Tory G8 abortion stance

[Socrates the Greek]

I am politely asking you to learn English. What your opinion is doesn't really matter. It's easily predictable.

Now ... if Harper specifies he wanted abortions paid for and wanted to do what some authority in that foreign country should be doing, you would be all over the waste like baby shyte on a blanket.

I think you just like the post count and to hell with facts. Right?

I don't give a rats ass about post count, the amount of time I spend here is a small fraction of the amount of time you and some others spend here.

As for Harper doing what some authority in a foreign country should be doing, we saw the example of speech plagiarized with Howard’s speech, on Iraq. We saw Harper on Afghanistan, and now we see Harper on Abortion.

You can not tell me that if Harper had gone along with the G7 on the idea of supporting abortion abroad, I would have been bitching as well. That is like condemning a person before you have any facts.

 

[AnnaG]

I don't give a rats ass about post count, the amount of time I spend here is a small fraction of the amount of time you and some others spend here.

As for Harper doing what some authority in a foreign country should be doing, we saw the example of speech plagiarized with Howard’s speech, on Iraq. We saw Harper on Afghanistan, and now we see Harper on Abortion.

Red herrings again?

You can not tell me that if Harper had gone along with the G7 on the idea of supporting abortion abroad, I would have been bitching as well.

Perhaps not about that, but you'd be snivelling about the Con gov't spending money. You snivelled about Harper spending money in Afghanistan, which is another country, but you snivel that his gov't isn't spending about this issue in another country.

That is like condemning a person before you have any facts.

lmao You wouldn't know a fact if it sat on your face and shat.

 

[lone wolf]

I don't give a rats ass about post count, the amount of time I spend here is a small fraction of the amount of time you and some others spend here.

As for Harper doing what some authority in a foreign country should be doing, we saw the example of speech plagiarized with Howard’s speech, on Iraq. We saw Harper on Afghanistan, and now we see Harper on Abortion.

You can not tell me that if Harper had gone along with the G7 on the idea of supporting abortion abroad, I would have been bitching as well. That is like condemning a person before you have any facts.

Please DO try to stick with the facts. The facts is your brain wasn't in gear when you got the ol' keyboard pinkie worked up ... and now you look foolish again

 

[barney]

"This stance must change," the editorial said, noting 70,000 women die from unsafe abortions worldwide each year.

The point being that people will find ways to get abortions even when it is illegal.

So what's worse: risking the occurrence of 'unnecessary' abortions or placing the woman at risk and still losing the fetus? Clearly making it illegal doesn't work.

Many pregnancies in these regions aren't exactly the result of strictly consensual sex and people frequently lack the means to effectively maintain a child. That and turning women into baby factories is a known method of gender-based oppression. So abortion is really the most humane option in what are frequently inhumane conditions.

As for the cons being hypocrites: caving to political pressure isn't the same as having double-standards--it's no secret they're anti-abortion.

Not that I lack sympathy for the women but this looks like a case of trying to push a petty ideological agenda. Maybe there's more to it but I don't see it--too much background **** going on in this country already for me to bother looking into it.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Hey the G8 were the first to expose Harper’s hypocrisy, I agree with them, do you have a problem with that?

Quite so. Let us see if Liberals are smart enough to exploit the issue at home.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Why is Canada paying for abortions in Canada? when in fact we know how the Conservatives feel about such an issue.? Anything to do with votes? Or is it because the current government loves all people?

Everything to do with votes. If Harper had his choice, he would ban all abortions in Canada, if SCOC would let him. But that would be a sure vote loser for him, so he won't do it (unless he gets a majority, then all bets are off).

 

[SirJosephPorter]

The ranting about the 'religious right' wanting to ban abortions completely skips over the predominantly-Catholic Liberal Party, where many members would ban abortions, as it is completely against their faith.

There are only a few pro life Catholics in Liberal Party. Most Liberal Catholics are pro choice, like Chrétien or Paul Martin (or in USA, Pelosi, Biden etc.). Most prolife Catholics vote Conservative (Republican in USA).

Indeed, why should they vote Liberal? They tend to be one issue voters, they vote mainly based upon abortion (they take their cue from the Pope and the prolife Bishops).

There is a small element of Liberal Party which is pro life, but it is insignificant and tiny. Most prolifers reside in the Conservative Party.

 

[Ron in Regina]

Everything to do with votes. If Harper had his choice, he would ban all abortions in Canada, if SCOC would let him. But that would be a sure vote loser for him, so he won't do it (unless he gets a majority, then all bets are off).

