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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
You don't think it's the anti-choice people out there taking the abortion porn pics?
Mark
Possible, but how would they gain access to an abortion clinic, or hospital, in order to take a picture like that. I cannot see any Clinic allowing that kind of access, especially in this day and age.
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.
Okay, even if something like this were filmed, lets say for training or critiquing afterwards, do you think they would film/photograph the aftermath? Again, to what end?
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?
I'd just like to put this out there. Sorry if I offered anyone.
It's threads like this that make me hate CPF. Go find somewhere is to debate theses topics.
OK, I'm done.
FWIW:
1) i know it's not poker, but at least someone is posting on this forum still (which is pretty much dead from what i have seen lately. i'm too busy at work to post as much and even if i wasn't i've pretty much lost my faith for this forum.)
2) if you don't like threads like this, don't read them. (i personally enjoy practically any debate, but for a poker forum i do agree that poker related content should trump off topic.)
3) and for the record, there is absolutely no debate going on ITT lately. (one person posting links and another commenting on how the former is stupid does not equal a debate imho.)
I just find it interesting that, with respect to abortion, Mark refers to the SCoC as part of the group of misogynistic, homophobic, and a few other insults I cannot be bothered to look back for, because they ruled that the Canadian Constitution requires the Government to enact some form of compromise legislation that protects the life of unborn children, yet when they rule in a manner he agrees with everything (like same sex marriage), everything is hunky dory again. Funny that.
At least I am consistent in thinking that the SCoC knows MORE about our legal system than Mark and I combined, so they likely got it right BOTH times. But what do I know?
As to the comments I posted recently about the video Mark linked, I was referencing her comments about vulnerability and telling kids they matter. About how "whole hearted" people open themselves up to vulnerability. But again, what do I know?
Anywhooo . . . that's just my take. I am now going to go back where I was. I'll check in later to see what sort of asinine response Mark posts, but it won't matter. As much as Mark wishes to deride me as a dinosaur, it is fun to remind him that no one is more foolish than the person who is CERTAIN of their correctness. At least I entertain the possibility of being incorrect.
I've actually met Dr. Henry Morgentaler when he came to our school to talk in the auditorium. I thought his point about the ironic contradiction of "Pro Life" people setting off bombs was very poignant.
I created a poker game called "Henry Morgentaler" where it's pregnant 3's but but if the King of Spades shows up then all the pregnancies get abortions and are no longer wild.
I've actually met Dr. Henry Morgentaler when he came to our school to talk in the auditorium. I thought his point about the ironic contradiction of "Pro Life" people setting off bombs was very poignant.
I created a poker game called "Henry Morgentaler" where it's pregnant 3's but but if the King of Spades shows up then all the pregnancies get abortions and are no longer wild.
The comment about Pro-Lifers setting off bombs is quaint but GROSSLY over-stated. In Morgentaler's case, the bombing occurred after hours when no one was present, specifically to avoid casualties. Do abortion Clinics get harassed by zealots? ABSOLUTELY, and it is appalling. But violence against clinics and practitioners is CONSTANTLY exploited and exaggerated by those who support the killing of the unborn.
Roe v. Wade decision came down in 1973. In the 42 years since that decision, there have been 7 killings related to Abortion providers, all occurring in the 1990s. I think it fair to say that "Killing Abortion Doctors" was a temporary aberration among some crazed people (see Army of God), rather than an organized policy of the anti-abortion movement. Either that, or they are just really BAD at it.
The comment about Pro-Lifers setting off bombs is quaint but GROSSLY over-stated. In Morgentaler's case, the bombing occurred after hours when no one was present, specifically to avoid casualties.
How considerate of them. True Christians, always looking out for their fellow man.
Nope . . . criminals who deserved the punishment they received.
The point is that abortion providers are often portrayed as heroic nobles going to work every day under threat of their lives from raving anti-abortion lunatics and that just simply does not line up with the facts. My guess would be that the more likely cause is increased costs leading to a lack of profitability. 42 years since Roe v. Wade in the US, and a total of 7 murders. Those murders are an affront to the God these folks allegedly worship, but they are far from an epidemic. But we constantly hear about abortion providers who say the reason they are stopping is out of fear for their lives. sorry, but the numbers do not add up.
Well, if you say so then. You should contact the writers of this article and tell them to add in they only bomb clinics after hours in order to "reduce casualties." LOL.
