JustinTrudeau says abortion rights are guaranteed by the Charter — he's dead wrong

[petros]

Ooooooo. Weird eh?

 

[Colpy]

Hey you stole that . thats my line in this mornings Ontario election thread

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

SO I DO HIT A FEW BUTTONS NOW AND THEN EH.

Didn't read it. Not much interested in Ontario.....either they kick out Wynn or they deserve the disaster they get........

 

[Count_Lothian]

Justin would have to look up the word "strategy" in a dictionary.

The idiot just drove a significant number of moderate Liberals into the arms of the Conservative Party.

Wishful thinking . A moderate Liberal will go NDP rather than vote for the fascist.

 

[Colpy]

Wishful thinking . A moderate Liberal will go NDP rather than vote for the fascist.

Sigh.

Another ****ing moron that wouldn't know the difference between a fascist and a duck.

Read a little history, a little political science, learn something Grasshopper.....all you do spouting off the Progressive Insult of the Day is make yourself appear even more a fool.

 

[petros]

Didn't read it. Not much interested in Ontario.....either they kick out Wynn or they deserve the disaster they get........

Kick out the whole lot of them and start from scratch.

Maybe Western ON (It's not really northern) should seperate and enjoy the wealth beneath their feet?

It would benefit the entire nation as a whole.

 

[Count_Lothian]

Sigh.

Another ****ing moron that wouldn't know the difference between a fascist and a duck.

Read a little history, a little political science, learn something Grasshopper.....all you do spouting off the Progressive Insult of the Day is make yourself appear even more a fool.

Why thank you Colpy, it does my heart good to know how far above you I truly am.

You, the idiot that gives money to politicians is having a go at me?
Enjoy your little membership card and emails.

"morons ".

Kick out the whole lot of them and start from scratch.

Maybe Western ON (It's not really northern) should seperate and enjoy the wealth beneath their feet?

It would benefit the entire nation as a whole.

Yo Petros iksnay on seperationnay if you catch my drift.

 

[JLM]

The Charter, useless as it is, says "EVERYONE has a right to life, liberty and security of the person"......which leads to the question of when exactly does life begin???

The extremist view is that life begins at conception, or that life begins when the baby emerges at birth.

The moderate position is somewhere in between.........

I believe life is there right from the getgo- something that is alive was NEVER dead!

 

[DaSleeper]

Kick out the whole lot of them and start from scratch.

Maybe Western ON (It's not really northern) should seperate and enjoy the wealth beneath their feet?

It would benefit the entire nation as a whole.

I did invite Lone Wolf to Join me in the "Northern Ontario Heritage Party" to go kick but in Toronto

 

[taxslave]

All I can see in this is someone atempting to create a generation of work for lawyers since the native rights industry is winding down. the way the law is right now is just fine.

 

[Corduroy]

Even the blue meanies don't want to open the topic.
The law was struck down by the supreme court so there is no law against abortion and no law allowing it either.

The Conservatives would open the topic if it could win them elections, but it usually hurts Conservatives. Maybe Trudeau is banking on that fact. I don't see it getting much traction. I think the electorate is tired of hearing about it, no matter who brings it up.

The whole debate of abortion rings the same as the American's rights to bear arms..... They have the right as many argue, and by putting any restrictions on that right infringes upon it.

The difference being the US second amendment is unequivocal. The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. The Charter, on the other hand, is dithering. All rights and freedoms are guaranteed within "reasonable* limits".

*reason to be determined as politically expedient

 

[Count_Lothian]

The difference being the US second amendment is unequivocal. The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. The Charter, on the other hand, is dithering. All rights and freedoms are guaranteed within "reasonable* limits".

*reason to be determined as politically expedient

Nice Catch!
I learned something today.

 

[Colpy]

Why thank you Colpy, it does my heart good to know how far above you I truly am.

You, the idiot that gives money to politicians is having a go at me?
Enjoy your little membership card and emails.

"morons ".


Yo Petros iksnay on seperationnay if you catch my drift.

Sonny, having "a go" at you would be a complete waste of time, as you are so ****ing stupid you think Harper is a fascist, Justin is anything but a fraud, and being politically involved is somehow suspicious. That means you know nothing of history or political philosophy, and have a complete lack of "common" sense.