Isn't everything that every Politician does...have to do with votes, regardless
of their political leanings or stripe? The goal is first to get power, and then it
is to keep power, and has little to do with anything else in my opinion.

Majority or Minority, the eye is always on the next election and either gaining
or maintaining power. Any political entity that gains power eventually migrates
to somewhere around the middle of the political spectrum for its voters so that
it can stay where it is....in control.

 

[Walter]

I can proudly say that not one of the candidates I've ever voted for has yet gotten a seat in Parliament. And I've never voted for a Conservative yet. Coincidence?

Don't go to the tracks; you'll starve.

 

[Socrates the Greek]

Isn't everything that every Politician does...have to do with votes, regardless
of their political leanings or stripe? The goal is first to get power, and then it
is to keep power, and has little to do with anything else in my opinion.

Majority or Minority, the eye is always on the next election and either gaining
or maintaining power. Any political entity that gains power eventually migrates
to somewhere around the middle of the political spectrum for its voters so that
it can stay where it is....in control.

Hi Ron, In this instance Ron we are talking about hypocrisy, from a bunch who take the high moral ground to tell the world we are a unique brand of ideology, while they expose their hypocrisy on the world stage.

Women dieing at the end of coat hanger speaks volumes to the urgency of a problem that would take compassionate human beings to solve, not some middle of the road pretenders, while deep inside are more interested protecting a vote base and following tribal partisan crap.

 

[taxslave]

Contrary to what some of you seem to think the conservatives do not have a hidden agenda. They have always been right out in the open with their desire to have a right wing theocracy in Canada.

 

[Socrates the Greek]

"This stance must change," the editorial said, noting 70,000 women die from unsafe abortions worldwide each year.

The point being that people will find ways to get abortions even when it is illegal.

So what's worse: risking the occurrence of 'unnecessary' abortions or placing the woman at risk and still losing the fetus? Clearly making it illegal doesn't work.

Many pregnancies in these regions aren't exactly the result of strictly consensual sex and people frequently lack the means to effectively maintain a child. That and turning women into baby factories is a known method of gender-based oppression. So abortion is really the most humane option in what are frequently inhumane conditions.

As for the cons being hypocrites: caving to political pressure isn't the same as having double-standards--it's no secret they're anti-abortion.

Not that I lack sympathy for the women but this looks like a case of trying to push a petty ideological agenda. Maybe there's more to it but I don't see it--too much background **** going on in this country already for me to bother looking into it.

If it’s no secret that they are anti-abortion they should tell the Canadian people during election time, instead of playing the limited wording game during election, so the vast majority can decide on the true morality of the party.

 

[Socrates the Greek]

Contrary to what some of you seem to think the conservatives do not have a hidden agenda. They have always been right out in the open with their desire to have a right wing theocracy in Canada.

How about Autocracy first and theocracy second...

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Contrary to what some of you seem to think the conservatives do not have a hidden agenda. They have always been right out in the open with their desire to have a right wing theocracy in Canada.

Quite so, but we are talking of Harper. Conservatives don't care what the rest of the country thinks, they 'know' they are right, so religious right and similar groups they are open about their agenda.

Not so Harper, he must be elected first to implement the conservative agenda. So it may be in his intersts to keep it hidden until he gets a majority. But conservative groups have no such restrictions there is no reason why they should keep their agenda hidden, and they don't.

 

[Liberalman]

It's about improving the quality of life for the mother and child, abortion does not improve the quality of life for the child.

 

[Socrates the Greek]

It's about improving the quality of life for the mother and child, abortion does not improve the quality of life for the child.

for a child that was conceived through rape is not the same with a child conceived under consensual intimacy. Especially when the women was not interested in getting pregnant by force. Big difference.......................a difference that makes abortion a necessity.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

It's about improving the quality of life for the mother and child, abortion does not improve the quality of life for the child.

There is no child involved in an abortion, only the mother and the product of conception, the fetus.

 

[DaSleeper]

I see another prevaricator has joined the fray in this casting exercise:lol:

 

[Machjo]

Don't go to the tracks; you'll starve.

There's a difference. If I'd go to the tracks, I'd try to vote for the winner. In elections, I don't necessarily try to vote for the winner, but for who would be the best candidate.

 

[Machjo]

Quite so. Let us see if Liberals are smart enough to exploit the issue at home.

What? Liberals have no good ideas of their own so all they can do is portray themselves as the lesser of two evils. Is that what our choices come down to? Satisfy yourself with that.

What I'd like to see is a candidate who can say:

"You want to know what about this other candidate? Ask him. I'll talk about me."

I don't want a candidate who can only say:

"Never mind me; look at how bad he is."