Discuss, and let's fight... :)

Milo

Well, then you are at odds with the Supreme court and the decision they published when they struck down the laws surrounding abortion in the first place.

The Court SPECIFICALLY UPHELD that the State has a vested interest in safeguarding the Rights of the unborn (the Right to life and security of the person being enshrined in our Charter), and that it was up to Parliament to bring forth legislation that BALANCED the Rights of the Mother with the Rights of the unborn child in her womb.

No Government of any stripe has had the courage to do so, despite the urging of the Court in it's decision. and it doesn't look like the boy wonder is eager to give it a shot, either.

No offense, Mark, but I think that the Justices of the Supreme Court would have a little better understanding on this issue than either of us. If they think that it is a good idea to have reasonable restrictions on abortion, from both a legal and moral standpoint, then I think you have to concede that you might be wrong.

Not that I expect you to . . . that would be wholly inconsistent with your character.

Milo

So lets look at this from another viewpoint . . .

those in favour of reasonable restrictions on access to abortions:

Milo, the Supreme Court of Canada.

those opposed to ANY restrictions whatsoever on abortions:

DrTyore, Justin Trudeau.

If you set aside the two idiots at the beginning of those lists, I am pretty certain which team I'd bet on.

DrTyore

Pretty sure...

If you fill out those lists a bit more, one will have "religious wingnuts" and one will have "people that respect individual's rights to choose how to live their lives and would like to do so without aforementioned religious wingnuts"

Look at this.. I know it's 20 minutes, and I know that's like a 3 day video in internet time, but I've watched it twice, and it's stunningly important for not only this thread, the "prove atheism" thread, and even make some of y'all better poker players.

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDMQ3ywwAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ted.com%2Ftalks%2Fbrene_brown_on_vulnerability&ei=1D6FU4TZB8mNyATYsoCoAw&usg=AFQjCNFQI-PWMmxuPvQj0paL5569jTRwEw&sig2=HHpcWa5tzlcJtEOGqdyvQg

Mark

Milo

Will watch after work, but I am pretty sure the Justices of the SCoC know a thing or two about respecting individual's Rights. The thing is, in this country, it how YOUR Rights get balanced against MY Rights that is the issue. OR, in this case, the woman's Rights v. those of the unborn child.

Unlike you, the SCoC says that the unborn DO have Rights and, seeing as how they are the arbiters of Law in this country, that puts your opinion in the "wrong" camp. You're still entitled to that opinion, but it is still the wrong one.

Love TED talks.

DrTyore

Milo;375549 wrote Unlike you, the SCoC says that the unborn DO have Rights and, seeing as how they are the arbiters of Law in this country, that puts your opinion in the "wrong" camp. You're still entitled to that opinion, but it is still the wrong one.

Love TED talks.

I prefer to think of it as "the forward thinking group of people that just have to wait for the old bigots/misogynists/homophobes/etc. to die off, since almost as a rule, they won't change their ways.

Mark

compuease

DrTyore;375554 wroteI prefer to think of it as "the forward thinking group of people that just have to wait for the old bigots/misogynists/homophobes/etc. to die off, since almost as a rule, they won't change their ways.

Mark

YOU are rapidly approaching that point you know?

In more ways than one..>:D

DrTyore

compuease;375567 wroteYOU are rapidly approaching that point you know?

In more ways than one..>:D

You want a throwdown old man? ;)

Mark

trigs

how about basing our societies on personal politics?

if you're crazy left wing you can live in the city with lots of social services, locally grown food, small close-knit communities, poor and minority voices are represented, etc.

if you're crazy right wing you can live in the city where only the rich can afford social services, processed and modified food is shipped from across the planet, no one gives a shit about you or anyone else, only rich/white people have a say, etc.

sounds like paradise to me.

DrTyore

trigs;375571 wrotehow about basing our societies on personal politics?

if you're crazy left wing you can live in the city with lots of social services, locally grown food, small close-knit communities, poor and minority voices are represented, etc.

if you're crazy right wing you can live in the city where only the rich can afford social services, processed and modified food is shipped from across the planet, no one gives a shit about you or anyone else, only rich/white people have a say, etc.

sounds like paradise to me.

Ya...

And let's not forget that separate water fountains just mean shorter lines for everyone. Just what we all need, another means for people to discriminate and dictate to one another. In general, the righties and the lefties both have contributions... I wish lefties were a little more conservative in some regards such as fiscal planning, and I wish the conservatives would recognize the saving in non-occurrences (i.e. $100k in custody spending "helps" 5 people, $100k in prevention helps 20 - no I did not check the accuracy of these numbers).

Mark

trigs

DrTyore;375574 wroteYa...

And let's not forget that separate water fountains just mean shorter lines for everyone. Just what we all need, another means for people to discriminate and dictate to one another. In general, the righties and the lefties both have contributions... I wish lefties were a little more conservative in some regards such as fiscal planning, and I wish the conservatives would recognize the saving in non-occurrences (i.e. $100k in custody spending "helps" 5 people, $100k in prevention helps 20 - no I did not check the accuracy of these numbers).

