Canadian Politics

[blue_gold_84]

Agreed on both counts. It's actually quite remarkable to see how little of an identity the federal NDP to have these days, if there is even an identity at all.

The political environment at the federal level is so strange right now. I don't know what to make of it.

Edited May 30, 2017 by blue_gold_84

[Mark H.]

6 hours ago, Atomic said:

That would be a valid point if most refugees lives were in danger (some are, the vast majority are not).  There is a big difference between importing 20-35 year old men en masse to our country and defending the rights of an unborn child who cannot defend itself.

Defend the rights of all who cannot defend themselves - such as a refugee child who cannot defend itself.

I'm not in a position to know how badly various refugees across the world need help - go ahead and share if you have something other than an opinion on that.  I do know that nothing good can come out of people spending years in refugee camps, due to wars, famine, et. al.  

https://twitter.com/selkirkrecord
 

[Mark H.]

6 hours ago, Atomic said:

If you all want to equate the situation of an unborn fetus with that of a refugee that's your prerogative but don't expect people to take you seriously.

BTW I'm pro choice, I just think it's a ridiculous comparison.

Valuing all lives equally is not a prerogative.  

[kelownabomberfan]

7 hours ago, Wideleft said:

I did not create this.  Feel free to challenge.

 

 

how could he deny that the climate is changing?  It's always changing.  Not sure what that is even about.  As for the rest, as this was written by what is obviously an incredibly biased source, I don't give it much credibility, and file it with all of the anti-Harper fear-mongering and out-right lies that were spread about him prior to the 2011 and 2015 elections.  How many muzzled scientists have we heard from recently BTW?

[Fatty Liver]

6 hours ago, kelownabomberfan said:

how could he deny that the climate is changing?  It's always changing.  Not sure what that is even about.  As for the rest, as this was written by what is obviously an incredibly biased source, I don't give it much credibility, and file it with all of the anti-Harper fear-mongering and out-right lies that were spread about him prior to the 2011 and 2015 elections.  How many muzzled scientists have we heard from recently BTW?

Since you asked.

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/11/06/muzzles-removed-for-federal-scientists-at-department-of-fisheries-and-oceans.html

[kelownabomberfan]

7 minutes ago, Throw Long Bannatyne said:

Since you asked.

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/11/06/muzzles-removed-for-federal-scientists-at-department-of-fisheries-and-oceans.html

thanks.  That was right after the 2015 election while the country was still in the throes of the love affair with the selfie king.  Has there actually been evidence of scientists being unmuzzled?  The whole scientist muzzling thing during the Harper years just stank like fake news.  Especially when it went public that a Canadian scientist was getting death threats from enviro-nutbars for saying that Fukishima wasn't that big of a deal.  Why wasn't he muzzled?

Anyway, not a big fan of this Andrew Scheer move by the Conservatives, looks to me like a repeat of the Stanfield years in the 1970's - close but not quite good enough to unseat Trudeau.

[SpeedFlex27]

Better choice than Bernier. That seemed to be the only choice.

[Atomic]

14 hours ago, Mark H. said:

Valuing all lives equally is not a prerogative.  

It's a false equivalency.  If a fetus faces an abortion, it dies 100% of the time.  If a refugee is turned away, they aren't necessarily going to die.  The situations are totally different.

[kelownabomberfan]

1 hour ago, Atomic said:

It's a false equivalency.  If a fetus faces an abortion, it dies 100% of the time.  If a refugee is turned away, they aren't necessarily going to die.  The situations are totally different.

the word "refugee" has lost all meaning now.  My mom and grandma came to Canada as refugees from Europe, because they were displaced by the Germans during the war and had no where else to go.  But they came here legally.  A lot of the "refugees" that are entering Canada it appears are coming from places in Africa that while are crappy, I admit, they aren't oppressed either.  I get that they want a better life and I can't argue with that, but there are avenues to apply for citizenship legally.  A lot of these people seem to be just exploiting public opinion and a weak prime minister to get around the system instead of going through the legal means to get a golden ticket into the country.  At that point, why have a border at all?  And I have no idea what people trying to enter a country illegally has to do with abortion.  None whatsoever.  Seems to be taking things a bit extreme.

