Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 11, 12, 13  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 12 of 13
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
chrisreid





Joined: 29 Oct 2006
Posts: 182
Reputation: 64.1
votes: 5
Location: Melbourne, Australia

PostPosted: Mon May 04, 2009 3:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

SmartCon wrote:

I believe in those six principles. But my view on natural law, the only principle you have seem to bring in to question regarding my beliefs, is different than yours. You are essentially saying that if you are pro-choice you do not believe in natural law. This view of natural law is incorrect. Your view is one line of thinking in natural law that you are pushing, I would align it with Christian natural law from Christian philosophers like Augustine and Aquinas. Being pro-choice does not however go against natural law in the general sense.

No, the Constitution does not say that. But in the case of R v. Morgentaler the Supreme Court held that to not allow a woman to have an abortion would violate her right to "security of a person" in section 7 and the anti-abortion section in the Criminal Code was struck down. This decision was in 1988, so it has been law now as 21 years. Regarding term "life", it's beginning is debatable. In the case Tremblay v Daigle the Supreme Court held that a fetus has no legal status as a person.

Further, the Charter only has effect between the state and the people. Not people to other people. Even if a fetus were a person, the Charter would not apply to the relationship between the mother and the fetus.

I'll respond to your other stuff later, need to run to the store.

Cheers


If one believes in the savagery of killing human offspring that goes against all six principles of conservatism. It goes against natural law, which has nothing to do with christianity. It goes against the belief in established institutions, such as the family. It flies in the face of believing in human exceptionalism. Barbaric cultures sacrifice their offspring, not modern liberal democracies that believe that human have inalieble rights.

As for the Supreme Court, once again, its interesting you blindly accept rulings from elites. Since part of conservatism is to be skeptical of elites. Did it ever occur to you that Judges can make incorrect rulings? The Supreme Court of Canada at one time declared that women were not person's under the law. The Supreme Court may have the final decision deciding what laws are constitutional, but that doesn't end the debate. It is a free society, individuals having every right to disagree with such rulings, and fight to have them changed. Afterall Morgentaler fought to have it changed, which flew in the face of popular opinion at the time, conservatives in the same token should be fighting for the kind of change that is aligned with their values.

Me thinks you need to change you name from "smartcon" to "left-wingcon".
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Mon May 04, 2009 10:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

chrisreid wrote:
SmartCon wrote:

I believe in those six principles. But my view on natural law, the only principle you have seem to bring in to question regarding my beliefs, is different than yours. You are essentially saying that if you are pro-choice you do not believe in natural law. This view of natural law is incorrect. Your view is one line of thinking in natural law that you are pushing, I would align it with Christian natural law from Christian philosophers like Augustine and Aquinas. Being pro-choice does not however go against natural law in the general sense.

No, the Constitution does not say that. But in the case of R v. Morgentaler the Supreme Court held that to not allow a woman to have an abortion would violate her right to "security of a person" in section 7 and the anti-abortion section in the Criminal Code was struck down. This decision was in 1988, so it has been law now as 21 years. Regarding term "life", it's beginning is debatable. In the case Tremblay v Daigle the Supreme Court held that a fetus has no legal status as a person.

Further, the Charter only has effect between the state and the people. Not people to other people. Even if a fetus were a person, the Charter would not apply to the relationship between the mother and the fetus.

I'll respond to your other stuff later, need to run to the store.

Cheers


If one believes in the savagery of killing human offspring that goes against all six principles of conservatism. It goes against natural law, which has nothing to do with christianity. It goes against the belief in established institutions, such as the family. It flies in the face of believing in human exceptionalism. Barbaric cultures sacrifice their offspring, not modern liberal democracies that believe that human have inalieble rights.

As for the Supreme Court, once again, its interesting you blindly accept rulings from elites. Since part of conservatism is to be skeptical of elites. Did it ever occur to you that Judges can make incorrect rulings? The Supreme Court of Canada at one time declared that women were not person's under the law. The Supreme Court may have the final decision deciding what laws are constitutional, but that doesn't end the debate. It is a free society, individuals having every right to disagree with such rulings, and fight to have them changed. Afterall Morgentaler fought to have it changed, which flew in the face of popular opinion at the time, conservatives in the same token should be fighting for the kind of change that is aligned with their values.

Me thinks you need to change you name from "smartcon" to "left-wingcon".


