A Deeply Fractured US

[Bruce Monkhouse]

I’m curious if there’s something I’m misunderstanding in what you said…

Me too, I'm pretty "right wing" and I wouldn't say our courts are horribly to the left. Surely more central then our present Federal govt.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

If i was determined to ban abortion, I would use the argument "Let's Science tell us when a fetus is a Human Being" Then step back and watch the Climate Change activists and the like, invalidity their arguments of "Trust the science".

 

[OldSolduer]

Niner Domestic and I had the conversation last night about this. We are of the same mind - your body, your decision.

I am very sure some of my colleagues and comrades may not share the same view.

I do think that we need to rein in our collective outrage over Roe V Wade. Perhaps our outrage would be better spent demonstrating about child sex offenders being released into society.

Just a thought...

 

[TacticalTea]

Not at all. People can find whatever they want unacceptable. You are trying to narrow the definition of what unacceptable means and then defining what unacceptable should mean to BA. There are plenty of non hate speech related things that I would find unacceptable. Situation, topic and opinions considered.

BA litterally said “Yes, it is my opinion that their view is unacceptable to me”

You proceeded to tell him that he couldn’t use that word.

Yeah, I'll give you that, I did miss that part.

 

[lenaitch]

Make it unlawful to abort after crowning.

I assume you were making a funny, but it speaks to a point some people raise; that abortion is a medical rather than a moral issue, and the 'when' should be a matter of health disciplines legislation rather than criminal law. That is provincial jurisdiction but inter-provincial concurrence would be beneficial.

 

[brihard]

If i was determined to ban abortion, I would use the argument "Let's Science tell us when a fetus is a Human Being" Then step back and watch the Climate Change activists and the like, invalidity their arguments of "Trust the science".

In Canada, under current law, termination of a pregnancy is a medical procedure, full stop. As such there is no need for it to get any distinct notice in other law, or to see any aspect of it defined in any way that would be outside of the norms for any medical procedure.

I’ve seen some very astute commentary to the effect that, any attempt to legislate anything to do specifically with abortion in Canada should be treated as highly suspicious. It could be an opening move in a long term, incremental strategy to pull abortion out of the routine realm of medical practice, and to put it into its own space that’s then subject to attack. Alternatively, even a good faith effort to legislatively protect it could be a blunder that cracks that door open inadvertently.

 

[TacticalTea]

Me too, I'm pretty "right wing" and I wouldn't say our courts are horribly to the left. Surely more central then our present Federal govt.

Canada’s Supreme Court is off-balance as ‘large and liberal’ consensus on the Charter falls apart

The nine top judges are more divided than ever on the question of how broadly or narrowly to interpret Canadians’ constitutional rights – and while the PMs who appointed them are a factor, that doesn’t tell the whole story

www.theglobeandmail.com

There has been a slow fracturing of the SCC's unity. A positive development, in my view.

 

[daftandbarmy]

It would probably help if the Prime Minister didn't have the delivery of a used car salesman when ever he's on camera.

#5

 

[Colin Parkinson]

In Canada, under current law, termination of a pregnancy is a medical procedure, full stop. As such there is no need for it to get any distinct notice in other law, or to see any aspect of it defined in any way that would be outside of the norms for any medical procedure.

I’ve seen some very astute commentary to the effect that, any attempt to legislate anything to do specifically with abortion in Canada should be treated as highly suspicious. It could be an opening move in a long term, incremental strategy to pull abortion out of the routine realm of medical practice, and to put it into its own space that’s then subject to attack. Alternatively, even a good faith effort to legislatively protect it could be a blunder that cracks that door open inadvertently.

However it's based on a very "Legalistic" interpretation of the beginning of life. If a court case forced us to accept a fetus is a living being inside the Mom, then you have 2 distinct set of rights in the same body. Everyone knows that will be awkward and a Pandora's box. So there is not much appetite for it, presently. However the science is clearly showing that life begins in the womb, at which point it becomes conscious and aware, just needs to be nailed down.

 

[FJAG]

There has been a slow fracturing of the SCC's unity. A positive development, in my view.

A little discussion on that from a few years ago here.

Supreme Court of Canada hits record low 40% unanimity rate in 2019; many appeals came from Quebec - The Lawyer's Daily

The Supreme Court of Canada divided on the outcomes of appeals in 60 per cent of the cases it decided in 2019, and spoke with one voice in just one-third of its appeal judgments — a record low unanimity rate in at least 30 years, an analysis by The Lawyer’s Daily discloses.

www.thelawyersdaily.ca

 

[Brad Sallows]

Law is something we make up.