Mark

are you suggesting that we don't discriminate along political lines while currently living altogether? at least you'd be living with like-minded people. also, i'm not suggesting that this is a separation by force or something. if you really want to live in the city with opposing views you are allowed to. i don't quite see why you'd want to though.

btw, i'm just be stupid. i don't think this is actually a good idea.

Milo

DrTyore;375554 wroteI prefer to think of it as "the forward thinking group of people that just have to wait for the old bigots/misogynists/homophobes/etc. to die off, since almost as a rule, they won't change their ways.

Mark

It is not a question of "changing their ways" The SCoC does not write the laws, they decide what those statutes mean.

In this case, our Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the Right to life, and security of the person.

The SCoC, in their decision on the Morgentaler case, has stated that the Charter extends that right to the unborn, and that it is up to Parliament to come up with a statute that balances the competing Rights of BOTH the Mother and the unborn child.

I find it ironic that, when they ruled on same sex unions, you were all happy and pleased with their decision, but when pointed in the direction of a decision you personally disagree with, they suddenly are a bunch of, "old bigots/misogynists/homophobes/etc. ".

Funny that.

DrTyore

Milo;375582 wroteIt is not a question of "changing their ways" The SCoC does not write the laws, they decide what those statutes mean.

In this case, our Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the Right to life, and security of the person.

The SCoC, in their decision on the Morgentaler case, has stated that the Charter extends that right to the unborn, and that it is up to Parliament to come up with a statute that balances the competing Rights of BOTH the Mother and the unborn child.

I find it ironic that, when they ruled on same sex unions, you were all happy and pleased with their decision, but when pointed in the direction of a decision you personally disagree with, they suddenly are a bunch of, "old bigots/misogynists/homophobes/etc. ".

Funny that.

You're right.. I can see how this was funny to you

I wasn't clear... I wasn't referring to the SCoC as the old-school people holding us back, sure there are probably some in there but I think in general, it's politics, and going back to the popular vote of the "bigots/misogynists/homphobes" voting clout is what is holding us back...

So, to be clear....

I'm saying it's the people who ARE the B/M/H crowd that are the problem, influencing the powers that be.

Also funny is that you're using this as an example. The Supreme Court which is in a large part responsible for essentially reviewing the rules and expectations, and decisions designed to govern the daily lives of people here in Canada, to make sure that amendments / changes / updating and relevance are taken care of.

And then using the bible too.

Funny indeed.

Mark

Milo

General public has NO influence over the Supreme Court . . . NONE. At most the sitting Government gets to CHOOSE who they nominate, but it's not like they can FIRE them afterwards if they do not like the decisions.

The Court renders decisions based on Law, and nothing else. Under our Charter, the unborn are deemed deserving of protection. In this instance it is actually "progressives" like yourself that are the ones exerting undue influence in refusing to tolerate debate on the matter.

Care to try again?

compuease

DrTyore;375570 wroteYou want a throwdown old man? ;)

Mark

Anytime... I haven't shown you my two finger dislocate the collarbone move have I? >:D

DrTyore

Milo;375584 wroteGeneral public has NO influence over the Supreme Court . . . NONE. At most the sitting Government gets to CHOOSE who they nominate, but it's not like they can FIRE them afterwards if they do not like the decisions.

The Court renders decisions based on Law, and nothing else. Under our Charter, the unborn are deemed deserving of protection. In this instance it is actually "progressives" like yourself that are the ones exerting undue influence in refusing to tolerate debate on the matter.

Care to try again?

Not really.. I've done my due diligence in this regard..

You're really a fan of the "remove all doubt" crowd aren't you?

Mark

DrTyore

compuease;375585 wroteAnytime... I haven't shown you my two finger dislocate the collarbone move have I? >:D

Ya, but what move do you do to the OTHER fella?

Also, given how bad I've been lately physically? I can't take the kinda hurt you bring.

Mark

DrTyore

And...

This is something I heard about today.

Pro-life flyers spread graphic political message targeting Justin Trudeau - Toronto | Globalnews.ca

Further, if you want to see the actual image - Warning it will either disgust you, or provide another reason to seek professional therapy - it's here

Mark

trigs

i regret looking at the picture...

Milo

One thing that has always made me curious is this . . . where do they FIND these images? What abortion clinic would tolerate the taking of pictures during such a procedure? For what purpose would such a picture be taken by folks who are (one would think) Pro-abortion?

As for the flyer itself, these nut-jobs are the Pro-Life version of PETA. Disgusting and embarrassing.

Big Mike

Milo;393100 wroteOne thing that has always made me curious is this . . . where do they FIND these images? What abortion clinic would tolerate the taking of pictures during such a procedure? For what purpose would such a picture be taken by folks who are (one would think) Pro-abortion?

As for the flyer itself, these nut-jobs are the Pro-Life version of PETA. Disgusting and embarrassing.

I would think that if I were pro-abortion, I would view the procedure as no different than any other surgery. Lots of medical things are super gross, but it doesn't mean they shouldn't be done, and no reason not to photograph or film the procedure.

I haven't looked at the image, btw. I don't think publishing images is terribly helpful, as they appeal to emotion and not reason.

« Previous Page Next Page »