Canada Stands Alone On Anti-abortion

Praxius

Mass'Debater
Dec 18, 2007
10,677
161
63
Halifax, NS & Melbourne, VIC
Sorry Bear, I'm not about to entertain your dribble and petty insults towards my understanding of the topic at hand any further.

In related news:

Oda: No funding for abortion
Oda: No funding for abortion - Nova Scotia News - TheChronicleHerald.ca

CANADA WON’T support funding for abortions in the developing world as part of a family planning initiative, International Co-operation Minister Bev Oda confirmed Monday on the eve of a meeting with her G8 counterparts in Halifax.

Oda said Canada’s contribution to the meeting could involve family planning and the use of contraceptive methods, but funding for abortions was a non-starter.

"The details remain to be determined," she told reporters Monday. "However, Canada’s contribution will not include funding of abortions."

Her declaration means a debate over abortion could threaten a bid to find a consensus at the two-day meeting, which is expected to focus on improving the health of mothers and small children in poor countries.

Caroline Riseboro of World Vision Canada said the abortion issue amounts to a distraction from what should be the central issue for the G8: preventing 8.8 million child deaths a year from preventable conditions like diarrhea, malaria and pneumonia.

"This abortion debate is continuing when this initiative (on child and maternal health) has so much potential to do so much to save lives," she said in an interview.

"We hope that the debate isn’t going to continue to focus on this but it’s going to focus on how Canada can take a leadership role in child and maternal health."

However, Oda insisted Canada’s position will not put it at odds with other industrialized nations, including the United States.

The Canadian government still agrees with the internationally accepted definition of family planning as sanctioned by the International Health Organization, the United Nations and G8 development agencies, Oda added.

As well, she said she recently met with other development ministers in Washington and New York, where she was told there was no disagreement with Canada’s position.

"They all support Canada’s initiative," she said. "There is no division on what it includes."

But critics have said Canada’s position could conflict with the U.S. and other G8 partners who say abortion can’t be separated from family planning.

Ontario Liberal MP Bob Rae said the Tories’ position is ridiculous.

"They have this great sort of double-talk where they say, "We don’t want to reopen the abortion debate.’ Well, they just did," he said.

He said the federal government is trying to impose its moral agenda on other countries.

"Canada is now taking an ideological position and, frankly, I think they’ve raised something which could well have been avoided in the effort to create a stronger international consensus."

Until Monday, the Conservatives had refused to say if abortion would be covered under the G8 plan.

Tory MP Jim Abbott, Oda’s parliamentary secretary, initially clarified the government’s position in the House of Commons on Monday.

"Canada’s contribution to child and maternal health may include family planning," he said. "However, Canada’s contribution will not include funding abortion."

Oda later deliver her statement and answered a few questions at an unscheduled news conference at Halifax’s Pier 21, where the G8 ministers begin meeting today.

The Tories have made maternal and child health a key agenda item for the G8 summit that Canada is hosting in June at Huntsville, Ont.

But several development agencies and key allies like the United States and the United Kingdom have been critical of Canada after a series of conflicting statements that seemed to suggest Ottawa wouldn’t fund any health project that put money toward family planning, particularly abortion..........
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
Sorry Bear, I'm not about to entertain your dribble and petty insults towards my understanding of the topic at hand any further.
Speaking of dribble...:roll:

You sure will prove me right though...:lol:

In related news:
No way? Seriously?

Ya, we've already established that.

This has nothing to do with abortion rights, it has everything to do with a vote made in Parliament, how aid money is spent and avoiding the optics of eugenics. But I'm sure your awesomeness already knew that...
 
Last edited:

Praxius

Mass'Debater
Dec 18, 2007
10,677
161
63
Halifax, NS & Melbourne, VIC
...This has nothing to do with abortion rights, it has everything to do with a vote made in Parliament, how aid money is spent and avoiding the optics of eugenics. But I'm sure your awesomeness already knew that...

