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  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 13 of 13
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Craig
Site Admin




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

PostPosted: Tue May 05, 2009 11:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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


You are so ignorant. You would think that you would actually read what the SCOC actually had to say on this issue before spouting off like a know it all...

This is what they ruled...

Quote:
The majority of the Court held that “the structure of the system regulating access to therapeutic abortions is manifestly unfair. It contains so many potential barriers to its own operation that the [exception] it creates will in many circumstances be practically unavailable to women who would prima facie qualify”. As such, the provision was held to violate the principles of fundamental justice and was struck down, leaving Canada with a legislative vacuum to this day.


They DID NOT rule that a "fetus is not a person".

Quote:
It's not a baby it's a fetus.


THAT is your opinion. The dictionary disagrees with you...

ba·by (bb)
n. pl. ba·bies
1.
a. A very young child; an infant.
b. An unborn child; a fetus.
c. The youngest member of a family or group.
d. A very young animal.
2. An adult or young person who behaves in an infantile way.
3. Slang A girl or young woman.
4. Informal Sweetheart; dear. Used as a term of endearment.
5. Slang An object of personal concern or interest: Keeping the boat in good repair is your baby.

Quote:
She is the victim. Further, a fetus does not possess the capability to feel victimized.


Victim? She had sex. She brought it on herself. And now the baby must die because of it. Again - you say that the fetus can't feel victimized. Your statement is not based on facts. You are making shit up...

Quote:
Pain can be detected when nociceptors (pain receptors) discharge electrical impulses to the spinal cord and brain. These fire impulses outward, telling the muscles and body to react. These can be measured. Mountcastle, Medical Physiology, St. Louis: C.V. Mosby, pp. 391-427 "Lip tactile response may be evoked by the end of the 7th week. At 11 weeks, the face and all parts of the upper and lower extremities are sensitive to touch. By 13 1/2 to 14 weeks, the entire body surface, except for the back and the top of the head, are sensitive to pain." S. Reinis & J. Goldman, The Development of the Brain C. Thomas Pub., 1980


Quote:
Mere opinion on your part.


Everything you state is either blatently wrong or mere opinion. At least we are providing facts. Everytime you TRY to make a statement of fact it is quickly proven wrong (see above).
SmartCon





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

PostPosted: Tue May 05, 2009 12:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="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?[quote]

The Canadian Bill of Right has allowed courts to strike down federal legislation which which conflict with it since the case of R v Drybones in 1977. What would be the purpose of any Bill of Rights at any level if it were not binding?
Mac





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

PostPosted: Tue May 05, 2009 1:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

SmartCon wrote:
The Canadian Bill of Right has allowed courts to strike down federal legislation which which conflict with it since the case of R v Drybones in 1977. What would be the purpose of any Bill of Rights at any level if it were not binding?

Since you appear unwilling to admit as much, I will say the words for you. There is no specific section of Dief's Bill of Rights which grants such authority as to strike down legislation. The elites of the Supreme Court of Canada took it upon themselves to "interpret" the Bill of Rights and grant themselves that power.

Incidentally, for those who are curious, the decision S-C references (R vs Dry Bones) was not unanimous. In fact, the dissenting justices specifically objected to the decision's conclusion that "the Canadian Bill of Rights shall triumph over any inconsistency even to the point of rendering offensive legislation inoperative" since they were persuaded otherwise. Funny that the justices waited until Canada's worst Prime Minister was in office before they invented such notions...

-Mac
SmartCon





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

PostPosted: Tue May 05, 2009 7:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mac wrote:

Since you appear unwilling to admit as much, I will say the words for you. There is no specific section of Dief's Bill of Rights which grants such authority as to strike down legislation. The elites of the Supreme Court of Canada took it upon themselves to "interpret" the Bill of Rights and grant themselves that power.