[The Unknown Poster]

Harper was a hell of a leader though.  You get the sense he kept a lid on a lot of potential turmoil.  No wonder he was such a "tyrant".  He had to be to keep the party united enough to win.  Until they realise they cant all get what they want, it will be more of the same.

Its very disappointing, as a conservative.  Those people with their far right wing beliefs have to come towards the centre or they can forever whine about their silliness and be losers or get over it and be winners.  Same goes for the far left too, really.   Wasnt there a time when the extreme views were looked at as "extreme"?

The guy is entitled to his beliefs but to be anti-gay in 2017 is akin to being anti-black in the 60's.  You might think you're right and maybe its how you were raised but boy will people look back upon you with much ridicule. 

The pro-life doesnt bother me as much.  I think there is room for a mature discussion on that front.  The goal, regardless of beliefs should be that abortions never have to happen.  But if someone is so religious that they do not support contraception but are also pro-life, well you're just not grasping reality.  So a Conservative saying he's pro-life but wont open the debate should not be controversial. 

[The Unknown Poster]

9 hours ago, kelownabomberfan said:

thanks.  That was right after the 2015 election while the country was still in the throes of the love affair with the selfie king.  Has there actually been evidence of scientists being unmuzzled?  The whole scientist muzzling thing during the Harper years just stank like fake news.  Especially when it went public that a Canadian scientist was getting death threats from enviro-nutbars for saying that Fukishima wasn't that big of a deal.  Why wasn't he muzzled?

Anyway, not a big fan of this Andrew Scheer move by the Conservatives, looks to me like a repeat of the Stanfield years in the 1970's - close but not quite good enough to unseat Trudeau.

I have no links but I do recall seeing chatter about scientists being just as "muzzled" under the current regime as the last.  To be honest, this muzzling is of little concern to me.  Seems there was plenty of talk for muzzled scientists under Harper.  If my dog talked that much with her muzzle, I'd return the muzzle (and make a lot of money because my dog could talk).

[The Unknown Poster]

2 hours ago, Atomic said:

It's a false equivalency.  If a fetus faces an abortion, it dies 100% of the time.  If a refugee is turned away, they aren't necessarily going to die.  The situations are totally different.

I agree.  There are different ways to help people that are or face becoming refugees.  There are choices people make that increase or decrease their chances of surviving.  An unborn child makes no choices.  Their heart beats, their brain develops and someone decides it was an "oops" so away it goes.  While a lot of good people who dont have the opportunity for any "oops" wait to adopt.  In most cases of abortion, its a selfish decision.  And some will now be angry I wrote that, but even if you're pro-choice, I dont see how you can disagree.

This discussion is going to get a lot more complicated when parents can be told whether their unborn child will have medical issues...or be too short...or be gay...or what have you.  Designer babies.  it will be interesting to see what the Liberals say when the first abortion due to "gay gene" occurs.

[Wideleft]

40 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

I agree.  There are different ways to help people that are or face becoming refugees.  There are choices people make that increase or decrease their chances of surviving.  An unborn child makes no choices.  Their heart beats, their brain develops and someone decides it was an "oops" so away it goes.  While a lot of good people who dont have the opportunity for any "oops" wait to adopt.  In most cases of abortion, its a selfish decision.  And some will now be angry I wrote that, but even if you're pro-choice, I dont see how you can disagree.

This discussion is going to get a lot more complicated when parents can be told whether their unborn child will have medical issues...or be too short...or be gay...or what have you.  Designer babies.  it will be interesting to see what the Liberals say when the first abortion due to "gay gene" occurs.

Wow!  That's a similar argument made when gay marriage was proposed.  Conservatives said it would lead to people marrying their dogs.    

[The Unknown Poster]

Just now, Wideleft said:

Wow!  That's a similar argument made when gay marriage was proposed.  Conservatives said it would lead to people marrying their dogs.    

Either your point is unclear or mine went over your head.  Not sure which.  Either way, amusing.

[Fatty Liver]

2 hours ago, The Unknown Poster said:

I agree.  There are different ways to help people that are or face becoming refugees.  There are choices people make that increase or decrease their chances of surviving.  An unborn child makes no choices.  Their heart beats, their brain develops and someone decides it was an "oops" so away it goes.  While a lot of good people who dont have the opportunity for any "oops" wait to adopt.  In most cases of abortion, its a selfish decision.  And some will now be angry I wrote that, but even if you're pro-choice, I dont see how you can disagree.

