Trudeau’s abortion move guarantees renewed debate within Conservative party
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
Prolifers are speciesist.
Speciesism
Abortion supporters like Peter Singer classify a view that places a higher value on human life as opposed to animal life as "speciesist," because, he argues, that it unfairly discriminates against non-human persons.
He writes:
...those I would call ‘speciesists’ give greater weight to the interests of members of their own species when there is a clash between their interests and the interests of those of other species.
***
To give preference to the life of a being simply because it is a member of our species would put us in the same position as racists who give preference to those who are members of their race.1
Of course, the problem with racism is that it discriminates against one human compared to another based on skin colour, an arbitrary trait. But Singer’s point is that discriminating against non-humans is just as arbitrary.
Singer takes his argument further, however. He states that individuals should be valued not by their existence, but instead by their function. That is why he is willing to concede that the pre-born are biological human beings but not persons. He says,
The fetus, the grossly retarded ‘human vegetable’, even the newborn infant—all are indisputably members of the species homo sapiens, but none are self-aware, have a sense of future, or the capacity to relate to others.
Pro-lifers then, according to Singer, are speciesist because they fight for the right to life for human ‘non-persons’ but not for animals that ‘are’ persons.
Speciesism
Speciesism
Abortion supporters like Peter Singer classify a view that places a higher value on human life as opposed to animal life as "speciesist," because, he argues, that it unfairly discriminates against non-human persons.
He writes:
...those I would call ‘speciesists’ give greater weight to the interests of members of their own species when there is a clash between their interests and the interests of those of other species.
***
To give preference to the life of a being simply because it is a member of our species would put us in the same position as racists who give preference to those who are members of their race.1
Of course, the problem with racism is that it discriminates against one human compared to another based on skin colour, an arbitrary trait. But Singer’s point is that discriminating against non-humans is just as arbitrary.
Singer takes his argument further, however. He states that individuals should be valued not by their existence, but instead by their function. That is why he is willing to concede that the pre-born are biological human beings but not persons. He says,
The fetus, the grossly retarded ‘human vegetable’, even the newborn infant—all are indisputably members of the species homo sapiens, but none are self-aware, have a sense of future, or the capacity to relate to others.
Pro-lifers then, according to Singer, are speciesist because they fight for the right to life for human ‘non-persons’ but not for animals that ‘are’ persons.
Speciesism
The Conservative Party has been in the hands of the Old Reform Party since the Shotgun wedding of the PCs and Reform years ago. The Reform Party is NOT a socially conservative party.. it is a Libertarian Party.
Glen Beck is the best articulator of Libertarian philosophy and he knows it is antithetical to social conservatism. He supports homosexual 'marriage', euthenasia and abortion.. because he is against any government control of human behaviour, economic or moral. True conservatism is based on institutional consensus, social cohesion and traditional ethos.
Harper is a Reformer. It was my prediction that the newly minted Conservative Party would tear itself to pieces over its own internal contradictions. Harper has managed to keep it together.. not because he believes in conservatism.. because he know Libertarianism in and of itself will never define and electoral plurality. But sooner or later.. something will bring these divisions to a boil.
Glen Beck is the best articulator of Libertarian philosophy and he knows it is antithetical to social conservatism. He supports homosexual 'marriage', euthenasia and abortion.. because he is against any government control of human behaviour, economic or moral. True conservatism is based on institutional consensus, social cohesion and traditional ethos.
Harper is a Reformer. It was my prediction that the newly minted Conservative Party would tear itself to pieces over its own internal contradictions. Harper has managed to keep it together.. not because he believes in conservatism.. because he know Libertarianism in and of itself will never define and electoral plurality. But sooner or later.. something will bring these divisions to a boil.
Last edited:
I view it as a backup plan. Also beats hell out of 14 year old mothers which in the end cost taxpayers plenty.
This is basically a conservative talking point, and like all good talking points it's the opposite of reality. The Liberals did this to bring up the debate. It's a debate they will most likely win. The Conservatives are the one's that stand to lose the most from this debate and it's evidence in the fact that they expressly avoid it.
This will put pressure on them to take a side.
By keeping debate closed Harper is essentially committing doublespeak on the issue by trapping his own caucus (and their constituents).
****ing right I am "specieist"
Only a complete drooling moron is not.
Dr. Singer qualifies.
Delusional.
Bill Casey, booted from caucus by Harper and his thought police for voting his conscience. The riding association nominated Casey again for the Conservative candidate in Cumberland-Colchester-Musquodoboit, and the party refused the nomination, suspended the association, and parachuted a candidate in- who lost handily to Casey who ran as an independent. I voted for Casey and would have continued to vote for him had he ran again, and if I lived in Bible Hill still.
You were sayin'? You're right, Harper doesn't pretend, he doesn't have to pretend. Maybe that's what you meant?
Here I disagree. This is a debate that is based largely on emotion, and pro-choice individuals will see themselves completely cast off from the Liberal Party of Canada, already excluded from the NDP, and welcome only by the CPC.
The fact that the current Conservative Party has absolutely no intention of bringing the matter forward is largely irrelevant. At least in the CPC, pro-choice individuals feel they can discuss it, even in nomination battles. It is their only possible home.
Will it make a difference?? Not immediately....but over time......
The big tent party always comes out ahead, and Mr. Fluffy just collapsed one end of the tent. Let the NDP and Liberals fight over the pro-abortion people and the other "progressives", while everyone else drifts to the Conservatives.
Four More Years.
Excuse me??
You do know how the Parliamentary system works, don't you??
Bill Casey voted against the BUDGET, a confidence bill. OF COURSE that got him kicked out.
right winged mostly male forum with a lot of older males... not unusual
I don't even comment any more...
sometimes don't even open the thread
Looks like Harper is going to have fun with those hardcore Roman Catholics.
Ottawa bishop calls it's 'scandalous' for Trudeau to practise Catholic faith while being pro-choice
CBCNews.ca Mobile
Ottawa bishop calls it's 'scandalous' for Trudeau to practise Catholic faith while being pro-choice
CBCNews.ca Mobile
In the long run it will put down the debate in the Liberal party, if they even have one. But at the moment it is ignited the debate.
It's relevant if you say the Conservatives are not afraid of debate, which you did. They clearly are afraid of it. They tell candidates to shut the hell up about it.
I excuse you for your brain fart.
So we're clear, you're ok with thought police, so long as it's a confidence vote or some other form of authoritarianism... You do know how the the Parliamentary system works, don't you? How many votes did Harper make confidence votes? Seems like even innocuous votes on minor bills then were grounds for treason in the Conservative party. So the comment about thought police still stands.
What did the riding association do that was against the rules, besides go against Harper's wishes? You do know how political parties in Canada work, right?
Other examples of extinguishing critical thought, Garth Turner. And the subsequent over-ruling of the Halton riding association, when the Conservative party hand picked a candidate to run against Turner...
Trying to paint one part as holier than thou compared to their arch rivals is stupid. They're politicians, don't swallow what they give you Colpy.
lol...pretty much yes... speak to the younger male generation and they have a different perspective and understanding than many of the older men before them, not always right but it is different, and change will come as they see fit
little point in discussing it here, people just get pi ssed off and it gets personal
I do not have enough of an investment in it to take that kind of sh it that gets shoveled... not my calling, the younger generation will have to fight for whatever it is they believe is right
It's interesting.. People put more thought into putting down their dog or cat more than it appears with abortion.
Kinda frightening really
What exactly have 'old men' decided on the abortion file here?.. That either decision goes and there's nothing anyone can do about it?
It's almost like you're acting all victimized