Tory G8 abortion stance
- Thread starter Socrates the Greek
- Start date
Just for Fundamental Christians in his own party? That's it? Not because (or at
least including) of Financial Conservatives regardless of any political leaning?
No for anybody else in Canada that has the ability to vote and the responsibility
to vote on the direction their tax dollars might be spent in whenever the next
Federal election happens to occur? Just Fundamental Christians in his own party?
How many people identify themselves (even just here on this Forum) as liberal
on most social issues, but conservative on most financial issues? Could that be
a factor in this funding decision?
Most of us pay for our eye exams, some of us only pay half because of other health conditions which make eye exams more mandatory (like monitoring for complications from high blood pressure). Routine eye exams for normal people arent' generally a life and death situation and I don't personally believe other tax payers should be on the hook for my routine eye exam. If your health isn't important enough to spend your money on I don't know what is. :smile::smile::smile:
Yet by voting 'strategically', many voters are merely reinforcing it. If more Canadians were willing to vote their conscience even if they knew their candidate would lose, that alone would give politicians more of a run for their money. As it stands now, as long as you're representing a famous party, all you have to do is show the other party to be worse than yours. No wonder so many Canadians stay home on election day.
As I understand, there was a pot of money to spend on helping other nations for family planning. It was not a question of spending the money or not spending it, so there was no question of placating the financial conservatives. It was very much a question of placating the social conservatives.
So financial conservatism was not a factor in this decision, it would have been the factor if Harper had decided not to finance family planning in the third world countries at all. Then argument could be made that he didn’t want to spend the money, he was being financially prudent (it won’t wash, but at least he could make that argument).
But the money was spent, only in the way social conservatives, Fundamentalist Christians wanted it (no funding for abortion).
Look man, don’t make Irish stew with words, who is talking about murder? A women who has been forced to have sex (raped) and gets pregnant why should she carry that trauma she received under rape with her for 9 months, because you and some others feel is ok. If that is how you feel and How Harper feels, then have the balls and tell Canadians during election time we the Conservatives are against abortion and we are not interested in funding something counter to our religion here in Canada. But you know what? Harper doesn’t have the testicular fortitude to do such a thing, (no balls no glory) don’t sit here and feed me with crap questions that deviate from the Conservative hypocrisy..:canada:
First off, as I have pointed out previously and on more than one occasion, I have voted Liberal damn near my entire life. I can count the fingers on one hand where I did not vote Liberal federally. Second, yes, murder is exactley the word I use, because that is what it is. Thirdly, the baby that you are so callously willing to kill, had nothing to do with the rape.
I'm pretty sure people are aware that politics are what they are and that any underlying ideologies they may base their vote on will tend to get pushed aside for the larger "cause." Those few who vote based purely on ideology will tend to vote for the same party as a rule, regardless of how the party flip-flops.
Obviously these parties shift their official positions to maximize votes. They push their personal views if they get the chance but that's pretty much it. Gutless? Sure, but these are politicians...Canadian politicians.
Yes that's all fine and good but the fact is that the quality of life of most people in these countries isn't improving; if anything, it's getting worse despite the aid. Abortion merely keeps a woman's quality of life from degrading even further and is still more humane than bringing a child into a world in which its own quality of life would be extremely low and often below survival levels.
That's because you don't understand the reason for the law; not paying for it means poor women who can't afford the procedure lose the ability to choose due to financial constraints and that is unconstitutional (i.e. it invokes inequality).
I understand that her and her partner chose to have unprotected sex without considering the consequences.
They made that choice, they can pay to have the life inside her terminated themselves.
Or give it up for adaption. There are lots of couples out there who can't have kids but want one...
In a country of fanatic right win nut bars, women have no rights, they get circumcised, and striped from their human dignity. A women who has been forced to have sex and gets pregnant is doomed. The self-righteous of developed countries like the Harper Conservatives pretend to the world they are a living example of compassion, when in fact they are a total contradiction dipped in bilge water. Very simple logic, you do not support abortion tell the people during election if you have the balls, and Harper to be labelled by the world as a hypocrite speaks volumes of his morality.
Since when was "Harper" (seeing as how he is the excuse for this rant) responsible for changing laws and enforcing Canadian morals in a foreign country? Do you understand the concept of earmarking funds for specific projects?
Is abortion even legal THERE? Are you suggesting Canada should be counselling rape victims to commit the crime of having an abortion?
That's not what i wrote. I consider abortion a holocaust, something so insidious to the fundamental constitution and values of any society which affirms it as form of birth control, or as a fundamental 'human right', that it will ultimately unravel that society under the hyprocrisy of protection of the innocent, into outright tyranny.
I'm not sure you can call this government pro-choice, since Canada essentially has NO laws on abortion. It is allowed and payed for under medicare essentially in the absense of any laws governing its legal status.
The last government to attempt to impose a moral principle on abortion was the Progressive Conservatives under Mulroney. It lost in the Senate, and no government since has had the courage to reserrect the issue.
My only point is that there seems to be a persistent insurgency in Parliament against abortion. It showed here in gaining a majority, with the help of some Liberals, to reject the imposition of pro abortion agenda on the Canadian government as a basis for our relationship with the developing world.. read that as a condition for agreements of trade, economic assistance and aid.. and one which we would have to fund as well.
Why is it unjust?
Can you cite legal precedent that would dictate Canada must provide funding for abortions outside it's own borders?
Hey LW who will set the example abroad having compassion for defenceless women?. If it is not legal there, then Canada should have the balls to tell any undeveloped country "if you want our help, prove to us first that your human rights are the same as ours, protecting minorities and then the helping hand is here to help."
And that will settle the issue if it is legal or not.
If it is a crime to you to help a women who GOT RAPED and is afraid to tell anyone because of fear that she would either be blamed and killed, or use a coat hanger and die as a result, then that is something you need to honestly answer to your self whether that is humane.
Developed countries help undeveloped countries, in this instance Harper has been labelled as a self-righteous hypocrite fool. As I said before if Harper has the balls to tell the Canadian people we will not support abortion here in Canada, then the world would not look at Canada as a country that preach compassion when in fact they only preach to get votes. Does that get through to you? or you want to sit here labelling me as the idol when in fact I am talking of a problem that requires human compassion not partisan bullsh!t politics in an effort to stay in power .
I didn't ask for propaganda. I asked some questions ... that you are avoiding answering.
Since when was "Harper" (seeing as how he is the excuse for this rant) responsible for changing laws and enforcing Canadian morals in a foreign country?
Do you understand the concept of earmarking funds for specific projects?
Is abortion even legal THERE?
Are you suggesting Canada should be counselling rape victims to commit the crime of having an abortion?
Since when was "Harper" (seeing as how he is the excuse for this rant) responsible for changing laws and enforcing Canadian morals in a foreign country?
Do you understand the concept of earmarking funds for specific projects?
Is abortion even legal THERE?
Are you suggesting Canada should be counselling rape victims to commit the crime of having an abortion?