Reversing Roe

[badbadboy]

There was a motion to debate abortion at the recent Conservative convention.
There was no debate. They know it could cost them votes.
How they act in a parliamentary majority is worrisome. Scheer is too close to the religious wackos.

The vote against the debate was 57% to 43%

Seems the conservatives are not really on the same page.

Every election this issue pops up on the radar whether it's the fringe in the party or someone speaking out about it.

You would think after 50 years they would let this rest for once.

 

[westwoody]

The vote against the debate was 57% to 43%

That 43% who wanted to debate...what are the chances of them being anti abortion?
Now consider how many would vote against abortion but didn't want to openly say so.
The Tories knew they were in the public eye, they knew there is an election looming, and acted accordingly.
Scheer is a greasy little shit and not to be trusted.

 

[badbadboy]

That 43% who wanted to debate...what are the chances of them being anti abortion?
Now consider how many would vote against abortion but didn't want to openly say so.
The Tories knew they were in the public eye, they knew there is an election looming, and acted accordingly.
Scheer is a greasy little shit and not to be trusted.

Yes 43 % wanted the debate. That's the point, all the old guard still want the issue on Conservative's platform.

You are could be correct that if a vote in the Commons did occur some of the closet anti abortionist Cons will vote against abortion without previously stating how they would vote.

Scheer may appear to be middle of the road but in Conservative heartland they are wanting a more Republican looking House of Commons. He will swing to appease these types.

 

[storm rider]

That 43% who wanted to debate...what are the chances of them being anti abortion?
Now consider how many would vote against abortion but didn't want to openly say so.
The Tories knew they were in the public eye, they knew there is an election looming, and acted accordingly.
Scheer is a greasy little shit and not to be trusted.

So you as a tax payer who has been fucked over and saddled with a Carbon Tax and as a tax payer has also been saddled with 18 BILLION in new debt approve of Justin Trudeau?The same Justin Trudeau who has continued his life of entitlement at the expence of taxpayers from his 2 Filipino nannies as well as the vacation to the island of the Aga Kahn not to mention his family costume fantasy vacation to India which made Canada a total fucking JOKE.Every fucking time Justin Trudeau speaks his own mind on the fly he comes off looking like the total utter BUFFOON that he is....because he is not reading the SCRIPT written for him.Did by chance you miss the "peoplekind" gaff when he as a "feminist" corrected a woman at that Edmonton townhall?At that same townhall did you not see an angry ex member of the Canadian Forces asking Trudeau why he was and others as well were being fucked over and the response by Trudeau was "your asking for more than Canada can give right now" when that disabled veteran had retrained HIMSELF and was denied a pension....yet under Trudeau it is perfectly OK to spend 500 MILLION of tax payer money to IMPORT 50,000 Syrian "refugees" and that cost is just growing....same goes for the illegal border crossers which is about 250 MILLION...to point that at to Trudeau at a campaigne style rally all covered by the CBC and you get called "RACIST AND INTOLERANT" by Trudeau and then dismissed....not to mentioned cordoned off by CSIS and immediately grilled by those agents.

You obviously are a total LIFER Lieberal supporter....no matter how bad the SHIT stinks you will hold your nose and vote LIEBERAL.....you most likely condone or even approve of the 250 million STOLEN from Canadian Tax Payers via the Sponsorship Scandal.....personally I actually VOTED Lieberal to that point.....after that as far as I am concearned you could strategically shave a monkey and put it in a nice suit and give it a BLUE tie and call it a Conservative and I would vote for it rather than an Ivory Tower Dwelling Bleeding Heart LIEBERAL who will ENRICH himself/herself EVERY fucking chance they get whilst PISSING away Tax Payer money with the idea of TAX AND SPEND MORE and all the while looking down upon me and saying "WE KNOW WHATS BEST FOR YOU.......NOW SHUT AND PAY FOR IT"

In summation.....if you think that asshat selfie taking idiot Trudeau has done a good job......all I can say is you must really fucking HATE Canada.

SR

 

[clu]

The lack of logic that life begins at conception is key to this argument. It has been argued many times with the same result; life begins at birth and at that point the newborn has full rights as any other citizen.

I've never understood this philosophical obsession with reducing "alive" to a light switch: either on or off. Seems to me all these philosophical arguments are easily resolved by defining "alive" as a spectrum.

To that end, it is not illegal to pull the plug on someone who's being kept alive by external means (respirator, etc.) if they have no discernible quality of life. Foetuses are basically in a vegetative state and dependent on external means to stay alive. So that seems like the reasonable threshold: if they survive when "disconnected" then they are legally individuals. Otherwise, no.

The biggest problem I am seeing south of the border is there is zero separation between Religion and State. A party wants to get elected, they have to pander to their religious base amongst several specific interests that get the Republicans elected.

This is also a sad state of affairs. Regardless of who voted for you, you now have a duty to serve all your constituents, not just your allies. But modern politicians see their duty as more a battle for the soul and control of their country, wrestling it away from their non-supporters. Once you're in, all constituents should count.