My omnipotence sure did, however, since the topic started off with people commenting on their own interpretations on abortion and rights, I figured they were more relevant to the topic of funding, then bantering on about which political party sucks the most.

But hey, it's not my fault you can't follow along.... not everyone can be as superior as I.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
My omnipotence sure did, however, since the topic started off with people commenting on their own interpretations on abortion and rights, I figured they were more relevant to the topic of funding, then bantering on about which political party sucks the most.
I would agree, but...

But hey, it's not my fault you can't follow along.... not everyone can be as superior as I.
In your quest for superiority, you missed the facts...

And you still have no clue as to what the topic is.

Here's a hint, threads morph.

When you're superiority allows you to be more objective, let me know. Until then, you'll be relegated to the same ranks as SJP.
 
Last edited:

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
I heard from a Conservative backroom no one noticed I was there so google will have to wait

Yeah, right. You call yourself Liberalman and you have access to Conservative back room. I hope you are right (that would be the quickest way for Harper to lose power) but I am afraid you are wrong.
 

Liberalman

Senate Member
Mar 18, 2007
5,623
36
48
Toronto
Yeah, right. You call yourself Liberalman and you have access to Conservative back room. I hope you are right (that would be the quickest way for Harper to lose power) but I am afraid you are wrong

I don't think so.

You assume that the major population centers especially in the eastern Canada are against abortion you assume wrong.

A lot of Liberals don't support abortions this is why we have a minority government.

The problem with the Conservatives is that they abandoned a lot of their promises and are proving that they are just making it up as they go.

If the Conservatives started to push their core values they would be in majority territory.

If they can muzzled their Reform roots and let their other MPs talk from their heart instead of reading off cards Canadians would trust them even more and they would have the majority but they won't just because the PMO doesn't want to give up their zombie army MPs.
 

Praxius

Mass'Debater
Dec 18, 2007
10,677
161
63
Halifax, NS & Melbourne, VIC
..... Here's a hint, threads morph.

When you're superiority allows you to be more objective, let me know. Until then, you'll be relegated to the same ranks as SJP.

I know threads morph, which is why I posted "Oh wonderful, I come back into this thread only to see more Conservative/Liberal sh*t flinging." - ie: it morphed since last time I looked into it.

It was an accurate observation to what was going on up to the point I posted. I didn't demand people to talk about what I wanted to talk about, but I wanted to go back to what a few others said in the thread in relation to abortion, I figured I'd present some questions and concepts to "Morph" the thread somewhat back towards the original topic and what members started off talking about in the first couple of posts..... If you and others wish to keep doing the political flamingo dance with one another, all the power to you, but as I said already, I'm personally not interested in any of it, since I feel both Libs and Cons are incompetent and everything already said above on this page has been said countless times before in other threads in regards to Libs and Cons.

Objectivity has nothing really to do with it, since "objectivity can refer to fairness, disinterestedness, factuality, and nonpartisanship, but most often encompasses all of these qualities." ~ I believe my "disinterestedness" in discussing which political part is more crappier then the other falls in line with Objectivity and what I have been saying thus far. ;-)
 

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
That's a political trademark you hack.

The fact that you can't grasp that, only confirms your partisanship clouds you judgment and ability to reason clearly. I can think of at least a dozen commercials that were borderline slander, produced by the LPoC in the last 10 years.

So you never did answer, why do you not like democracy Liberaldud? I mean seriously, a vote was made in Parliament, in which several Liberals voted to pass this legislation of the funding. Are they Cons too?

Seriously, what's your problem with democracy?

Oh, and just in case you forgot, here's 200 reasons that the Liberal party is morally bankrupt and unethical. I'm still waiting for your list of comparable atrocities committed by the Conservatives.

1. Cancelling the Sea King replacement
2. Sponsorship scandal
3. Gun Registry

198. Questions about Squamish land deal lease (The Province, October 26, 2005)
199. Liberals handling of tainted water at Kashechewan First Nation
Needs updating, Bear. There are more than 205 now I think. lol
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
I know threads morph, which is why I posted "Oh wonderful, I come back into this thread only to see more Conservative/Liberal sh*t flinging." - ie: it morphed since last time I looked into it.