Very well said!!!
SmartCon





Joined: 29 Mar 2009
Posts: 118
Reputation: -0.7
votes: 6

PostPosted: Mon May 04, 2009 2:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

chrisreid wrote:
SmartCon wrote:

I believe in those six principles. But my view on natural law, the only principle you have seem to bring in to question regarding my beliefs, is different than yours. You are essentially saying that if you are pro-choice you do not believe in natural law. This view of natural law is incorrect. Your view is one line of thinking in natural law that you are pushing, I would align it with Christian natural law from Christian philosophers like Augustine and Aquinas. Being pro-choice does not however go against natural law in the general sense.

No, the Constitution does not say that. But in the case of R v. Morgentaler the Supreme Court held that to not allow a woman to have an abortion would violate her right to "security of a person" in section 7 and the anti-abortion section in the Criminal Code was struck down. This decision was in 1988, so it has been law now as 21 years. Regarding term "life", it's beginning is debatable. In the case Tremblay v Daigle the Supreme Court held that a fetus has no legal status as a person.

Further, the Charter only has effect between the state and the people. Not people to other people. Even if a fetus were a person, the Charter would not apply to the relationship between the mother and the fetus.

I'll respond to your other stuff later, need to run to the store.

Cheers


If one believes in the savagery of killing human offspring that goes against all six principles of conservatism. It goes against natural law, which has nothing to do with christianity. It goes against the belief in established institutions, such as the family. It flies in the face of believing in human exceptionalism. Barbaric cultures sacrifice their offspring, not modern liberal democracies that believe that human have inalieble rights.

As for the Supreme Court, once again, its interesting you blindly accept rulings from elites. Since part of conservatism is to be skeptical of elites. Did it ever occur to you that Judges can make incorrect rulings? The Supreme Court of Canada at one time declared that women were not person's under the law. The Supreme Court may have the final decision deciding what laws are constitutional, but that doesn't end the debate. It is a free society, individuals having every right to disagree with such rulings, and fight to have them changed. Afterall Morgentaler fought to have it changed, which flew in the face of popular opinion at the time, conservatives in the same token should be fighting for the kind of change that is aligned with their values.

Me thinks you need to change you name from "smartcon" to "left-wingcon".


Well, I don't really think of the Supreme Court as the "elite" as you do. They are appointed by an elected PM.

You say "If one believes in the savagery of killing human offspring that goes against all six principles of conservatism". I would agree, but I just don't think a fetus is an offspring. This does not make me "right wing". There are many Conservatives who feel the same as I do.

I don't blindly accept their ruling, in fact I read them. I just agree with them on this issue. The thing is, as I said prior, Canadians are becoming more libritarian on social issues. The anti-abortion cause is going to die out over time due to this.
crazymamma





Joined: 18 Aug 2007
Posts: 1011
Reputation: 71.8
votes: 14
Location: The kitchen

PostPosted: Mon May 04, 2009 4:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

SmartCon wrote:
chrisreid wrote:
SmartCon wrote:

I believe in those six principles. But my view on natural law, the only principle you have seem to bring in to question regarding my beliefs, is different than yours. You are essentially saying that if you are pro-choice you do not believe in natural law. This view of natural law is incorrect. Your view is one line of thinking in natural law that you are pushing, I would align it with Christian natural law from Christian philosophers like Augustine and Aquinas. Being pro-choice does not however go against natural law in the general sense.

No, the Constitution does not say that. But in the case of R v. Morgentaler the Supreme Court held that to not allow a woman to have an abortion would violate her right to "security of a person" in section 7 and the anti-abortion section in the Criminal Code was struck down. This decision was in 1988, so it has been law now as 21 years. Regarding term "life", it's beginning is debatable. In the case Tremblay v Daigle the Supreme Court held that a fetus has no legal status as a person.

Further, the Charter only has effect between the state and the people. Not people to other people. Even if a fetus were a person, the Charter would not apply to the relationship between the mother and the fetus.

I'll respond to your other stuff later, need to run to the store.

Cheers


If one believes in the savagery of killing human offspring that goes against all six principles of conservatism. It goes against natural law, which has nothing to do with christianity. It goes against the belief in established institutions, such as the family. It flies in the face of believing in human exceptionalism. Barbaric cultures sacrifice their offspring, not modern liberal democracies that believe that human have inalieble rights.

