[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Grey Fox]

No because the unborns have no rights.

You just proved that point though.  A failure to understand that there those who think the unborn has rights.  You can disagree, but it's not an unreasonable position to take.

No, it is.

[Grey Fox]

No because the unborns have no rights.

1 min before your girlfriend gives birth, this meatbag has no rights, he/she isn't a human being?

Why would it?

[Malthus]

You just proved that point though.  A failure to understand that there those who think the unborn has rights.  You can disagree, but it's not an unreasonable position to take.

So, in your reasoning, when would fetus begin to have rights?

Let's say the arbitrary limit is 3 months old. Thus, a 2 months-and-30 days fetus has no inherent right to live then bingo, she gains the right to exist at 3-month-and-0-days? That makes no sense from an ethical standpoint.

In any case, no physician in Canada can terminate a pregnancy over 24 weeks without serious indications anyway. De facto, that sets a pretty hard limit on abortion as far as fetuses are concerned.

Yes, but aren't you kinda making his point? There's a hard limit, that is short of birth, and which most docs appear to find reasonable.

It isn't the notion of hard limits on what is obviously a gradual process that's the problem - everyone recognizes that's a necessary simplification and ought to be used sparingly and with exceptions. It is that the two hard limits proposed by opposite ends of the debate make no rational sense.

On the one hand, birth. On the other hand - conception. Neither are good, not because they are arbitrary, but because imposing them treads on significant values - women's autonomy in the case of "conception", and human life in the case of "birth".

Most (rational) people accept that, after conception, a fetus gradually grows from a bunch of cells into something capable of consciousness - an so, a recipient of human rights. Seems obvious this happens at some point inbetween conception and birth - when the developing anatomy of the fetus can support something like consciousness. When that exact point occurs isn't really important, and can be approximated by a more or less arbitrary date, because it is long after a reasonable person would have decided, absent medical concerns, whether to have the child or not.   

[Barrister]

Being fanatically uncompromising on a position is many things. Fanatical. Inflexible. Maybe insane. Perhaps unreasonable. Maybe principled if you share their position.

But smug? Entitled? I really don't get the smug thing. Sometimes I wonder if right wing people have some kind of inferiority complex that compels them to throw that one out to left wingers no matter how bizarre it is.

No, they just do not like it when they are exposed for what they are attempting to do - trying to place their wedge-politics agents onto standing committees that are ideologically antithetical to, for a chance to subvert the process, and then cry for moral superiority and smugness when they are stopped. I'd say the same if an up-and-coming anti-vaxxer MP was stopped from chairing the Standing Committee on Health, for example.

That's the basic accusation thrown by minority views to majority views to weasel their way in: We are the "morally superior smugs" and we are "oppressing" their views rather than being "fair and balanced" and give their views a chance, rather than face the fact that their views could just plain suck to a lot of people, seeking to repress people's rights to freely decide for themselves, rather than enhance it.

I am not opposed per se to Harder sitting on the Committee.  She's a Member, and while I disagree with her views she can share her preoccupations on the rights of women on how to deal with their pregnant body to the consideration of the Committee and the House. But chairing it? If they really want Harder to chair that Committee - and look like total doofuses doing so, they need to win the election with a majority first.

No, the Chair of that committee is held by a member of the Opposition. 

So really, if the Liberals are so concerned about who chairs that committee, they need to go out and lose the next election.

[Barrister]

You just proved that point though.  A failure to understand that there those who think the unborn has rights.  You can disagree, but it's not an unreasonable position to take.

So, in your reasoning, when would fetus begin to have rights?

Let's say the arbitrary limit is 3 months old. Thus, a 2 months-and-30 days fetus has no inherent right to live then bingo, she gains the right to exist at 3-month-and-0-days? That makes no sense from an ethical standpoint.

In any case, no physician in Canada can terminate a pregnancy over 24 weeks without serious indications anyway. De facto, that sets a pretty hard limit on abortion as far as fetuses are concerned.

That just sets out the absurdity of the Jacob/GF/Liberal position though.  Nobody gets an abortion after 20-24 weeks or so absent exceptional circumstances.  Everybody seems perfectly fine with the status quo in Canada.  But if you suggest that maybe we should have a national law that just mirrors what is actually going on and you're a woman-hating bigot.

[viper37]

In any case, no physician in Canada can terminate a pregnancy over 24 weeks without serious indications anyway. De facto, that sets a pretty hard limit on abortion as far as fetuses are concerned.

that's not entirely true.  It's entirely at the discretion of the physician.  There are guidelines, not rules, about abortion over 24 weeks.