Incidentally, for those who are curious, the decision S-C references (R vs Dry Bones) was not unanimous. In fact, the dissenting justices specifically objected to the decision's conclusion that "the Canadian Bill of Rights shall triumph over any inconsistency even to the point of rendering offensive legislation inoperative" since they were persuaded otherwise. Funny that the justices waited until Canada's worst Prime Minister was in office before they invented such notions...

-Mac


Mac,

The Bill of Rights did not have to say it blatantly, the courts have jurisdiction to interpret it however. That automatically gave them power to strike down legislation as they did in R v Drybones. This is because Section 2 of the Bill of Rights which states:
"Every law of Canada shall, unless it is expressly declared by an Act of the Parliament of Canada that it shall operate notwithstanding the Canadian Bill of Rights, be so construed and applied as not to abrogate, abridge or infringe or to authorize the abrogation, abridgment or infringement of any of the rights or freedoms herein recognized and declared".

The majority interpretation of Section 2 in R v Drybones was that:
“the clearest indication that s. 2 is intended to mean and does mean that if a law of Canada cannot be "sensibly construed and applied" so that it does not abrogate, abridge or infringe one of the rights and freedoms recognized and declared by the Bill, then such law is in-operative "unless it is expressly declared by an Act of the Parliament of Canada that it shall operate notwithstanding the Canadian Bill of Rights". I think a declaration by the courts that a section or portion of a section of a statute is inoperative is to be distinguished from the repeal of such a section and is to be confined to the particular circumstances of the case in which the declaration is made. The situation appears to me to be somewhat analogous to a case where valid provincial legislation in an otherwise unoccupied field ceases to be operative by reason of conflicting federal legislation” (at page 294-295)

In R v Drybones the ratio was 6 to 3, double that of the minority. Further, the Justice who wrote the judgment of the majority, Justice Richie, was appointed by PM Diefenbaker to the court in 1959. He was a conservative judge and that’s by 1959 standards.

Also, the Minister of Justice at the time of the Bill of Rights passing, Davie Fulton, knew full well the courts would be able to strike down legislation. Diefenbaker was a lawyer himself (note: a damn good one) and would have known this also. Watch this clip where Fulton is interviewed about the Bill of Rights, it is quite clear:
http://archives.cbc.ca/politic.....ips/13524/
Mac





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

PostPosted: Tue May 05, 2009 7:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

SmartCon wrote:
Mac,

The Bill of Rights did not have to say it blatantly, the courts have jurisdiction to interpret it however. That automatically gave them power to strike down legislation as they did in R v Drybones. This is because Section 2 of the Bill of Rights which states:
"Every law of Canada shall, unless it is expressly declared by an Act of the Parliament of Canada that it shall operate notwithstanding the Canadian Bill of Rights, be so construed and applied as not to abrogate, abridge or infringe or to authorize the abrogation, abridgment or infringement of any of the rights or freedoms herein recognized and declared".

In other words, the judges didn't have authority, they created authority.

SmartCon wrote:
The majority interpretation of Section 2 in R v Drybones was that:
“the clearest indication that s. 2 is intended to mean and does mean that if a law of Canada cannot be "sensibly construed and applied" so that it does not abrogate, abridge or infringe one of the rights and freedoms recognized and declared by the Bill, then such law is in-operative "unless it is expressly declared by an Act of the Parliament of Canada that it shall operate notwithstanding the Canadian Bill of Rights". I think a declaration by the courts that a section or portion of a section of a statute is inoperative is to be distinguished from the repeal of such a section and is to be confined to the particular circumstances of the case in which the declaration is made. The situation appears to me to be somewhat analogous to a case where valid provincial legislation in an otherwise unoccupied field ceases to be operative by reason of conflicting federal legislation” (at page 294-295)

In R v Drybones the ratio was 6 to 3, double that of the minority. Further, the Justice who wrote the judgment of the majority, Justice Richie, was appointed by PM Diefenbaker to the court in 1959. He was a conservative judge and that’s by 1959 standards.