As for the Supreme Court, once again, its interesting you blindly accept rulings from elites. Since part of conservatism is to be skeptical of elites. Did it ever occur to you that Judges can make incorrect rulings? The Supreme Court of Canada at one time declared that women were not person's under the law. The Supreme Court may have the final decision deciding what laws are constitutional, but that doesn't end the debate. It is a free society, individuals having every right to disagree with such rulings, and fight to have them changed. Afterall Morgentaler fought to have it changed, which flew in the face of popular opinion at the time, conservatives in the same token should be fighting for the kind of change that is aligned with their values.

Me thinks you need to change you name from "smartcon" to "left-wingcon".


Well, I don't really think of the Supreme Court as the "elite" as you do. They are appointed by an elected PM.

You say "If one believes in the savagery of killing human offspring that goes against all six principles of conservatism". I would agree, but I just don't think a fetus is an offspring. This does not make me "right wing". There are many Conservatives who feel the same as I do.

I don't blindly accept their ruling, in fact I read them. I just agree with them on this issue. The thing is, as I said prior, Canadians are becoming more libritarian on social issues. The anti-abortion cause is going to die out over time due to this.


Too bad they can't wrap their head around this concept when it comes to my wallet. :shock:
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Mon May 04, 2009 4:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

SmartCon wrote:
Well, I don't really think of the Supreme Court as the "elite" as you do. They are appointed by an elected PM.

You lost me on this one, S-C. The Justices of the Supreme Court of Canada are appointed by the PM but from that point forward, they are absolutely unaccountable to anyone on earth. They make decisions which affect the daily lives of Canadians, which influence the direction of government and the content of legislation yet there is no mechanism of meaningful feedback.

Untouchable. Sounds pretty elite to me.

-Mac
SmartCon





Joined: 29 Mar 2009
Posts: 118
Reputation: -0.7
votes: 6

PostPosted: Mon May 04, 2009 4:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mac wrote:
SmartCon wrote:
Well, I don't really think of the Supreme Court as the "elite" as you do. They are appointed by an elected PM.

You lost me on this one, S-C. The Justices of the Supreme Court of Canada are appointed by the PM but from that point forward, they are absolutely unaccountable to anyone on earth. They make decisions which affect the daily lives of Canadians, which influence the direction of government and the content of legislation yet there is no mechanism of meaningful feedback.

Untouchable. Sounds pretty elite to me.

-Mac


They inerpret the law, that is it. The law that has been passed by parliment and the common law that has evolved for 100's of years. If parliment does not like their ruling they can nulify it by amending the law. If you want to have the definition of life extended to a fetus, go for a constitutional amendment. I don't think it would fly and whoever tabled it would be ending their career in politics, but why not, give it a go.
SmartCon





Joined: 29 Mar 2009
Posts: 118
Reputation: -0.7
votes: 6

PostPosted: Mon May 04, 2009 4:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

crazymamma wrote:

Too bad they can't wrap their head around this concept when it comes to my wallet. :shock:


AHAHAHAHA I wish they could to.
chrisreid





Joined: 29 Oct 2006
Posts: 182
Reputation: 64.1
votes: 5
Location: Melbourne, Australia

PostPosted: Mon May 04, 2009 6:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="SmartCon]
You say "If one believes in the savagery of killing human offspring that goes against all six principles of conservatism". I would agree, but I just don't think a fetus is an offspring. This does not make me "right wing". There are many Conservatives who feel the same as I do.
[/quote]

A fetus isn't human offspring? So what, when a human male sperm comes in contact with a female human egg, the embryo is not the offspring of the parents? If a fetus isn't human then is a fetus a dog? What kind of DNA does it have? Rabbit DNA??

Do we really need a biology class?

[quote="SmartCon]
I don't blindly accept their ruling, in fact I read them. I just agree with them on this issue. The thing is, as I said prior, Canadians are becoming more libritarian on social issues. The anti-abortion cause is going to die out over time due to this.[/quote]

Being pro-abortion isn't exactly equated to being libertarians. Many libertarians see like myself that abortion flies in the face of liberty. Liberty has to be for all individuals, not collective groups.
SmartCon





Joined: 29 Mar 2009
Posts: 118
Reputation: -0.7
votes: 6

PostPosted: Mon May 04, 2009 6:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

chrisreid wrote:


Being pro-abortion isn't exactly equated to being libertarians. Many libertarians see like myself that abortion flies in the face of liberty. Liberty has to be for all individuals, not collective groups.


Sure, but being pro-choice does not make you not a conservative either.

The issues is you define a fetus as a person, offspring or an individual. I do not. I think a sperm has as much potential to be a person as a fetus does. I do not think a sperm is a person or an individual. I accept that you feel that way and you have the right to feel that way. And those who are pro-choice have the right to feel the way they do as well. That's what's great about pro-choice, you can choose.