I've met dogs with more intellectual acuity than you.

 

[Praxius]

The Charter, useless as it is, says "EVERYONE has a right to life, liberty and security of the person"......which leads to the question of when exactly does life begin???

The extremist view is that life begins at conception, or that life begins when the baby emerges at birth.

The moderate position is somewhere in between.........

The problem is, which is something I know we and others have run around in circles on before, is that you obtain your human rights the moment you are born and take your first breath.

Even if one wants to think life begins somewhere in the middle, not only is it a cloudy area to redefine such a thing, but even if one could "properly" define life being started earlier than birth and your first breath, you still can not infringe on the host mother's own rights already protected under the Charter. You can't simply give someone those rights when they were born and then later down the road take them away or otherwise infringe upon them because they became pregnant and now someone else's rights are more important, even though that hypothetical "someone else" is half your own DNA, most of your own body's resources and is using your own body's resources to survive, therefore, not technically close to being equal as a human being, simply because it isn't.

One extreme is that life begins at conception, and at that very moment, that fertilized egg is already the equivilant to a living, breathing, self aware human being and must be protected at all costs.

And yet, others want to argue that life begins at some specific stage in development where brain activity can be detected, yet that is not absolute proof of being self aware and can be the typical development process of the brain for when it is born, much like how the lungs contract and "breathe" in and out fluid..... It's a part of how it grows, develops, tests and learns how to use those things via future instincts.

All the while people argue these things, they continue to forget the current definitions that are used, which is that life begins at birth, when you take your first breath and can prove not just viable and alive, but self aware (or consciousness if one prefers)

A lot of things can happen between conception and birth that can complicate the pregnancy and therefore although technically along the road a fetus can be "viable" that still doesn't mean it will survive pregnancy and make it to birth. There are a lot of pregnancies that don't make it that far, with or without abortions.

Yet some people want to think every fetus is a potential human being and thus, must be protected in every way possible.

Well why not go further and say every egg in a woman's ovaries is a potential human being and all of her eggs must be protected, thereby the woman must give birth to them all or save the rest she doesn't use for others who can't get pregnant?

How about the sperm from men? Is anybody even aware of the monstrous mass genocide of humanity that occurs every 2 seconds around the world from men ejaculating?

Let's go even further.... Maybe me thinking of having another child is the first step in the creation of life and the moment I think I want a child, by law, i must carry through and have it.

Yes, now it's just getting silly, I agree.

But that's the problem with trying to change human rights and the definition of life based on assumptions and unproven "science" rather than basing it all on the facts and what is currently known.

My basic human rights and protection under the Charter were given to me the moment I was born and the doctor slapped my *** & my face just to be sure.

If my mother decided before that time to get rid of me, I wouldn't care because I wouldn't have even known i existed in the first place... And being her body, that was her right to choose, not mine.

and because of that, here i am.

finally, there's the thing: "The Choice"

It almost seems like Pro-Life supporters think of "Choice" automatically meaning someone will abort a pregnancy right off the get go and there's some revolving door of women getting fetuses sucked down a drain 24/7.

Choice means Choice.

I consider myself Pro-Choice. If I was a female and I was pregnant, I'm 98.5% sure I would carry through a pregnancy to term unless there was some critical reason not to.

But again, that's my "Choice"

Others would probably choose to never have an abortion in their life, and that's their choice.

But whatever my personal "Choices" are in life and regardless if someone else chooses to never have an abortion for whatever reason, they, I, nor anyone else should infringe on someone else being able to make the "Choice" that suits their circumstances in life, be that on health, religious or some other grounds, it's their "Choice" to make because it's their body, health and self determination that is on the line.

You missed this part of the ruling, conveniently.

But in the same breath, the Chief Justice declared that “protection of foetal interests by Parliament is also a valid governmental objective.” Justice Jean Beetz added that “the protection of the foetus … relate to concerns which are pressing and substantial in a free and democratic society and which, pursuant to s. 1 of the Charter, justify reasonable limits to be put on a woman’s right.” Justice Bertha Wilson (Canada’s first female Supreme Court Justice) wrote: “The precise point in the development of the foetus at which the state’s interest in its protection becomes ‘compelling’ I leave to the informed judgment of the legislature … It seems to me, however, that it might fall somewhere in the second trimester.” All four Morgentaler opinions — including the three written for the 5-2 majority — plainly indicated that the government has a role in limiting the practice of abortion.