It was an accurate observation to what was going on up to the point I posted.
No it wasn't. There wasn't a single Conservative posting in the thread.

I didn't demand people to talk about what I wanted to talk about, but I wanted to go back to what a few others said in the thread in relation to abortion, I figured I'd present some questions and concepts to "Morph" the thread somewhat back towards the original topic and what members started off talking about in the first couple of posts.....
By labeling people incorrectly and trying to shame them or coerce them into doing what you want? Hmmm, interesting form of control.

If you and others wish to keep doing the political flamingo dance with one another, all the power to you, but as I said already, I'm personally not interested in any of it, since I feel both Libs and Cons are incompetent and everything already said above on this page has been said countless times before in other threads in regards to Libs and Cons.
Funny, that's exactly why I combat the typical Liberal rhetoric with fact.

Objectivity has nothing really to do with it, since "objectivity can refer to fairness, disinterestedness, factuality, and nonpartisanship, but most often encompasses all of these qualities." ~ I believe my "disinterestedness" in discussing which political part is more crappier then the other falls in line with Objectivity and what I have been saying thus far. ;-)
While dismissing fact, replacing it with subjective assumption and simple labeling to achieve your goals.

Ya, that's objective alright...:roll:
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
lmao So funding is ok for Canuckville but not anyone else. Yup, it's purely Canadian politics status quo.
I can think of two legitimate reasons why...

1, It smacks of eugenics.
2, It was put to a democratic vote in Parliament, where a minority Gov't could not control the out come of the vote. Thus making the vote, the voice of a good cross section of Canada.

People trying to make this a partisan issue, are plain stupid.
 

Praxius

Mass'Debater
Dec 18, 2007
10,677
161
63
Halifax, NS & Melbourne, VIC
No it wasn't. There wasn't a single Conservative posting in the thread.

I said Con/Lib Sh*t flinging.... I never said anything about which political supporters are posting what. Someone posted comments that trashed the Cons... the you posted comments that trash the Libs.... which falls in line with my observations.

By labeling people incorrectly and trying to shame them or coerce them into doing what you want? Hmmm, interesting form of control.

Who said anything about "Control?" Now you're just taking more out of what was actually said and making it up as you go.

I didn't label anybody anything, I identified who posted what... I then tossed in some questions and comments.... you and everybody else are free to respond to them or don't. I don't have a gun to your head telling you what to do.

Now who's the one not properly following along?

Funny, that's exactly why I combat the typical Liberal rhetoric with fact.

Actually, all you did was add more fuel to the fire, entertained their bait and allowed it to continue on.... once again, just an observation.

While dismissing fact, replacing it with subjective assumption and simple labeling to achieve your goals.

Ya, that's objective alright...:roll:

More baseless claims..... I didn't pick sides with either the Libs or Cons in the above discussion and I don't personally care for either and their long lists of incompetence don't really matter when it comes to either funding abortions in the original topic, or the secondary topic of rights to a fetus, etc.

Regardless of one's political affiliations or whatever leading party's position is/was.... I was curious on knowing people's personal views on the questions I presented.... the people being members in these forums who are interested in responding. You obviously don't want to respond to those questions presented, so it's time to move on.... unless you wish to further discuss your inability to understand was has already been said. :p
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
I said Con/Lib Sh*t flinging.... I never said anything about which political supporters are posting what. Someone posted comments that trashed the Cons... the you posted comments that trash the Libs.... which falls in line with my observations.
Completely false, you just pulled that out of your ass, instead of just saying sorry and moving on.

Who said anything about "Control?" Now you're just taking more out of what was actually said and making it up as you go.
Not at all. You didn't like the way the tread was going and you want to control that, you used a method of coercion to do so.