[viper37]

oh, about that fiscal equity.
https://globalnews.ca/news/3761484/business-report-bill-morneau-justin-trudeau-left-untouched-by-proposed-new-tax-rules/

[Jacob]

It's a Canadian thing.

Left-winger Jacob threw it at me in this very thread, and not because I'm more left-wing than he! 

Smugness is as Canadian as maple syrup and failing to win the Stanley Cup.

[Jacob]

No, the Chair of that committee is held by a member of the Opposition. 

Though apparently the government can veto the appointment of the chair?

So really, if the Liberals are so concerned about who chairs that committee, they need to go out and lose the next election.

Alternately, they can block the appointment of a particularly odious nomination as they appear to have done.

[Jacob]

That just sets out the absurdity of the Jacob/GF/Liberal position though.  Nobody gets an abortion after 20-24 weeks or so absent exceptional circumstances.  Everybody seems perfectly fine with the status quo in Canada.  But if you suggest that maybe we should have a national law that just mirrors what is actually going on and you're a woman-hating bigot.

The absurdity is wanting to add the force of law to something that apparently already functions as desired. The only possible outcome of enshrining it in law is to make it harder in the cases where an exception to the status quo makes sense, and/ or to add momentum to further anti-abortion policies.

[Barrister]

That just sets out the absurdity of the Jacob/GF/Liberal position though.  Nobody gets an abortion after 20-24 weeks or so absent exceptional circumstances.  Everybody seems perfectly fine with the status quo in Canada.  But if you suggest that maybe we should have a national law that just mirrors what is actually going on and you're a woman-hating bigot.

The absurdity is wanting to add the force of law to something that apparently already functions as desired. The only possible outcome of enshrining it in law is to make it harder in the cases where an exception to the status quo makes sense, and/ or to add momentum to further anti-abortion policies.

Ah, the good ole allegation of a hidden agenda.  How I've missed you!

[Monoriu]

I think it is necessary to have legal restrictions on abortion.  I do not think any woman should be able to have an abortion, say, an hour before giving birth, barring exceptional circumstances.  I have no problem with women having abortions an hour after conception.  A line needs to be drawn somewhere in between, and that should be informed by medical advice.  In addition, there should be a list of exceptional circumstances (e.g. when the life of the mother is at stake) when abortion is legal. 

[Jacob]

Ah, the good ole allegation of a hidden agenda.  How I've missed you!

You are advocating enacting legal restrictions on abortion. There's nothing hidden about it. It's right out there in the open, your mealy-mouthed protestations that you "understand both sides" and pleas that "can't we compromise by at least banning some of them" notwithstanding.

[Jacob]

I think it is necessary to have legal restrictions on abortion.  I do not think any woman should be able to have an abortion, say, an hour before giving birth, barring exceptional circumstances.  I have no problem with women having abortions an hour after conception.  A line needs to be drawn somewhere in between, and that should be informed by medical advice.  In addition, there should be a list of exceptional circumstances (e.g. when the life of the mother is at stake) when abortion is legal.

Nope. Women should be able to make their own decisions, advised by competent medical professionals. Full stop.

Your hypothetical scenario of women deciding to "have an abortion one hour before giving birth" is an emotionally manipulative fantasy divorced from reality.

[Monoriu]

I think it is necessary to have legal restrictions on abortion.  I do not think any woman should be able to have an abortion, say, an hour before giving birth, barring exceptional circumstances.  I have no problem with women having abortions an hour after conception.  A line needs to be drawn somewhere in between, and that should be informed by medical advice.  In addition, there should be a list of exceptional circumstances (e.g. when the life of the mother is at stake) when abortion is legal.

Nope. Women should be able to make their own decisions, advised by competent medical professionals. Full stop.

Your hypothetical scenario of women deciding to "have an abortion one hour before giving birth" is an emotionally manipulative fantasy divorced from reality.

We'll have to agree to disagree.  When making public policy or drafting laws, you need to take into account extreme scenarios like having an abortion one hour before giving birth.  It is extremely unlikely, I agree, but it is entirely within the realm of the possible.

Therefore, it needs to be addressed instead of simply dismissed.  If a woman tells me that she is having an abortion one hour before giving birth, I will be deeply disturbed because I think the child is an individual who needs to be protected under the law.  Alternatively, someone who kills a baby one hour before he is born should be charged with murder, and the legal framework should make that happen. 

That's my opinion.  I don't feel very strongly either way as this doesn't affect me in the least.  I just feel it is equally ridiculous to forbid aborting the combination of a sperm and an egg and allowing aborting a baby an hour before he is born.