This discussion is going to get a lot more complicated when parents can be told whether their unborn child will have medical issues...or be too short...or be gay...or what have you.  Designer babies.  it will be interesting to see what the Liberals say when the first abortion due to "gay gene" occurs.

I know this was an issue a few years back as many Asian Canadian parents were using early sex identification to abort females.  I don't know if this was ever resolved or if the media coverage just dropped off but hard to discriminate against a persons reasons for seeking an abortion as it is a personal decision.

[Atomic]

2 hours ago, Wideleft said:

Wow!  That's a similar argument made when gay marriage was proposed.  Conservatives said it would lead to people marrying their dogs.    

You completely missed his point obviously.  We are approaching a point in genetic science where we will be able to look at the genetic sequence of a child to determine some of its characteristics and vulnerabilities to disease.  It's the same process that is used by 23andMe.

Now imagine that soon-to-be parents have the genes of their unborn baby analyzed and they see something concerning... oh this child will have X disease or this child will be mentally challenged.  The existence of a 'gay gene' is very controversial but the issue is far from settled.  Someday there may be genetic indicators of homosexuality/bisexuality or other sexual preferences.  Now parents decide... Well we better abort it.  Is that ok?

These issues are coming as science gets more advanced, there is no question about it.

[Rich]

Go watch the movie Gattaca

[Wideleft]

1 hour ago, Atomic said:

You completely missed his point obviously.  We are approaching a point in genetic science where we will be able to look at the genetic sequence of a child to determine some of its characteristics and vulnerabilities to disease.  It's the same process that is used by 23andMe.

Now imagine that soon-to-be parents have the genes of their unborn baby analyzed and they see something concerning... oh this child will have X disease or this child will be mentally challenged.  The existence of a 'gay gene' is very controversial but the issue is far from settled.  Someday there may be genetic indicators of homosexuality/bisexuality or other sexual preferences.  Now parents decide... Well we better abort it.  Is that ok?

These issues are coming as science gets more advanced, there is no question about it.

I don't think I'm missing the point.  This is a reach and a justification to deny women the right to control their own body.  The challenge to liberals was laughable as progressives have been the leaders of the human rights movement for decades.

As mentioned, we have already seen selective abortions and murder in countries (like China (one child policy)) based on sex.  Why do you think mother's have ultrasounds?  We don't need half-ass scientific predictions to justify the "Pro-life" movement.  And you can bet that it won't be liberals struggling with the gay gene dilemna - it will be the conservatives.  

[The Unknown Poster]

2 hours ago, Atomic said:

You completely missed his point obviously.  We are approaching a point in genetic science where we will be able to look at the genetic sequence of a child to determine some of its characteristics and vulnerabilities to disease.  It's the same process that is used by 23andMe.

Now imagine that soon-to-be parents have the genes of their unborn baby analyzed and they see something concerning... oh this child will have X disease or this child will be mentally challenged.  The existence of a 'gay gene' is very controversial but the issue is far from settled.  Someday there may be genetic indicators of homosexuality/bisexuality or other sexual preferences.  Now parents decide... Well we better abort it.  Is that ok?

These issues are coming as science gets more advanced, there is no question about it.

Exactly.  They have the gay gene.  We know sexual orientation is not a choice or learned behavior.  So if you knew your unborn child was gay, and you wanted to abort, is that ok?  Thats the problem I see with Pro Choice.  To them its black & white - you want to abort, go for it.  Doesnt matter why.  And yes, it is black & white to a lot of pro-lifers too.  The point being, will it be black & white to pro-choicers when those choicers run counter to other issues they are black & white about?

Personally I have a big issue with the right wing conservatives who cant separate religion from politics or social issues and condemn sex ed in schools, condemn contraceptive education and yet also condemn abortion.  I mean sure, condemn abortion if you so desire.  But you're talking about something that is virtually 100% preventable under educated circumstances.  Start there.

[Atomic]

12 minutes ago, Wideleft said:

I don't think I'm missing the point.  This is a reach and a justification to deny women the right to control their own body.  The challenge to liberals was laughable as progressives have been the leaders of the human rights movement for decades.