I didn't label anybody anything, I identified who posted what...
Bingo! That's right, you "I identified who posted what", and you identified several people who aren't affiliated with the Conservative platform, as Conservative in so doing. I'm glad you see the light now.

I then tossed in some questions and comments.... you and everybody else are free to respond to them or don't. I don't have a gun to your head telling you what to do.
I did respond, but this line of conversation seems to be more important to you now.
Now who's the one not properly following along?
Still you apparently.

Actually, all you did was add more fuel to the fire, entertained their bait and allowed it to continue on.... once again, just an observation.
I can see how you would come to that assumption, but then again, you really don't know me, so you really have no idea why I do anything. But that certainly hasn't stopped you from involving me in your homoerotic fantasies.

More baseless claims.....
Not really. Would you like me to quote your posts in which you falsely label non affiliated members and try and coerce the conversation back to something you wanted?

I didn't pick sides with either the Libs or Cons in the above discussion and I don't personally care for either and their long lists of incompetence don't really matter when it comes to either funding abortions in the original topic, or the secondary topic of rights to a fetus, etc.
I disagree, I never said you picked sides. I also disagree with your assertion that lists of incompetence is irrelevant to the conversation. It very much is relevant, especially if those incompetent folk are condemning someone. Besides that, I followed your lead and tried to discuss the removal of funding foreign abortions, but you seem to prefer this topic.

You obviously don't want to respond to those questions presented, so it's time to move on.... unless you wish to further discuss your inability to understand was has already been said. :p
Sure, if you really want to be embarrassed continuously, I'm game if you are.

I looked for relevant questions in your posts, I have yet to see any. I did see two question marks. 1 was at the end of a statement, the other seemed to be in relation to something Liberldud made up to throw out more Liberal spin about Conservatives. But I'm sure you missed that in your attempt to be objective...;-)
 
Last edited:

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
lmao So funding is ok for Canuckville but not anyone else. Yup, it's purely Canadian politics status quo.
Anna G
I pose a question for you -

A perfectly healthy mother with a healthy baby - no genetic defects etc -
No medical condidtions threatening her life -a peffectly healthy baby -
27 weeks pregnant - goes to an abortion clinic and requests an aborion.

Because -" she does not want to bear a child."

What is your opinion?
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
548
113
Vernon, B.C.
Anna G
I pose a question for you -

A perfectly healthy mother with a healthy baby - no genetic defects etc -
No medical condidtions threatening her life -a peffectly healthy baby -
27 weeks pregnant - goes to an abortion clinic and requests an aborion.

Because -" she does not want to bear a child."

What is your opinion?

It's criminal.
 

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
Anna G
I pose a question for you -

A perfectly healthy mother with a healthy baby - no genetic defects etc -
No medical condidtions threatening her life -a peffectly healthy baby -
27 weeks pregnant - goes to an abortion clinic and requests an aborion.

Because -" she does not want to bear a child."

What is your opinion?

And at which abortion clinic in Canada does it happen, Goober? That is a red herring brought up by prolifers. In Canada, it is impossible to get late term abortion, without a risk to the life or health of the mother.

Abortion situation is working quite well in Canada. While Harper may become more popular in Alberta if he tries to ban abortion (as if he needs more popularity in Alberta), it would be committing political suicide in Ontario and Quebec (and perhaps even BC).
 

Kreskin

Doctor of Thinkology
Feb 23, 2006
21,155
149
63
And at which abortion clinic in Canada does it happen, Goober? That is a red herring brought up by prolifers. In Canada, it is impossible to get late term abortion, without a risk to the life or health of the mother.

Abortion situation is working quite well in Canada. While Harper may become more popular in Alberta if he tries to ban abortion (as if he needs more popularity in Alberta), it would be committing political suicide in Ontario and Quebec (and perhaps even BC).

You're right, on all accounts here. The 27-week abortion for no reason is as elusive as Sasquatch. The conservatives have a bunch of hypothetical arguments that don't reflect reality.