I didn't miss it. I read it in detail and is what i was responding to when I said:

And then they add a "but" at the end. There are no "Buts."

The above you think I ignored is the "but"

I then said:

Instead they use this whole time to attempt to spread emotional arguments and dig up any old line they can find that might give them some sort of credibility.

Again, if that bolded section was indeed any relevant reason to infringe upon a woman's right of self determination and such, then something would have been changed by now. Some pro-life person would have challenged the courts by now and have made their case to finalize this once and for all.

Either that or some trailblazer politician would have struck it up years ago and have made a sound, logical and compelling case to change things.

But nobody has yet because nobody has a compelling case yet other than a bunch of scientific hypotheticals, assumptions, interpreted religious doctrine and emotional appeals.... Nothing stating for a "Fact" that a fetus is self aware / conscious prior to birth and is equal to a living, breathing human being that is no longer dependent on its host mother's bloodstream and other interal resources to maintain it's current existence beyond the traits of a parasite.

hate to be blunt, but there ya go.

 

[Colpy]

The problem is, which is something I know we and others have run around in circles on before, is that you obtain your human rights the moment you are born and take your first breath.

Even if one wants to think life begins somewhere in the middle, not only is it a cloudy area to redefine such a thing, but even if one could "properly" define life being started earlier than birth and your first breath, you still can not infringe on the host mother's own rights already protected under the Charter. You can't simply give someone those rights when they were born and then later down the road take them away or otherwise infringe upon them because they became pregnant and now someone else's rights are more important, even though that hypothetical "someone else" is half your own DNA, most of your own body's resources and is using your own body's resources to survive, therefore, not technically close to being equal as a human being, simply because it isn't.

One extreme is that life begins at conception, and at that very moment, that fertilized egg is already the equivilant to a living, breathing, self aware human being and must be protected at all costs.

And yet, others want to argue that life begins at some specific stage in development where brain activity can be detected, yet that is not absolute proof of being self aware and can be the typical development process of the brain for when it is born, much like how the lungs contract and "breath" in and out fluid..... It's a part of how it grows, develops, tests and learns how to use those things via future instincts.

All the while people argue these things, they continue to forget the current definitions that are used, which is that life begins at birth, when you take your first breath and can prove not just viable and alive, but self aware (or consciousness if one prefers)

A lot of things can happen between conception and birth that can complicate the pregnancy and therefore although technically along the road a fetus can be "viable" that still doesn't mean it will survive pregnancy and make it to birth. There are a lot of pregnancies that don't make it that far, with or without abortions.

Yet some people want to think every fetus is a potential human being and thus, must be protected in every way possible.

Well why not go further and say every egg in a woman's ovaries is a potential human being and all of her eggs must be protected, thereby the woman must give birth to them all or save the rest she doesn't use for others who can get pregnant?

How about the sperm from men? Is anybody even aware of the monstrous mass genocide of humanity that occurs every 2 seconds around the world from men ejaculating?

Let's go even further.... Maybe me thinking of having another child is the first step in the creation of life and the moment I think I want a child, by law, i must carry through and have it.

Yes, now it's just getting silly, I agree.

But that's the problem with trying to change human rights and the definition of life based on assumptions and unproven "science" rather than basing it all on the facts and what is currently known.

My basic human rights and protection under the Charter were given to me the moment I was born and the doctor slapped my *** & my face just to be sure.

If my mother decided before that time to get rid of me, I wouldn't care because I wouldn't have even known i existed in the first place... And being her body, that was her right to choose, not mine.

and because of that, here i am.

finally, there's the thing: "The Choice"

It almost seems like Pro-Life supporters think of "Choice" automatically meaning someone will abort a pregnancy right off the get go and there's some revolving door of women getting fetuses sucked down a drain 24/7.

Choice means Choice.

I consider myself Pro-Choice. If I was a female and I was pregnant, I'm 98.5% sure I would carry through a pregnancy to term unless there was some critical reason not to.

But again, that's my "Choice"

Others would probably choose to never have an abortion in their life, and that's their choice.

