliament, not representing their leader to their constituents.
Not at all. Trudeau seems to be following their lead by interfering with the nomination process when he said he wouldn't.
They whip a hell of a lot more votes now than they used to. Sure, its allowed but that doesn't make it right.
My comment is in response to all the people acting like this is something that Justin just invented. This is how Westminster parliamentary systems work.
I have a bit of an issue with your idea that more free votes would lead to MPs representing their constituents better. The fact is that the majority of people in Canada don't know anything about their local MP. They vote for the national platform laid out by the leader.With that in mind, I think that in most cases MPs are better to vote based on the national platform that got them elected than to vote based on their personal views or whoever is yelling loudest at them that week.
Harper has really taken control to a level that we have not seen before though. While parliamentary discipline on votes has been common for decades, Harper has also taken away much of the power for his cabinet to actually run their portfolio. Cabinet minister today seem to just be mouthpieces for the PMO on their respective issue.
It's a good thing we started a new thread to explain Justin's Bozo moment in that other thread. This dispenses with the endless barrage of points made as to why Justin faced criticism within his own party and from people who now no longer support him and opens the door to more spin by the op and the kool aid drinkers, thus ignoring the obvious.
I'm Kind of glad that The shiny Pony is pulling all those stupid moves....because now only the koolaid drinking morons like we have in this forum are going to vote Liberal....
I'm sure there are quite a few intelligent liberals that will switch, making the NDP the official opposition again, and another win for Harper....Good job Trou d'eau!
I'm sure there are quite a few intelligent liberals that will switch, making the NDP the official opposition again, and another win for Harper....Good job Trou d'eau!
If this issue is that serious to you, I suggest you vote Conservative.
It's your best chance at getting some kind of legislative change, if that's what you want.
It is always amusing when a small group of constituents say their MP, MLA...... Is not listening to them. Most often we find that these people never voted for the representitive in the first place and are not even in the same library, nevermind the same page.
Currently, Canada has no restrictions on abortions whatsoever.
It's likely that one of the following two types of abortion restricting bills could be passed.
A bill to restrict late term abortions:
Granted, it would be hard to find a doctor to perform an abortion at 8 1/2 months, but if a doctor is agreeable to it, it would be legal.
A bill to restrict sex-selective abortions
These happens often in other countries, and they are starting to happen more frequently in Canada.
While you may or may not agree with restricting these types of abortions, to suggest that any politician who would like to vote for either of these restrictions is not worthy of representing the Liberal party is a bit much.
Trudeau (despite being nominally Catholic) fails to realize that Catholics are generally quite progressive (the only religious group in the US to vote more than 50% for gay marriage), but there is a limit to how far they can be pushed. He just handed a big chunk of voters over to the Conservatives to take a stand over something that didn't require one.
It's likely that one of the following two types of abortion restricting bills could be passed.
A bill to restrict late term abortions:
Granted, it would be hard to find a doctor to perform an abortion at 8 1/2 months, but if a doctor is agreeable to it, it would be legal.
A bill to restrict sex-selective abortions
These happens often in other countries, and they are starting to happen more frequently in Canada.
While you may or may not agree with restricting these types of abortions, to suggest that any politician who would like to vote for either of these restrictions is not worthy of representing the Liberal party is a bit much.
Trudeau (despite being nominally Catholic) fails to realize that Catholics are generally quite progressive (the only religious group in the US to vote more than 50% for gay marriage), but there is a limit to how far they can be pushed. He just handed a big chunk of voters over to the Conservatives to take a stand over something that didn't require one.
How is Hairballs decision democratic when it was imposed. Guess I must be missing one hell of a lot?
Misdirection. English is a language I am still learning. So help me out?
The question was?????????????????????????????????????