CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 2664
PostPosted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 6:33 pm
 


Quote:
I think Harper and Layton should sit down and smoke a big fat one,Steve needs to lose the sweater and Jack need's to lose the tude.

Then let's keep this country going when the rest of the world is in Chaos.


You forgot Dion snorting in the bathrooms.


Offline
Junior Member
Junior Member
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 36
PostPosted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 7:08 pm
 


Mr_Canada wrote:

sources?


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 21570
PostPosted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 7:38 pm
 


piperalpha wrote:

It is the source. Ipsos is a polling group.


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 2375
PostPosted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 8:56 pm
 


Rev. Blair,

The Conservative Party of Canada is neutral on the issue of abortion, Stephen Harper and the party have pledged to never revive the abortion debate in parliament. Also, all MPs of the Conservative Party of Canada are given a free vote on matters of reasonable abortion restrictions/laws that come to Parliament (such as the Unborn Victims of Crime Act).

Also, may I remind you, if you're going to attack the Conservatives for being 'anti-choice', then I hope you'd recognize the Liberal Party of Canada has issues to.

The Liberal Party of Canada, has the same stances as the Conservative Party on abortion, which is NO STANCE.

There are a caucus of 20 or so Pro Life Liberal MPs in the House of Commons, which isn't surprising considering the great history the Catholic Church has tied to the Liberal Party.

Abortion is here to stay, I'm Pro Life, but I no longer live in that dream world. All I want Parliament to do is put in reasonable restrictions (i.e. late term abortions, partial birth abortion, parental notification for teenagers, etc.), and (yes, this is my rare spend-like-a-liberal part coming out) invest in resources for young mothers, and child care placements, and fixing the social care system, and adoption process.

So that way, the government can encourage (yes, encourage), and make it easier for a woman to CHOOSE to have the child.

I still inherently do not believe a woman should have the choice to terminate a human life, but I am logical enough to realize that issue is a done deal in our society, and the only way I, as a Pro Life individual, can help change things, is advocate reforms that make woman choose not to have an abortion.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 21570
PostPosted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 9:23 pm
 


Very good West, I agree with you.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Toronto Maple Leafs


GROUP_AVATAR

GROUP_AVATAR
Profile
Posts: 20460
PostPosted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 9:41 pm
 


westmanguy wrote:

The Conservative Party of Canada is neutral on the issue of abortion, Stephen Harper and the party have pledged to never revive the abortion debate in parliament. Also, all MPs of the Conservative Party of Canada are given a free vote on matters of reasonable abortion restrictions/laws that come to Parliament (such as the Unborn Victims of Crime Act).


Yes they do. They are just smart enough to know that they won't win an election unless they convince people they won't change it. Its entirely why Flanagan wrote in his book that Canada needs to be "tricked" into electing a true right wing conservative govt to save us from ourselves.

westmanguy wrote:
Also, may I remind you, if you're going to attack the Conservatives for being 'anti-choice', then I hope you'd recognize the Liberal Party of Canada has issues to.

The Liberal Party of Canada, has the same stances as the Conservative Party on abortion, which is NO STANCE.

There are a caucus of 20 or so Pro Life Liberal MPs in the House of Commons, which isn't surprising considering the great history the Catholic Church has tied to the Liberal Party.


Actually they do have a stance. Thats entirely why they did not outlaw it or try to legislate it in anyway. It remained a womens choice and a medical procedure. They did however bring in SSM, another progressive social and contreversial piece of legislation.

westmanguy wrote:
Abortion is here to stay, I'm Pro Life, but I no longer live in that dream world. All I want Parliament to do is put in reasonable restrictions (i.e. late term abortions, partial birth abortion, parental notification for teenagers, etc.), and (yes, this is my rare spend-like-a-liberal part coming out) invest in resources for young mothers, and child care placements, and fixing the social care system, and adoption process.


Wonderful that you feel the govt can dictate social agendas eh?

westmanguy wrote:
So that way, the government can encourage (yes, encourage), and make it easier for a woman to CHOOSE to have the child.


Pro-choice groups do that. They provide all information so that women can make an informed choice that best suits them. Pro-life groups on the other hand lie out of hand to women about everything in order to get them to choose what they want them to.

In the abortion fight its clear who is honest and who isn't and who isn't is your fellow pro-lifers.

Might I also add that your life choice is often fought by the same type of people claiming that your choice leads to death by disease, suicide, or violence not to mention to who BS about burning for eternity.

Don't you think women look at people telling them they can and cannot do with their bodies is any different then people telling you what you can do with yours and who you can marry?

westmanguy wrote:
I still inherently do not believe a woman should have the choice to terminate a human life, but I am logical enough to realize that issue is a done deal in our society, and the only way I, as a Pro Life individual, can help change things, is advocate reforms that make woman choose not to have an abortion.


Other people feel you don't have the right to choose the life you do.

You threaten the liberty of women no matter how you try and phrase it.

BTW, if you are pissed that I am bringing up your life choices then tough. I take a very dim view of people, especially men deciding that they know whats best for women and that they have a right to legislate that belief.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Toronto Maple Leafs


GROUP_AVATAR

GROUP_AVATAR
Profile
Posts: 20460
PostPosted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 9:43 pm
 


Mr_Canada wrote:
Very good West, I agree with you.


You are better then that. read the anti-choice inhis message. women choose what happens to their bodies. Nobody else.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 21570
PostPosted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 9:51 pm
 


DerbyX wrote:
Mr_Canada wrote:
Very good West, I agree with you.


You are better then that. read the anti-choice inhis message. women choose what happens to their bodies. Nobody else.