But whatever my personal "Choices" are in life and regardless if someone else chooses to never have an abortion for whatever reason, they, I, nor anyone else should infringe on someone else being able to make the "Choice" that suits their circumstances in life, be that on health, religious or some other grounds, it's their "Choice" to make because it's their body, health and self determination that is on the line.

The flaws in your argument are as follows:

1. The SCOC has NOT ruled that abortion is the right of the mother. Full stop. No wishful interpretation of their ruling can change that, especially as the rulings expressly invited Parliament to create a new abortion law. Unfortunately, no Canadian political party has the cojones to make that move.

2. The position that life begins at birth allows the destruction of a viable human being just minutes before they emerge.....that is, to most of us, something horrific.

3. Most Canadians agree that abortion requires some regulation.

4. I already listed the view that life begins at conception as an "extremist" view, not one that should taken seriously.....

I hate this argument, as it is so completely divisive, so many passionately take one or the other of the extremist positions, and there is no way to square the beliefs of either side.

So on and on and on it goes.

 

[Praxius]

The flaws in your argument are as follows:

1. The SCOC has NOT ruled that abortion is the right of the mother. Full stop. No wishful interpretation of their ruling can change that, especially as the rulings expressly invited Parliament to create a new abortion law. Unfortunately, no Canadian political party has the cojones to make that move.

Then the Courts should have decided it instead as passing the buck to the politicians isn't working.

. The position that life begins at birth allows the destruction of a viable human being just minutes before they emerge.....that is, to most of us, something horrific.

Again, an emotional argument, thus irrelevant. I agree and personally speaking, it would be horrific, but objectively speaking, that argument has no place in law at this time.

3. Most Canadians agree that abortion requires some regulation.

Again, how does one do that without infringing on a person's right of self determination?

. I already listed the view that life begins at conception as an "extremist" view, not one that should taken seriously.....

Unfortunately, all views in this subject are extreme as one decision favors the woman's rights at the risk of the fetus and any other decision does the opposite whereby it favors the protection of the fetus while compromising the physical and mental wellbeing of the woman, plus her rights.

I hate this argument, as it is so completely divisive, so many passionately take one or the other of the extremist positions, and there is no way to square the beliefs of either side.

So on and on and on it goes.

lol, I completely agree... One thing we both can agree on.

 

[gerryh]

Then the Courts should have decided it instead as passing the buck to the politicians isn't working.

The "courts" don't make law, nor should they be allowed to. This one line shows your ignorance in a nut shell.

 

[coldstream]

Justin is such a loser.

Any culture that sacrifices its own children to some corrupt ideological proposition.. is a culture without a future. We've become a civilization that is based on blood sacrifice.. and like the Aztecs and will become a hollow shell, unsustainable and ripe for conquest.

 

[gerryh]

I didn't miss it. I read it in detail and is what i was responding to when I said:



The above you think I ignored is the "but"

I then said:


Again, if that bolded section was indeed any relevant reason to infringe upon a woman's right of self determination and such, then something would have been changed by now. Some pro-life person would have challenged the courts by now and have made their case to finalize this once and for all.

Either that or some trailblazer politician would have struck it up years ago and have made a sound, logical and compelling case to change things.

But nobody has yet because nobody has a compelling case yet other than a bunch of scientific hypotheticals, assumptions, interpreted religious doctrine and emotional appeals.... Nothing stating for a "Fact" that a fetus is self aware / conscious prior to birth and is equal to a living, breathing human being that is no longer dependent on its host mother's bloodstream and other interal resources to maintain it's current existence beyond the traits of a parasite.

hate to be blunt, but there ya go.

You dismissing half the SCC's rulling with a "but" and grabbing onto the other half as if it had come down from on high shows YOUR bias. The SCC only hears challenges of existing laws. Therefore no "prolifer" could go to the courts and challenge a law that does not exist. Again, your ignorance is being shouted from the mountain peaks.

As Colpy has already pointed out, we have not had a politician, and it is more like a group of politicians, with the cojones to introduce the legislation and then have it passed into law.

As for your "facts", if there are no "facts" supporting the "prolife" position on when "life" begins, then there is also no support for the abortionists view.

As for me, I have no problem being blunt.

 

[petros]

I has only been decriminalized. How does decriminalization amount to a right?

 

[JLM]

Justin is such a loser.

Yeah, the acorn doesn't fall far from the tree!-