The anti-choice movement has tried to whitewash this history over time by portraying clinic protesters as kindly “counselors,” typified by the plaintiff in the recent McCullen v. Coakley case where the Supreme Court struck down Massachusetts’ buffer zone law. Of course many of them are peaceful, but the sum of their actions tell a different story.
Groups of screaming protesters terrorize women outside of clinics while their allies in legislatures pass laws that put abortion and even birth control out of reach. This is a well-coordinated, well-funded effort to take women’s personal decisions out of our hands and squarely into politicians’. And try as they might, they cannot erase the memories of doctors who have fallen serving their patients. That history of violence – doctors stalked and shot, clinics bombed and burned – is the history of the anti-choice movement.
Comments
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
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?
Anytime... I haven't shown you my two finger dislocate the collarbone move have I? >:D
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
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
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
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.
You don't think it's the anti-choice people out there taking the abortion porn pics?
Mark
Also entirely possible.
Possible, but how would they gain access to an abortion clinic, or hospital, in order to take a picture like that. I cannot see any Clinic allowing that kind of access, especially in this day and age.
Okay, even if something like this were filmed, lets say for training or critiquing afterwards, do you think they would film/photograph the aftermath? Again, to what end?
Also Rob Delaney... Why I support women's access to safe, legal abortion | Rob Delaney | Comment is free | The Guardian
Also, when I see this thread, or the Atheist thread bumped up I cry a single tear.
Talk to Mark.
I love this Ted talk!
It starts off pretty slow since she's not a slick professional presenter but it's worth watching!
Her follow up Ted talk is even better, but you won't understand it until you watch this one.
Mark
Um, it's propaganda. Who knows if it's even real?
True . . .
And . . . ?
Keep at it, you'll get there.
It's threads like this that make me hate CPF. Go find somewhere is to debate theses topics.
OK, I'm done.
FWIW:
1) i know it's not poker, but at least someone is posting on this forum still (which is pretty much dead from what i have seen lately. i'm too busy at work to post as much and even if i wasn't i've pretty much lost my faith for this forum.)
2) if you don't like threads like this, don't read them. (i personally enjoy practically any debate, but for a poker forum i do agree that poker related content should trump off topic.)
3) and for the record, there is absolutely no debate going on ITT lately. (one person posting links and another commenting on how the former is stupid does not equal a debate imho.)
At least I am consistent in thinking that the SCoC knows MORE about our legal system than Mark and I combined, so they likely got it right BOTH times. But what do I know?
Anywhooo . . . that's just my take. I am now going to go back where I was. I'll check in later to see what sort of asinine response Mark posts, but it won't matter. As much as Mark wishes to deride me as a dinosaur, it is fun to remind him that no one is more foolish than the person who is CERTAIN of their correctness. At least I entertain the possibility of being incorrect.
I created a poker game called "Henry Morgentaler" where it's pregnant 3's but but if the King of Spades shows up then all the pregnancies get abortions and are no longer wild.
The comment about Pro-Lifers setting off bombs is quaint but GROSSLY over-stated. In Morgentaler's case, the bombing occurred after hours when no one was present, specifically to avoid casualties. Do abortion Clinics get harassed by zealots? ABSOLUTELY, and it is appalling. But violence against clinics and practitioners is CONSTANTLY exploited and exaggerated by those who support the killing of the unborn.
Roe v. Wade decision came down in 1973. In the 42 years since that decision, there have been 7 killings related to Abortion providers, all occurring in the 1990s. I think it fair to say that "Killing Abortion Doctors" was a temporary aberration among some crazed people (see Army of God), rather than an organized policy of the anti-abortion movement. Either that, or they are just really BAD at it.
How considerate of them. True Christians, always looking out for their fellow man.
The point is that abortion providers are often portrayed as heroic nobles going to work every day under threat of their lives from raving anti-abortion lunatics and that just simply does not line up with the facts. My guess would be that the more likely cause is increased costs leading to a lack of profitability. 42 years since Roe v. Wade in the US, and a total of 7 murders. Those murders are an affront to the God these folks allegedly worship, but they are far from an epidemic. But we constantly hear about abortion providers who say the reason they are stopping is out of fear for their lives. sorry, but the numbers do not add up.
Why the history of anti-abortion violence cannot be ignored | MSNBC