The person who has the most interest in a fetus is its mother. And if that mother decides to abort the only victim is herself. A third party should have any say in what a woman can and can't do with their body.
chrisreid





Joined: 29 Oct 2006
Posts: 182
Reputation: 64.1
votes: 5
Location: Melbourne, Australia

PostPosted: Mon May 04, 2009 9:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Uh, I just spent several messages showingwhy pro-abortion goes against philosophical conservatism. It's called an argument. Just saying that you support the conservative party and are pro-abortion, doesn't mean you are a philosophical conservative. If you say you believe in the philosophy behind conservative, but then agree with policies that go against that philosophy, there is something amiss in your reasoning.

SmartCon wrote:

Sure, but being pro-choice does not make you not a conservative either.

The issues is you define a fetus as a person, offspring or an individual. I do not. I think a sperm has as much potential to be a person as a fetus does. I do not think a sperm is a person or an individual. I accept that you feel that way and you have the right to feel that way. And those who are pro-choice have the right to feel the way they do as well. That's what's great about pro-choice, you can choose.

The person who has the most interest in a fetus is its mother. And if that mother decides to abort the only victim is herself. A third party should have any say in what a woman can and can't do with their body.


A sperm is not a person, for very obvious biological reasons, it does not have the full DNA sequence of a human being. A fetus however does. A fetus is a person, just at a younger stage of development - just like a child is still a human even though they are a younger stage of development than an adult.

The point is, smartcon, I am basing my decision on abortion, based on reasoning, both logical and philosophical, as well as biological. Actually the person that has the most interest in the individual baby themselves. People do have limits to what they can do with their body. A person is put into a mental hospital if they choose to self-mutilate themselves.

As well, if a women commits an abortion, the ONLY victim isn't just herself, it's the baby.

But this is a circular conversation, because all you do is come back and say you don't think the baby is a human - despite all biological evidence, and desptie all reasoning. So your decision is purely political and emotional. It's making decisions based purely on politics and emotion why there is tyranny in the world.
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Mon May 04, 2009 10:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

SmartCon wrote:
They inerpret the law, that is it. The law that has been passed by parliment and the common law that has evolved for 100's of years. If parliment does not like their ruling they can nulify it by amending the law.

You make it sound so simple... like "interpreting the law" is nothing more than a walk in the park complete with a latte at the cafe on the corner.

How ironic that you should reference the hundreds of years of commonlaw since during those hundreds of years, judges didn't have the right to strike down laws. That's a fairly new innovation brought to us by Canada's worst Prime Minister (bar none) Trudeau with his eff-ed up Constitution.

-Mac
SmartCon





Joined: 29 Mar 2009
Posts: 118
Reputation: -0.7
votes: 6

PostPosted: Mon May 04, 2009 11:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mac wrote:
SmartCon wrote:
They inerpret the law, that is it. The law that has been passed by parliment and the common law that has evolved for 100's of years. If parliment does not like their ruling they can nulify it by amending the law.

You make it sound so simple... like "interpreting the law" is nothing more than a walk in the park complete with a latte at the cafe on the corner.

How ironic that you should reference the hundreds of years of commonlaw since during those hundreds of years, judges didn't have the right to strike down laws. That's a fairly new innovation brought to us by Canada's worst Prime Minister (bar none) Trudeau with his eff-ed up Constitution.

-Mac


That's entirely incorrect. The first Bill of Rights was enacted by a Conservative PM, you may have heard of him his name was John Diefenbaker? Dief actually wanted to make it a Constitutional document but could not pull it off due to a lack of provincial support. Trudeau ran with Dief's idea is all. Have a read:
http://www.histori.ca/prodev/article.do?id=11588

Further, the US had a Constitution that gave the their Supreme Court the ability to strike down laws since it's founding. They are a common law country. The Supreme Court of Canada has stuck down a many a law with the BNA since 1867 prior to the Charter. Further, the UK House of Lords, their highest court, have several constitutional type documents going back to the Magna Carte used to strike down laws. You have no idea what you're talking about Mac.
SmartCon





Joined: 29 Mar 2009
Posts: 118
Reputation: -0.7
votes: 6

PostPosted: Mon May 04, 2009 11:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mrsocko wrote:
A little religion would do this country some good.