 

[Man Mountain]

 

[NEbaD]

Full disclosure: I was raised along with my sister by my mother, a self proclaimed feminist, since she and my father separated when I was still in diapers. She never remarried. Also, I was not brought up and still am not religious.

Roe v. Wade addresses a very complicated issue. Instead of simply watching some documentary or taking in someone else's analysis, I suggest actually reading Roe v. Wade, and coming to your own conclusions! Having done so myself, I was surprised how often I found myself identifying with the pro life side of the argument, and I now can at least have respect for those reasonable people who hold either position. Most folks, it seems, aren't that reasonable, and have but a cursory understanding of the issue; either, "Muh Bay-bee! " or "Wummen's Rights!" and that's as far as it goes for 97% of everyone.

Documentaries in the last 20 years have proven about as objective as the so-called journalism shat out daily by CNN and Fox news. Roe v. Wade is so much deeper than just "Religious Fanatics v. Woke SJW's", and while the legal jargon is daunting at first, once you get used to it, and assuming you have a working brain in your head you'll likely find yourself a lot more tolerant of whomever is the "other side" from your perspective once you've grasped Roe v. Wade for yourself

 

[Cock Throppled]

Watching CNN by the left, is equivalent of watching Fox for the right. They feed the need to demonize the other side.

Just turn them both off.

 

[NEbaD]

The problem I have with the right wing hypocrites in the USA is that they want to prevent an impoverished mom from aborting her fetus but will not lift a finger to feed, cloth and provide health care for said fetus after it is born. To me, that makes no sense at all. Instead of spending huge amounts of $$$ trying to prevent abortions, instead use that same $$$ to provide the necessities of life to poor children that need it.

JD

Hypocrites-

On the left, they'll abort a fetus on a whim, but go to the wall against the death penalty for convicted felons

On the right, they'll mow down civilians during war by the hundreds, but "how dare you kill an unborn baby!"

They all look like hypocrites, to me. Either make your peace with killing, because that's EXACTLY what you're doing in war, in capital punishment and in an abortion clinic, or else DON'T.

Myself, I can respect either position, but the hypocrisy is unbearable.

 

[NEbaD]

The key point in the questions directed at Kavanaugh regarding Roe was scored by Kamala Harris, & it's worth noting. She asked him if he could name a single piece of legislation that attempts to control what a man can do with his own body. Of course, he was unable to do so.

What is fascinating to me is that even in this debate on this board, the people talking the most about abortion rights are still MEN. I know that for Canadian women younger than Me, it's just simply something they've never felt they needed to worry about. Abortion on demand has been the rule of law in Canada foe several decades...but I remember when it was not such a foregone conclusion, and doctors who provided them were prosecuted, persecuted & even killed.

I never had to get an abortion thank God, but I have provided rides to & from the clinic & at home aftercare for a friend that did. It was her only choice, as she saw it at the time & a place am sure she made the right decision, but it was not a small matter. I knew a dozen girls that got pregnant in high school (Catholic school...) & had babies because abortion is a mortal sin! :eyeroll: I have never & will never vote for any candidate that presumes to tell women what they cannot do with their own bodies!

All this stuff about women and their bodies... Yeesh! I mean, I was embarrassed that Kavanaugh couldn't answer that Kamala Harris question. Hell, I can make two off the top of my head:

1 circumcision
2 selective service (since he's a Yank)

I mean, one mutilates your genitals, and the other sends you to God damned war!

 

[LADY-VIA]

The documentary does cover abit about the republician cause for Prolife (or the Right to Life movement) ever since Ronald Reagan and the choices Republican Presidents have made to the supreme court. Ever since Roe vs. Wade (1973) the Right to Life people have slowly been chipping around the issue of a woman's right to chose.
I wonder if Roe vs Wade when it is overturned, does the US turns into the "Handmaiden's Tale" ?

Possibly its own version, but that would depend much more on the depletion of sperm counts, and a crash drop in fertility rates. I know of 4 women in my life, who have struggled badly trying to conceive. 3 haven't been able to, and something tells me the they won't be able to. Ive also read a number of studies and articles regarding mens sperm count, and that its declining. People are also opting for less kids, and no kids, instead of getting married and having a family & Thinking about that makes me curious about what the birth rates really were over the last 10 years, Geographically.

Personally I believe in the right to chose, however I don't think abortions should be used as a dependant form of birth control, or after morning pills. Considering all the girls Ive gotten to know over the years, who work in this business, and not 1 of them has ever accidentally gotten pregnant ' on the job " & Ill repeat " On the job " Thats a lot of sex over the years. Now if we can take precautions to make sure that we are safe, and don't get pregnant while working, doing the very thing that gets women pregnant, then it shouldn't be that hard for others to take precautions as well. Especially the younger generations, who are basically being raised in a ' hook up " culture society. Sex Ed is so vital for youth right now.

