Show me where I said they "only" do that. I specifically referenced the Morgentaler incident only. But your comment illustrates my point nicely, so thanks.
Um, I think you got that backwards. Your comment that they bombed the clinic after hours to "reduce casualties" whitewashes the incident. Which is exactly what the article talks about. So thank you.
No, it accurately reports a fact of the case. Not whitewashing their act at all. It was reprehensible, not least because these idiots were not expert enough in what they were doing to guarantee that no OTHER damage would be done beyond the Clinic.
But to hold supporters of abortion up like Defenders of Freedoms is ludicrous, especially when they use whatever means they can trump up to have little old ladies arrested for simply standing quietly across the street with a sign that states their personal opinion on abortion. "Freedom for thee, but not for me" is not freedom at all.
Also, when I see this thread, or the Atheist thread bumped up I cry a single tear."
And I don't know how I missed this...
"Milo
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, "
Was addressed already and ret-conned so Milo could post something
"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."
Does ANYBODY understand what that post above mine is about? I have no clue..... Old I guess....
Lol
I read the link where it's about clearly outdated laws that are still "on the books", and it reminded me about this thread. The part about Dinobot crying I thought was funny, and to ensure I had the right thread I reread a lot of it, and missed a comment Milo had made earlier and responded 3 months late
You really think that anyone can influence a judge on the SCoC? Really? Consider most of their decisions of the last few years, and then consider that most of them owe their appointments to Harper. Yeah . . . some influence.
Perhaps, but not smart enough to be a Judge. Sorry, Mark but the Supreme Court of this Country . . . the one charged with interpreting and upholding our Laws, has stated that the Government MUST come up with a Law that BALANCES the Rights of the woman with the Rights of the unborn child in her womb.
In plain English, that means that the CURRENT situation is a violation of our Constitution, as it allows unfettered abortion. That our government (of WHATEVER stripe) is too cowardly to address this issue is a tragedy.
Further, NOTHING you can post, say, or link to will change the FACTS of this post.
Where in holy hell did it state that parliament MUST come up with anything? The article you linked indicated that the court struck down the previous laws as unconstitutional, but noted that the “protection of foetal interests by Parliament is also a valid governmental objective.” It went on to discuss how section one of the charter make it reasonable to impose certain limits on a woman's right to choose. Though it seems they were specifically talking about abortions well into the pregnancy, sex selective abortion etc.
That is not a demand that Parliament MUST create new laws. The fact that we haven't is proof enough of that no?
How are laws that allow unfettered access to Abortion unconstitutional then? The charter doesn't guarantee unfettered access, I'll give you that, but I see nothing that states that unfettered access is UN constitutional.
In plain english, what the fuck are you talking about?
Your use of the all caps FACTS in this post is amusing by the way. In that your arrogance is as amusing as it is infuriating.
If you've got some other article that states these things in plain english, please show me where I missed it, and I'll apologize for the error. If not, kindly promise to stop using words like FACTS, all caps or otherwise.
The way in which the decision is worded, makes it clear that the SCoC is telling Parliament to come up with a new law that balances the Rights of the unborn child with those of the woman. Further, every interpretation of that decision says the same thing, namely that the Court is telling Parliament that the old Law was unconstitutional, so they need to formulate a new one.
As for the fact (happy?) that successive Governments have not done so, that is more about moral cowardice than anything else. The fact that they have ignored the SCoC decision is not proof that the decision's directive is not plain.
Successive governments have ignored it, and use the cover of "we really do need to draft up new laws because SCoC told us that" is an awfully convenient plausible deniability tactic to employ to both satiate the religious right and ensure that women aren't being relegated to 2nd class citizens and being told what to do - aka preserve votes.
Successive governments have ignored it, and use the cover of "we really do need to draft up new laws because SCoC told us that" is an awfully convenient plausible deniability tactic to employ to both satiate the religious right and ensure that women aren't being relegated to 2nd class citizens and being told what to do - aka preserve votes.
Mark
As if the governments are concerned about women being relegated to second class citizens. Women do vote though. Preserving votes is all that matters to them, and unborn children will never vote. Pretending to be outraged and doing nothing is a great tactic, used by all parties ( in different issues).
As if the governments are concerned about women being relegated to second class citizens. Women do vote though. Preserving votes is all that matters to them, and unborn children will never vote. Pretending to be outraged and doing nothing is a great tactic, used by all parties ( in different issues).
That's kinda what I meant to say.. appease both, lose none.
The way in which the decision is worded, makes it clear that the SCoC is telling Parliament to come up with a new law that balances the Rights of the unborn child with those of the woman. Further, every interpretation of that decision says the same thing, namely that the Court is telling Parliament that the old Law was unconstitutional, so they need to formulate a new one.