Ok, what kind? How about Scientology?
SmartCon





Joined: 29 Mar 2009
Posts: 118
Reputation: -0.7
votes: 6

PostPosted: Mon May 04, 2009 11:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

chrisreid wrote:
Uh, I just spent several messages showingwhy pro-abortion goes against philosophical conservatism. It's called an argument. Just saying that you support the conservative party and are pro-abortion, doesn't mean you are a philosophical conservative. If you say you believe in the philosophy behind conservative, but then agree with policies that go against that philosophy, there is something amiss in your reasoning.


No you didn't, you said it went against natural law. Then you said that anyone who does not believe in natural law is not a conservative. But natural law has various different schools of thought, as I pointed out earlier. Your school of thought seems to be based on Christian Natural Law, which is only one area of natural law.

Further, this view you have or "love it or leave it" conservatism is sad. There are various types of conservatives on the spectrum, to discount them cause they don't believe a fetus to be a human being is just incorrect.

chrisreid wrote:
A sperm is not a person, for very obvious biological reasons, it does not have the full DNA sequence of a human being. A fetus however does. A fetus is a person, just at a younger stage of development - just like a child is still a human even though they are a younger stage of development than an adult.


A fetus is not a person, SCC agrees with me. Mere DNA alinement does not not make a person.

Is an egg a chicken? No, it's an egg! It's a shell of yoke and egg whites. But, it is not a chicken. A fetus is like egg, it's not a person... nor is it a chicken.

chrisreid wrote:
The point is, smartcon, I am basing my decision on abortion, based on reasoning, both logical and philosophical, as well as biological. Actually the person that has the most interest in the individual baby themselves. People do have limits to what they can do with their body. A person is put into a mental hospital if they choose to self-mutilate themselves.


Yes, your decision is logical based on your argument but so is mine. To accept each others argument we have to agree with one anthers premiss, which we don't. So, we can agree to disagree then.

A fetus cannot have interests as it is incapable of the thought process to do. Which is one of the many reasons a fetus is not a person.

Again, you I would have to accept that abortion is self-mutilation which I do not. Further, people mutilate themselves all the time with piercing and tattoos, but are not committed. Further, to be committed you have to a) be a danger to ones self; and be a danger to another person. Regarding (a) a woman who gets an abortion and does not go through the risk of child birth is technically creating less danger for them self. Regarding (b) you would have to accept a fetus to be a person, which the courts and I both don't obviously.

chrisreid wrote:
As well, if a women commits an abortion, the ONLY victim isn't just herself, it's the baby.


It's not a baby it's a fetus. The fetus is attached to a woman's body making it apart of her. She is the victim. Further, a fetus does not possess the capability to feel victimized.

chrisreid wrote:
But this is a circular conversation, because all you do is come back and say you don't think the baby is a human - despite all biological evidence, and desptie all reasoning. So your decision is purely political and emotional. It's making decisions based purely on politics and emotion why there is tyranny in the world.


Mere opinion on your part.
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Tue May 05, 2009 10:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

SmartCon wrote:
That's entirely incorrect. The first Bill of Rights was enacted by a Conservative PM, you may have heard of him his name was John Diefenbaker? Dief actually wanted to make it a Constitutional document but could not pull it off due to a lack of provincial support. Trudeau ran with Dief's idea is all. Have a read:
http://www.histori.ca/prodev/article.do?id=11588

Further, the US had a Constitution that gave the their Supreme Court the ability to strike down laws since it's founding. They are a common law country. The Supreme Court of Canada has stuck down a many a law with the BNA since 1867 prior to the Charter. Further, the UK House of Lords, their highest court, have several constitutional type documents going back to the Magna Carte used to strike down laws. You have no idea what you're talking about Mac.

Please cite the section of Dief's Bill of Rights which gave Supreme Court judges the power to strike down laws. Is it okay if I don't hold my breath while I wait for your reply?

The US Constitution is completely irrelevant since we're talking about Canada and the American Constitution is dissimilar to the Westminster "unwritten" model. Our British tradition is based on concepts introduced by the Magna Carte of "per legem terrae" or the law of the land and there was no entrenched constitutional law, only a combination of historically important statutes (ie: the Magna Carta, the BNA Act, etc.), the common law, and numerous unwritten conventions and us­ages.

Dief's Bill of Rights would be considered to be an historically important statue within the context of our commonlaw tradition but it was not a Constitution. Perhaps, instead of telling others how little you believe they know, you should do some research.

-Mac
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 12 of 13

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 11, 12, 13  Next  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Abortion

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB