Refuse to choose® women deserve better® than abortion
- Thread starter bluedog
- Start date
Anna, I got this from your weblink.
Governments can also make changes to the Charter to add to, or subtract from, the rights that it contains. However, this is very difficult. To make a change to the Charter, the federal Parliament and seven of the 10 provincial legislatures must agree to it. The population of those seven provinces must also make up at least 50 per cent of the total population of Canada. The Charter has been amended only twice since 1982.
This is not quite correct. Some aspects can be amended by the formula (7 provinces, 50% of population). However, to change anything to do with basic rights, it needs to be approved by Federal government and ALL the provinces.
You may remember, Meech Lake accord was approved by federal government and all the provinces except Newfoundland and Manitoba. Yet Meech Lake Accord failed.
The website doesn’t say what exactly the amendments were (though I am surprised that it has been amended twice). They probably were minor adjustments which only needed 50% population and seven provinces. But to make any really important change, approval from federal government and all the provinces are needed.
Governments can also make changes to the Charter to add to, or subtract from, the rights that it contains. However, this is very difficult. To make a change to the Charter, the federal Parliament and seven of the 10 provincial legislatures must agree to it. The population of those seven provinces must also make up at least 50 per cent of the total population of Canada. The Charter has been amended only twice since 1982.
This is not quite correct. Some aspects can be amended by the formula (7 provinces, 50% of population). However, to change anything to do with basic rights, it needs to be approved by Federal government and ALL the provinces.
You may remember, Meech Lake accord was approved by federal government and all the provinces except Newfoundland and Manitoba. Yet Meech Lake Accord failed.
The website doesn’t say what exactly the amendments were (though I am surprised that it has been amended twice). They probably were minor adjustments which only needed 50% population and seven provinces. But to make any really important change, approval from federal government and all the provinces are needed.
What the amendments were doesn't matter. It can be changed and it has been changed. There is nothing that says it won't be changed in the future.
At any rate, this is all just good fun and good chatter. Women have the choice now and some use it even if most that use it are actually abusing it.
What the amendments were doesn't matter. It can be changed and it has been changed. There is nothing that says it won't be changed in the future.
It can be changed, Anna, but it is difficult. And it does matter what the amendments were about. If they war about some minor, procedural matter, I am not sure that that is significant.
In fact, that is where Senate reform is stuck. Any significant Senate reform will need a constitutional amendment, and there is no chance of that happening.
The Charter is very difficult to change. And the website you have given does not tell the full story. This is what Wikipedia says about it:
There are some parts of the Constitution that can only be modified by a unanimous vote of all the provinces plus the two Houses of Parliament, however.
These are parts to do with human rights, basic rights etc. To my knowledge, these parts have never been amended and I don’t see them being amended.
I stand by my statement that Charter has never been amended. What the website probably means is that the constitution has been amended (perhaps by 7/50 formula, or it may have been amended concerning a particular province, in which case the approval of federal government and the province concerned only is required).
Anyway, I have to leave now, I will explore this a bit later on.
It can be changed, Anna, but it is difficult. And it does matter what the amendments were about. If they war about some minor, procedural matter, I am not sure that that is significant.
In fact, that is where Senate reform is stuck. Any significant Senate reform will need a constitutional amendment, and there is no chance of that happening.
The Charter is very difficult to change. And the website you have given does not tell the full story. This is what Wikipedia says about it:
There are some parts of the Constitution that can only be modified by a unanimous vote of all the provinces plus the two Houses of Parliament, however.
These are parts to do with human rights, basic rights etc. To my knowledge, these parts have never been amended and I don’t see them being amended.
I stand by my statement that Charter has never been amended. What the website probably means is that the constitution has been amended (perhaps by 7/50 formula, or it may have been amended concerning a particular province, in which case the approval of federal government and the province concerned only is required).
Anyway, I have to leave now, I will explore this a bit later on.
***********************************************
We don't mourn dead sperm dude, it falls on the ground every day!
No we mourn the potential of EVERY living human- whether a zygote, a fetus, an infant, a toddler, a young child, a child, a preteen, a teen, a young adult, an adult, a mature human being, an older person, a critically ill person, or a person who has just been administered last rites, ---atheist or not! All life has value, All human life, in EVERY stage of life has more value. It has more valuable period!!! ALL other forms of life were put here- but FOR us- ...to be "caretakers of".
Peace Out:fish:
***********************************************
Notice only one of the pro-choice side of the podium addressed the givpeaceachance personal narrative? Hmmmm... their science and law diatribes do not evoke any of those feelings of the pain she shared, or assign any value to hers. Hmmmm...
No values again, seems to be a pattern here?:fish:
gpc's narrative only showed 3 very selfish people and the choices they made. 2 murderers and one attempted murderer.
With one that didn't deserve to have kids period after 3 abortions.
It doesn't matter what they were because this is a different matter.
I am sure you'd love to come back with all sorts of things to sidetrack the thread topic.
But it stands. Either the Charter can and has been amended or it can't. It can and has been so I don't care if you still say it has never been amended. You are simply wrong.
Anyway, as it stands today:
women have the right to abort. The child has no rights until he or she emerges from the mother. The politics and the law have wrangled this because they don't want to make a decision about whether a child inside the womb is a person or not. I think they also fear that if they restrict abortions to simply medical reasons as they used to be, or possibly add the idea of rape to it, then people will be seeking illegal abortions again or going somewhere where abortion is legal, which leads to a whole different set of problems. They are simply stonewalling.
Personally I like the idea of coverage for abortions if they are medically necessary. Adoption for the babies that are born as a result of rape (really rare), and if people want abortion for some other reason, they can pay. It's the only thing that makes sense to me that covers all the bases at least partially. The alternatives are covering part of the bases or none at all.
To me it is just as stupid to deny a woman's right to have a say over her own body as it is to deny a baby the right to life, limb and security. But that's the way it sits, ATM.
As the Chief Justice at the time said, "Forcing a woman by threat of criminal sanction to carry a foetus to term unless she meets certain criteria unrelated to her own priorities and aspirations, is a profound interference with a woman's body and this a violation of her security of the person."
One important principle of our health care system, according the the Canada Health Act, is it is to be barrier free healthcare, including financial barriers. By charging some and not others, especially doing so for subjective values and for the exact same health condition, raises a different set of issues and potential problems.
Anna, I looked into it and I was right. The two amendments do not affect the Charter. One was to do with New Brunswick, and it concerned New Brunswick only.
Constitution Amendment Proclamation, 1993 (New Brunswick Act)
The other was put in there at the inception of the Charter. It said that the equality section (section 15) will not come into force until three years after section 32 (which made the Charter applicable to Parliament and provinces).
Since the Charter (and Section 32) came into forced in 1982, the equality provision of the Charter did not come into force until 1985.
So the Charter was not amended in either of the cases, and I was right in saying that Charter has never been amended (though the constitution has been amended with respect to New Brunswick, it made the province officially bilingual).
Constitution Amendment Proclamation, 1993 (New Brunswick Act)
There have been a few other minor amendments, you can see them in full at the following website:
The Constitution Act, 1982
But as I said, nothing to do with the Charter, with the basic rights.
Incidentally the website you gave was wrong in several aspects. One, it confused the Charter with the Constitution in general. The constitution has been amended, not the Charter of basic rights and freedoms.
Also, the constitution has been amended several times, not just twice (and al those amendments have been minor, or concerned only one province).
But the Charter has never been amended.
Constitution Amendment Proclamation, 1993 (New Brunswick Act)
The other was put in there at the inception of the Charter. It said that the equality section (section 15) will not come into force until three years after section 32 (which made the Charter applicable to Parliament and provinces).
Since the Charter (and Section 32) came into forced in 1982, the equality provision of the Charter did not come into force until 1985.
So the Charter was not amended in either of the cases, and I was right in saying that Charter has never been amended (though the constitution has been amended with respect to New Brunswick, it made the province officially bilingual).
Constitution Amendment Proclamation, 1993 (New Brunswick Act)
There have been a few other minor amendments, you can see them in full at the following website:
The Constitution Act, 1982
But as I said, nothing to do with the Charter, with the basic rights.
Incidentally the website you gave was wrong in several aspects. One, it confused the Charter with the Constitution in general. The constitution has been amended, not the Charter of basic rights and freedoms.
Also, the constitution has been amended several times, not just twice (and al those amendments have been minor, or concerned only one province).
But the Charter has never been amended.
That is only your opinion, bluedog, that zygote and fetus are human beings. As I said before, that is a religious belief, not a scientific consensus.
Maybe, but whether evolved here or created here, we have no idea how to look after it. We can't even do a decent job of looking after ourselves.
Sorry, but the website I gave was the Gov't of Canada website. IF it is wrong, tell them about it. Man makes something, so man can change it given the urge or need to change it.
You'd better let those bureaucrats at Ottawa know they have a mistake in their website then. That is who published the link I gave.
Either way, humans create and humans can take apart what they create, laws or not. It's been done zillions of times all over the planet. Court decisions have been upended, medical assessments have been tossed into the trash, the ALRs in BC keep being whittled away, marriages with vows are dissolved, governments have fallen, etc.
Anyway, saying that a child isn't human until its out of the womb is simply foolishness. The only reason for the legal mumbo jumbo is, as I said, because the fools in power don't have a clue what to do if both mother and child have equal rights to life so they stonewall and leave it up to science to make their decision for them. Science, in the meantime, continues to hash it out, so the decision sits in limbo. Effectively, however, the child is human before it is born even if people are too dense to realize it or too cowardly to admit it..