As for the fact (happy?) that successive Governments have not done so, that is more about moral cowardice than anything else. The fact that they have ignored the SCoC decision is not proof that the decision's directive is not plain.
So no then? The decision is plain? The court stating that the old law is unconstitutional does not demand the creation of a new one. If you crash your car, the situation does not DEMAND you get a new one. You'll need to if you want to get around, but maybe you can walk, or take the bus? Maybe you can do without a car. Maybe we can do without laws on abortion.
It's interesting to me that I have never once read that supreme court decision and come to the same conclusion you have. It's even more interesting that you continue to use the word fact when we're clearly not talking about facts. The fact that others have interpreted it the way you have is irrelevant. The fact that others would interpret it the way I have is also irrelevant.
Here's my take on the SCOC decision that you linked to previously.
The court is saying: we find the current laws unconstitutional because they interfere with a womans right to safety liberty, security etc. However, we want to make very clear that we are NOT stating that there can be no law or regulation on this issue that would pass muster. "The protection of foetal interests is a valid objective..." and so on.
That's a far cry from stating that such laws MUST be passed.
So no then? The decision is plain? The court stating that the old law is unconstitutional does not demand the creation of a new one. If you crash your car, the situation does not DEMAND you get a new one. You'll need to if you want to get around, but maybe you can walk, or take the bus? Maybe you can do without a car. Maybe we can do without laws on abortion.
The Court went beyond the mere striking down of the previous Law to state that certain protections for the unborn would be in the National interest. This step, beyond a mere decision in the case before them, is unusual. Your point about this comment not forcing Parliament to enact such a statute is moot, as the Court has no such power to "force" Parliament (separation of powers) to do so in the first place. It is the "going the extra mile" that is significant. the impolication is that the unborn child DOES have Rights worthy of protection under our Constitution. The cowardice of successive Governments in not enshrining those protections in Law is shameful.
It's interesting to me that I have never once read that supreme court decision and come to the same conclusion you have. It's even more interesting that you continue to use the word fact when we're clearly not talking about facts. The fact that others have interpreted it the way you have is irrelevant. The fact that others would interpret it the way I have is also irrelevant.
Here's my take on the SCOC decision that you linked to previously.
The court is saying: we find the current laws unconstitutional because they interfere with a womans right to safety liberty, security etc. However, we want to make very clear that we are NOT stating that there can be no law or regulation on this issue that would pass muster. "The protection of foetal interests is a valid objective..." and so on.
That's a far cry from stating that such laws MUST be passed.
As stated, the Justices have no power to state that such a Law MUST be enacted. That they took the step of commenting on the Rights of the unborn to those same protections of security of the person IS significant, and to think otherwise is folly.
Perhaps, but not smart enough to be a Judge. Sorry, Mark but the Supreme Court of this Country . . . the one charged with interpreting and upholding our Laws, has stated that the Government MUST come up with a Law that BALANCES the Rights of the woman with the Rights of the unborn child in her womb.
In plain English, that means that the CURRENT situation is a violation of our Constitution, as it allows unfettered abortion. That our government (of WHATEVER stripe) is too cowardly to address this issue is a tragedy.
Further, NOTHING you can post, say, or link to will change the FACTS of this post.
The Court went beyond the mere striking down of the previous Law to state that certain protections for the unborn would be in the National interest. This step, beyond a mere decision in the case before them, is unusual. Your point about this comment not forcing Parliament to enact such a statute is moot, as the Court has no such power to "force" Parliament (separation of powers) to do so in the first place. It is the "going the extra mile" that is significant. the impolication is that the unborn child DOES have Rights worthy of protection under our Constitution. The cowardice of successive Governments in not enshrining those protections in Law is shameful.
As stated, the Justices have no power to state that such a Law MUST be enacted. That they took the step of commenting on the Rights of the unborn to those same protections of security of the person IS significant, and to think otherwise is folly.
You're right.. nothing I say can change anything you post... maybe your own posts will do?
As stated, the Justices have no power to state that such a Law MUST be enacted. That they took the step of commenting on the Rights of the unborn to those same protections of security of the person IS significant, and to think otherwise is folly.
I agree it's significant. I don't agree that it's significant for the reasons you say, and I also don't agree that they made any statement regarding the "rights" of the unborn being in the national interest. You've done nothing to change my belief that the intent of the court was to ensure that the scope of their decision was clear.
You've repeatedly avoided answering my request that you provide specific evidence that supports your interpretation of the decision.
Please note that I'm not even saying you're wrong... though I think that you are almost always wrong. I'm just saying that you've repeatedly failed to prove that you're right. Unless one considers insisting that you're right as proof, and I don't. That in a nutshell is why we clash on this forum. That in a nutshell is why I assume you clash with human beings everywhere you encounter them.
Also, see Mark's post regarding your blatantly contradicting yourself. It's worthy of your attention.
Used by more folks than the religious . . . but fuck it, kill all the unborn you want. the Province is going to be giving away IVF treatments to anyone who wants it, so I am sure it will be just fine in the end.
Still inconsistent. People seeking IVF aren't likely to be the people seeking abortions. Your main stance was protecting the rights of (what you considered) people not yet born. Are you now saying your main draw the entire time was quantity of people being born and it's a wash because of better access to people wanting to have kids but experiencing trouble? Not to mention said treatment is a scientific advancement - wonder how the reaction would be if the government just assigned a group of people to pray for them?
Still inconsistent. No People seeking IVF aren't likely to be the people seeking abortions. Agreed Your main stance was protecting the rights of (what you considered) people not yet born. Agreed Are you now saying your main draw the entire time was quantity of people being born and it's a wash because of better access to people wanting to have kids but experiencing trouble? Not at all . . . Not to mention said treatment is a scientific advancement - wonder how the reaction would be if the government just assigned a group of people to pray for them?
Mark
IVF is a wonderful advancement in medical science. My wife and I struggled for a few years before being fortunate enough to have our one healthy child. Others are not so lucky. That said, I think Government has no business funding it.
What is someone supposed to take away from "kill all the unborn you want. the Province is going to be giving away IVF treatments to anyone who wants it, so I am sure it will be just fine in the end." given the context of abortion?
And as for the government funding of IVF? I honestly don't care to get into it... I don't have many thoughts on it, since it only came up / into my awareness as an issue recently after hearing it on the news. I'll wait to hear the merits.
What is someone supposed to take away from "kill all the unborn you want. the Province is going to be giving away IVF treatments to anyone who wants it, so I am sure it will be just fine in the end." given the context of abortion?
And as for the government funding of IVF? I honestly don't care to get into it... I don't have many thoughts on it, since it only came up / into my awareness as an issue recently after hearing it on the news. I'll wait to hear the merits.
.... is this where we bring up white male privileged, wage gap / poor punishment, and general access to said facilities (remember, no clinics in New Brunswick?). Try seeing things from someone who isn't a middle-classed, majority raced, penis-possessing's point of view instead of your own - all you seem to be looking at is your own prostate.
At least the model in the picture is accurately cast.
Mark
*and yes, your $30 test for screening should still be covered by OHIP
Dealing with mental health difficulties, working through trauma, working through layoff / job losses, dealing with assisting a loved one who has lost the capability to care for themselves, dealing with your own physical disabilities, or trying to escape an unfortunate situation such as abusive relationships, and any numerous other reasons people need assistance. This isn't even getting into the benefits of paid education, birth control, etc...
The problem with that pic isn't because she (and you are) Conservative, it's because you're an adult lacking empathy too concerned with showing off their own brilliance to think of someone else for half a second.
Comments
But to hold supporters of abortion up like Defenders of Freedoms is ludicrous, especially when they use whatever means they can trump up to have little old ladies arrested for simply standing quietly across the street with a sign that states their personal opinion on abortion. "Freedom for thee, but not for me" is not freedom at all.
Made me think about all the "legal" talk ITT... also after re-reading and reminiscing...
Also... wanted to make dinobot cry...
"dinobot
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."
And I don't know how I missed this...
"Milo
Was addressed already and ret-conned so Milo could post something
"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."
(post 92)
Mark
I read the link where it's about clearly outdated laws that are still "on the books", and it reminded me about this thread. The part about Dinobot crying I thought was funny, and to ensure I had the right thread I reread a lot of it, and missed a comment Milo had made earlier and responded 3 months late
Mark
Bill Nye: Can We Stop Telling Women What to Do With Their Bodies? | Big Think
Smarter than you / me
Mark
In plain English, that means that the CURRENT situation is a violation of our Constitution, as it allows unfettered abortion. That our government (of WHATEVER stripe) is too cowardly to address this issue is a tragedy.
Further, NOTHING you can post, say, or link to will change the FACTS of this post.
That is not a demand that Parliament MUST create new laws. The fact that we haven't is proof enough of that no?
How are laws that allow unfettered access to Abortion unconstitutional then? The charter doesn't guarantee unfettered access, I'll give you that, but I see nothing that states that unfettered access is UN constitutional.
In plain english, what the fuck are you talking about?
Your use of the all caps FACTS in this post is amusing by the way. In that your arrogance is as amusing as it is infuriating.
If you've got some other article that states these things in plain english, please show me where I missed it, and I'll apologize for the error. If not, kindly promise to stop using words like FACTS, all caps or otherwise.
As for the fact (happy?) that successive Governments have not done so, that is more about moral cowardice than anything else. The fact that they have ignored the SCoC decision is not proof that the decision's directive is not plain.
Or..
Successive governments have ignored it, and use the cover of "we really do need to draft up new laws because SCoC told us that" is an awfully convenient plausible deniability tactic to employ to both satiate the religious right and ensure that women aren't being relegated to 2nd class citizens and being told what to do - aka preserve votes.
Mark
As if the governments are concerned about women being relegated to second class citizens. Women do vote though. Preserving votes is all that matters to them, and unborn children will never vote. Pretending to be outraged and doing nothing is a great tactic, used by all parties ( in different issues).
That's kinda what I meant to say.. appease both, lose none.
Mark
My point was only that you implied the government cared about someone, which I think is unlikely.
Mark
"Boooo!"
"Abortions for none!"
"Boooo!"
"Abortions for some. Miniature American flags for others!"
"Yaaaay!"
So no then? The decision is plain? The court stating that the old law is unconstitutional does not demand the creation of a new one. If you crash your car, the situation does not DEMAND you get a new one. You'll need to if you want to get around, but maybe you can walk, or take the bus? Maybe you can do without a car. Maybe we can do without laws on abortion.
It's interesting to me that I have never once read that supreme court decision and come to the same conclusion you have. It's even more interesting that you continue to use the word fact when we're clearly not talking about facts. The fact that others have interpreted it the way you have is irrelevant. The fact that others would interpret it the way I have is also irrelevant.
Here's my take on the SCOC decision that you linked to previously.
The court is saying: we find the current laws unconstitutional because they interfere with a womans right to safety liberty, security etc. However, we want to make very clear that we are NOT stating that there can be no law or regulation on this issue that would pass muster. "The protection of foetal interests is a valid objective..." and so on.
That's a far cry from stating that such laws MUST be passed.
As stated, the Justices have no power to state that such a Law MUST be enacted. That they took the step of commenting on the Rights of the unborn to those same protections of security of the person IS significant, and to think otherwise is folly.
Contradicts these parts.
You're right.. nothing I say can change anything you post... maybe your own posts will do?
#Milofacts
Mark
I agree it's significant. I don't agree that it's significant for the reasons you say, and I also don't agree that they made any statement regarding the "rights" of the unborn being in the national interest. You've done nothing to change my belief that the intent of the court was to ensure that the scope of their decision was clear.
You've repeatedly avoided answering my request that you provide specific evidence that supports your interpretation of the decision.
Please note that I'm not even saying you're wrong... though I think that you are almost always wrong. I'm just saying that you've repeatedly failed to prove that you're right. Unless one considers insisting that you're right as proof, and I don't. That in a nutshell is why we clash on this forum. That in a nutshell is why I assume you clash with human beings everywhere you encounter them.
Also, see Mark's post regarding your blatantly contradicting yourself. It's worthy of your attention.
From a photoplasty on cracked.com called "18 Subtle Tricks the Media Uses to Fool You"... also used by religion.
Mark
Still inconsistent. People seeking IVF aren't likely to be the people seeking abortions. Your main stance was protecting the rights of (what you considered) people not yet born. Are you now saying your main draw the entire time was quantity of people being born and it's a wash because of better access to people wanting to have kids but experiencing trouble? Not to mention said treatment is a scientific advancement - wonder how the reaction would be if the government just assigned a group of people to pray for them?
Mark
IVF is a wonderful advancement in medical science. My wife and I struggled for a few years before being fortunate enough to have our one healthy child. Others are not so lucky. That said, I think Government has no business funding it.
What is someone supposed to take away from "kill all the unborn you want. the Province is going to be giving away IVF treatments to anyone who wants it, so I am sure it will be just fine in the end." given the context of abortion?
And as for the government funding of IVF? I honestly don't care to get into it... I don't have many thoughts on it, since it only came up / into my awareness as an issue recently after hearing it on the news. I'll wait to hear the merits.
Mark
At least the model in the picture is accurately cast.
Mark
*and yes, your $30 test for screening should still be covered by OHIP
Dealing with mental health difficulties, working through trauma, working through layoff / job losses, dealing with assisting a loved one who has lost the capability to care for themselves, dealing with your own physical disabilities, or trying to escape an unfortunate situation such as abusive relationships, and any numerous other reasons people need assistance. This isn't even getting into the benefits of paid education, birth control, etc...
The problem with that pic isn't because she (and you are) Conservative, it's because you're an adult lacking empathy too concerned with showing off their own brilliance to think of someone else for half a second.
Mark