As mentioned, we have already seen selective abortions and murder in countries (like China (one child policy)) based on sex.  Why do you think mother's have ultrasounds?  We don't need half-ass scientific predictions to justify the "Pro-life" movement.  And you can bet that it won't be liberals struggling with the gay gene dilemna - it will be the conservatives.  

Sorry I'm missing your opinion on this.  You believe it's ok to abort a baby based on sex, and by extension, other perceived characteristics?  Or it's not ok?

[blue_gold_84]

2 hours ago, Atomic said:

Now imagine that soon-to-be parents have the genes of their unborn baby analyzed and they see something concerning... oh this child will have X disease or this child will be mentally challenged.  The existence of a 'gay gene' is very controversial but the issue is far from settled.  Someday there may be genetic indicators of homosexuality/bisexuality or other sexual preferences.  Now parents decide... Well we better abort it.  Is that ok?

Since when is a disease or developmental issue in any way similar to sexual orientation?

[Atomic]

Just now, blue_gold_84 said:

Since when is a disease or developmental issue in any way similar to sexual orientation?

It's similar in that it is something that greatly affects the life of the person and parents could potentially use it as a justification for an abortion, which is what the question is about.

Is it okay to abort a baby based on predicted characteristics?  Does it matter?  If a gene is discovered that predicts autism and parents start aborting 90% of babies that show this gene is that okay?  If a gene is discovered that predicts homosexuality and parents start aborting 90% of babies that show this gene is that okay?

Sexual orientation and health conditions are obviously very different things but the similarity is in the fact that both could be used by parents to decide whether to keep or abort a baby.

[blue_gold_84]

1 minute ago, Atomic said:

It's similar in that it is something that greatly affects the life of the person and parents could potentially use it as a justification for an abortion, which is what the question is about.

Is it okay to abort a baby based on predicted characteristics?  Does it matter?  If a gene is discovered that predicts autism and parents start aborting 90% of babies that show this gene is that okay?  If a gene is discovered that predicts homosexuality and parents start aborting 90% of babies that show this gene is that okay?

Sexual orientation and health conditions are obviously very different things but the similarity is in the fact that both could be used by parents to decide whether to keep or abort a baby.

They're not similar at all. Understanding disease at the genetic level improves our understanding of how to treat and mitigate those diseases. Because diseases have negative effects on the people who have them. How does that in any way compare to a person's sexual orientation, regardless of whether or not down the road science discovers there's a genetic aspect to it?

And besides, the only people who care about the sexual orientation of others are hardline social conservatives stuck in the past. And they're pro-life, anyway.

[Wideleft]

9 minutes ago, Atomic said:

It's similar in that it is something that greatly affects the life of the person and parents could potentially use it as a justification for an abortion, which is what the question is about.

Is it okay to abort a baby based on predicted characteristics?  Does it matter?  If a gene is discovered that predicts autism and parents start aborting 90% of babies that show this gene is that okay?  If a gene is discovered that predicts homosexuality and parents start aborting 90% of babies that show this gene is that okay?

Sexual orientation and health conditions are obviously very different things but the similarity is in the fact that both could be used by parents to decide whether to keep or abort a baby.

Abortion is not a decision to be taken lightly by anyone and with the exception of Republican (Pro-life) Congressman Scott Desjarlais (and a few others) it is the hardest decision many women have to make.  The argument you make is so cynical (and I am a cynic) about human nature that I would suggest these babies would be better off not being born in the first place.  

If you want to reduce abortions, do your best to make sure society takes care of kids when they are born.  Vote for parties that encourage planned parenthood, universal daycare, school meal programs etc.  Arguing about stopping abortions when kids are born into poverty, danger, addiction etc. and not first condemning political parties that abdicate responsibility or aid to these kids is disingenuous.

[Wideleft]

27 minutes ago, Atomic said:

Sorry I'm missing your opinion on this.  You believe it's ok to abort a baby based on sex, and by extension, other perceived characteristics?  Or it's not ok?

I believe it is a mother's right to choose whether she is capable of carrying a baby to term or raising a child in a healthy, safe environment.  A mother who would abort based on the unlikely scenarios you describe probably shouldn't be a parent anyway.