Much of what we make up happens because of underlying moral issues.

 

[Remius]

Law is something we make up.

Much of what we make up happens because of underlying moral issues.

Moral issues being something we also make up.

 

[dimsum]

Law is something we make up.

Much of what we make up happens because of underlying moral issues. lawyers

 

[The Bread Guy]

If i was determined to ban abortion, I would use the argument "Let's Science tell us when a fetus is a Human Being" Then step back and watch the Climate Change activists and the like, invalidity their arguments of "Trust the science".

"Human being" is a pretty subjective term, so you'd end up going to go back to having different camps accepting different "science" that fits their rubric - sound familiar?

 

[suffolkowner]

. However the science is clearly showing that life begins in the womb, at which point it becomes conscious and aware, just needs to be nailed down

What science clearly shows that life begins in the womb? What is life? Is an egg and sperm not alive? If not how is it that life was created from non life? How concious and aware?

This is why abortion is such a pickle. Without even getting into the fact that all this is going on inside the body of individual.

 

[Brad Sallows]

I assume you were making a funny

Just one example, but serious. Establishing in law a limit which may not be exceeded suggests that everything up to the limit is permissible.

 

[mariomike]

What science clearly shows that life begins in the womb? What is life? Is an egg and sperm not alive? If not how is it that life was created from non life? How concious and aware?

Nothing new about, "When does life begin?"

Opinions vary,

Abortion Issues - Mega Thread [MERGED]

And that is their choice. That's the trick. Our bodies - Our choice. I've never had to make that choice, but I am damn thankful it's mine to make. That personal choice bears no political stripe. Imagine if women put into law that all 'ye men shall have vasectomies to ensure no abortions...

army.ca

 

[The Bread Guy]

In 10-15 years you'll see a major spike in crime and poverty in the US.

At least among some, according to some, anyway (Wall Street Journal archived link) ....

... In the field of economics, a controversial thread of research over the past three decades found that the legalization of abortion in the 1970s led to a range of positive economic outcomes for women, such as increased schooling and better employment prospects. Some studies argued that legalization also helped to reduce national crime rates, teen drug use and other social ills.

With Roe now overturned, some economists argue that these benefits are at risk. But the research behind their conclusions has been inconsistent and often challenged, and is now likely to come under even more scrutiny ...

Edited to add this editorial tidbit from the Vatican's info-machine on the latest SCOTUS decision (archive link also here) ....

... A serious and shared reflection on life and the protection of motherhood would require us to move away from the logic of opposing extremisms and the political polarization that often—unfortunately—accompanies discussion on this issue, preventing true dialogue.

Being for life, always, for example, means being concerned if the mortality rates of women due to motherhood increase. In the United States, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the maternal mortality rate has gone from 20.1 deaths of women per 100,000 live births in 2019 to 23.8 per 100,000 in 2020. And, strikingly, the maternal mortality rate for black women in 2020 was 55.3 deaths per 100,000 live births, 2.9 times the rate for white women.

Being for life, always, means asking how to help women welcome new life. According to one statistic in the United States, about 75 per cent of women who have abortions live in poverty or have low wages. And only 16 per cent of employees in private industry have access to paid parental leave, according to a study published in the Harvard Review of Psychiatry on 9 March 2020. Almost one in four new mothers who are not entitled to paid leave are forced to return to work within ten days of giving birth.

Being for life, always, also means defending it against the threat of firearms, which unfortunately have become a leading cause of death of children and adolescents in the US ...

<sarcasm>I'm sure all governments restricting abortions, being government, will more than mitigate any losses/backtracks/setbacks seen because of the changes.</sarcasm>

 

[Brad Sallows]

That statement can be generalized: "I'm sure all governments [doing something], being government, will more than mitigate any losses/backtracks/setbacks seen because of the changes."

Hard to get worked up about other people's perceived injustices when they don't get worked up about yours.

 

[YZT580]

Nothing new about, "When does life begin?"

Opinions vary,

Abortion Issues - Mega Thread [MERGED]

And that is their choice. That's the trick. Our bodies - Our choice. I've never had to make that choice, but I am damn thankful it's mine to make. That personal choice bears no political stripe. Imagine if women put into law that all 'ye men shall have vasectomies to ensure no abortions...

army.ca

A more relevant question in light of medical advances would be "at what point does the life of an unborn child become of sufficient value to warrant protecting?" If your answer is not until birth or as one respondent put it "at crowning" then we as a society are on a slippery slope that inevitably leads to racism and discrimination because I of course am of more value to society than you because I am (fill in the blank for your favourite group)