I know HE is Anti-Choice, but he accepts Pro-Choice as a reality, that's what I agree with.

But I mean, we can agree to a limit, can't we? Aborting 8 months into pregnancy... Can we allow that?

Abortion is a topic that bothers me greatly and I just want to avoid it most of the time. I support it as a personal freedom and choice. But at what point would is become inhumane to allow it?


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Montreal Canadiens
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 11392
PostPosted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 9:59 pm
 


Mr_Canada wrote:
DerbyX wrote:
Mr_Canada wrote:
Very good West, I agree with you.


You are better then that. read the anti-choice inhis message. women choose what happens to their bodies. Nobody else.

I know HE is Anti-Choice, but he accepts Pro-Choice as a reality, that's what I agree with.

But I mean, we can agree to a limit, can't we? Aborting 8 months into pregnancy... Can we allow that?

Abortion is a topic that bothers me greatly and I just want to avoid it most of the time. I support it as a personal freedom and choice. But at what point would is become inhumane to allow it?



I'm curious about where in Canada you think a woman can choose to terminate a third-trimester pregnancy?


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Toronto Maple Leafs


GROUP_AVATAR

GROUP_AVATAR
Profile
Posts: 20460
PostPosted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 9:59 pm
 


Mr_Canada wrote:
DerbyX wrote:
Mr_Canada wrote:
Very good West, I agree with you.


You are better then that. read the anti-choice inhis message. women choose what happens to their bodies. Nobody else.

I know HE is Anti-Choice, but he accepts Pro-Choice as a reality, that's what I agree with.

But I mean, we can agree to a limit, can't we? Aborting 8 months into pregnancy... Can we allow that?

Abortion is a topic that bothers me greatly and I just want to avoid it most of the time. I support it as a personal freedom and choice. But at what point would is become inhumane to allow it?


Read more closely. He accepts it as a reality under current laws but would support his party bringing in legislation to outlaw that choice.

A very fine point that alot of people realize about the conservatives.

BTW, even pro-choice people don't agree with late term abortions unless the womens life is threatened. They agree that women should be allowed to abort upon finding out they have an unwanted pregnancy.

late term crap is just a smoke screen. Women make their choice early for a reason.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 15102
PostPosted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 10:20 pm
 


lily wrote:
Quote:
BTW, even pro-choice people don't agree with late term abortions unless the womens life is threatened. They agree that women should be allowed to abort upon finding out they have an unwanted pregnancy.


Upon finding out they're pregnant... to when? At what point do pro-choice people no longer support the woman's right to choose?

Good question.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Toronto Maple Leafs


GROUP_AVATAR

GROUP_AVATAR
Profile
Posts: 20460
PostPosted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 10:36 pm
 


lily wrote:
Quote:
BTW, even pro-choice people don't agree with late term abortions unless the womens life is threatened. They agree that women should be allowed to abort upon finding out they have an unwanted pregnancy.


Upon finding out they're pregnant... to when? At what point do pro-choice people no longer support the woman's right to choose?


I think all make the choice to abort as early as possible.

The fact is that women can simply choose to abuse their bodies in order to hurt the fetus. Is that legal? Should it be? If we can legislate women being forced to carry a baby to term that logically we should be allowed to legislate what she does during that preganancy under the same "rights for the child" banner. Laws about what they can eat and drink so they can't harm a child no different the laws stopping parents of a born child being prevented from hurting them.

Did you ever think about that?


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Toronto Maple Leafs


GROUP_AVATAR

GROUP_AVATAR
Profile
Posts: 20460
PostPosted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 10:38 pm
 


lily wrote:
DerbyX wrote:
Read more closely. He accepts it as a reality under current laws but would support his party bringing in legislation to outlaw that choice.

A very fine point that alot of people realize about the conservatives.

BTW, even pro-choice people don't agree with late term abortions unless the womens life is threatened. They agree that women should be allowed to abort upon finding out they have an unwanted pregnancy.

late term crap is just a smoke screen. Women make their choice early for a reason.


What he said:

Quote:
Abortion is here to stay, I'm Pro Life, but I no longer live in that dream world. All I want Parliament to do is put in reasonable restrictions (i.e. late term abortions, partial birth abortion, parental notification for teenagers, etc.), and (yes, this is my rare spend-like-a-liberal part coming out) invest in resources for young mothers, and child care placements, and fixing the social care system, and adoption process.


read it again, the whole post. He clearly believes that the govt can and should bring in legislation to prevent women from making that choice.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Toronto Maple Leafs


GROUP_AVATAR

GROUP_AVATAR
Profile
Posts: 20460
PostPosted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 10:56 pm
 


lily wrote:

What I'm thinking is that you didn't answer my question.

And I did reread Westy's post, and I stand by my statement.


What question? Till what point?

As far as medical science can allow a fetus to survive being removed from the body.

Pro-choice groups are often attacked because they urge quick descions when pro-life groups say that women should be forced to think about it until too late.

They counsel quick descions for the very reason you just posted about.

Woman deserve the right to choose for themselves.

Now I'd like you to answer my question:

Should the law be allowed to enact legislation designed to prevent woman from engaging in any act that may harm the child?

How about forcing the women to indulge in activities designed to help the child?

Forced womb readings perhaps?


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Toronto Maple Leafs


GROUP_AVATAR

GROUP_AVATAR
Profile
Posts: 20460
PostPosted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 11:05 pm
 


I want to know where you sit Lily? If you oppose abortion on the grounds of protection of the child then why not enact laws preventing women from engaging in behaviour known to be detrimental to the child?

Seems to me they are one in the same.


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 114 posts ]  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6 ... 8  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.