What I can see, or entertain the idea of, is that it could be possible for children to actually become wards of the government by birth. They would make all the decisions, and provide all the guidelines, manditory from birth to adult hood, and the parents would be offered the privilege, of being able to Physically, house, clothe, and feed their children.

 

[westwoody]

A Republican congressman just tweeted that "very soon" unborn babies will be safe.
Kavanaugh was brought in specifically to overturn Roe.

 

[80watts]

America has turned into the "Do as I say, Not as I do" state... Hypocrite is the right word for it.

 

[Mr right on]

I’m not anti abortion but you guys seem pro abortion... Talking like it’s a good thing....?

I am definitely uncomfortable with the push to legalize Abortion at 40 weeks for any reason at all..

Not sure where the limit is for time frame but I have held a 34week preme baby they are very much alive and human.

I think “Womens right to choose” dose have a limit and it’s way before 40 weeks.

Abortion should be legal safe and rare. not celibrated....

 

[Mr right on]

The problem I have with the right wing hypocrites in the USA is that they want to prevent an impoverished mom from aborting her fetus but will not lift a finger to feed, cloth and provide health care for said fetus after it is born. To me, that makes no sense at all. Instead of spending huge amounts of $$$ trying to prevent abortions, instead use that same $$$ to provide the necessities of life to poor children that need it.

JD

I would argue
-condoms are cheep
-a women’s financial situation isn’t a good enuf reason to kill a baby..

 

[Mr right on]

Pro aborting baby’s to stop possible future crime is poor argument

 

[Ms Erica Phoenix]

I grew up grateful that I lived in Canada, that I had a mom who was an RN, knowing if I ever had to make the choice to terminate a pregnancy, I had the right to do so. Legally & safely. There isn't another provider on this board who can say that they remember a time before ROE was law in the States, but I can & I do. Abortion is not about killing babies. That is antichoice rhetoric. Abortion is about terminating pregnancy. If it's a late term abortion, it means an unviable pregnancy: forcing a woman to deliver a stillborn infant in a delivery room, surrounded by women whose infants are healthy & happy & whole is simply cruel. When a fetus is so massively deformed it cannot survive on its own, will those right to life protesters be responsible for the medical needs of that baby for the rest of its life? Not bloody likely. The decision to terminate that pregnancy should be between a woman & her doctor.

 

[Hugh Jass]

I grew up grateful that I lived in Canada, that I had a mom who was an RN, knowing if I ever had to make the choice to terminate a pregnancy, I had the right to do so. Legally & safely. There isn't another provider on this board who can say that they remember a time before ROE was law in the States, but I can & I do. Abortion is not about killing babies. That is antichoice rhetoric. Abortion is about terminating pregnancy. If it's a late term abortion, it means an unviable pregnancy: forcing a woman to deliver a stillborn infant in a delivery room, surrounded by women whose infants are healthy & happy & whole is simply cruel. When a fetus is so massively deformed it cannot survive on its own, will those right to life protesters be responsible for the medical needs of that baby for the rest of its life? Not bloody likely. The decision to terminate that pregnancy should be between a woman & her doctor.

I think the main concern should be, if they will now allow what can be infanticide because the example given by the Virginia Governor was not of a stillborn but living...what will be the criteria for termination, and if this step is approved where will it go to next. Will the criteria to allow it later be expanded to include say mongoloid babies or those with non life threatening deformities? I am pro choice but think its a dangerous step.

 

[Ms Erica Phoenix]

I think the main concern should be, if they will now allow what can be infanticide because the example given by the Virginia Governor was not of a stillborn but living...what will be the criteria for termination, and if this step is approved where will it go to next. Will the criteria to allow it later be expanded to include say mongoloid babies or those with non life threatening deformities? I am pro choice but think its a dangerous step.

The term "mongoloid" is out of the dark ages. It's an archaic term given to persons with Down's syndrome because of the facial features that are affected by the chromosomal disorder: no epicanthic fold on eyelids, broad face, high cheekbones & flat bridge of the nose. As I said before, the decision is between a woman and her doctor. I feel it should be a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy at any time before the fetus is capable of surviving independent of the womb. I have watched a colleague go through the misery of terminating a long wanted much desired pregnancy because the massive deformities meant that for the last 2 months she would be carrying a fetus that would die almost immediately after she delivered. Not some spur of the moment decision. Forcing her to carry that pregnancy to term would have been cruel.

 

[Ms Erica Phoenix]

I think the main concern should be, if they will now allow what can be infanticide because the example given by the Virginia Governor was not of a stillborn but living...what will be the criteria for termination, and if this step is approved where will it go to next. Will the criteria to allow it later be expanded to include say mongoloid babies or those with non life threatening deformities? I am pro choice but think its a dangerous step.

This is like Sarah Palin's infamous "death panels" rhetoric. It is fearmongering & pandering to the religious right.