Also, the Minister of Justice at the time of the Bill of Rights passing, Davie Fulton, knew full well the courts would be able to strike down legislation. Diefenbaker was a lawyer himself (note: a damn good one) and would have known this also. Watch this clip where Fulton is interviewed about the Bill of Rights, it is quite clear:
http://archives.cbc.ca/politic.....ips/13524/

I haven't read up on the individual judges. I will, however, make this observation. The Chief Justice at the time (Cartwright) was one of those who dissented and argued that Section 2 bound the judges rather than empowering them.

Thank you for the linked media interview. I've never seen it before! Minister Fulton's comments made it clear that the intention of the Bill of Right was libertarian... and, you were right, the interpretation of the courts were anticipated and accepted. That being said, I would say Professor Rodell was, by far, the wisest of the group.

-Mac
SmartCon





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

PostPosted: Tue May 05, 2009 8:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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


You are so ignorant. You would think that you would actually read what the SCOC actually had to say on this issue before spouting off like a know it all...

This is what they ruled...

Quote:
The majority of the Court held that “the structure of the system regulating access to therapeutic abortions is manifestly unfair. It contains so many potential barriers to its own operation that the [exception] it creates will in many circumstances be practically unavailable to women who would prima facie qualify”. As such, the provision was held to violate the principles of fundamental justice and was struck down, leaving Canada with a legislative vacuum to this day.


They DID NOT rule that a "fetus is not a person".


Craig, you are right, the Supreme Court did say that. It was at paragraph 72 of R v Morgantaler in 1988. However, the Supreme Court considered whether a fetus is a person in the case of Tremblay v Daigle in 1989. In a UNANIMOUS decision the court held that a fetus was not a person nor was it a human being. They further held that a fetus has no legal status. The case was interesting, as unlike the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms can apply from person to person not just between a person and the state. The argument presented there was that a fetus was a person and a human being and therefore entitled to such rights under the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, including the right that: Every human being has a right to life, and to personal security, inviolability and freedom.

The court however made its conclusion finding that: "the consistency to be found in the common law jurisdictions, it would be wrong to interpret the vague provisions of the Quebec Charter as conferring legal personhood upon the foetus".

The Supreme Court is in unanimous agreement that a fetus is not a person nor a human-being.


Craig wrote:

Quote:
It's not a baby it's a fetus.


THAT is your opinion. The dictionary disagrees with you...

ba·by (bb)
n. pl. ba·bies
1.
a. A very young child; an infant.
b. An unborn child; a fetus.
c. The youngest member of a family or group.
d. A very young animal.
2. An adult or young person who behaves in an infantile way.
3. Slang A girl or young woman.
4. Informal Sweetheart; dear. Used as a term of endearment.
5. Slang An object of personal concern or interest: Keeping the boat in good repair is your baby.


Well that's nice for the dictionary. Unfortunately, as shown above, the Supreme Court does not think a fetus a human-being or person. The dictionary is not binding.

Craig wrote:

Quote:
She is the victim. Further, a fetus does not possess the capability to feel victimized.


Victim? She had sex. She brought it on herself. And now the baby must die because of it. Again - you say that the fetus can't feel victimized. Your statement is not based on facts. You are making shit up...


What am I making up? A fetus is not a human-being, it's cant be victimized.

Quote:
Pain can be detected when nociceptors (pain receptors) discharge electrical impulses to the spinal cord and brain. These fire impulses outward, telling the muscles and body to react. These can be measured. Mountcastle, Medical Physiology, St. Louis: C.V. Mosby, pp. 391-427 "Lip tactile response may be evoked by the end of the 7th week. At 11 weeks, the face and all parts of the upper and lower extremities are sensitive to touch. By 13 1/2 to 14 weeks, the entire body surface, except for the back and the top of the head, are sensitive to pain." S. Reinis & J. Goldman, The Development of the Brain C. Thomas Pub., 1980


Umm..... a young fetus does not have muscles or really a body for that matter. I like your information from 1980 and from www.abortionfacts.com, which I am sure is very non-bias.

However, the Journal of American Medical Association, you know that association will ALL the doctors in it, says a fetus cannot feel pain until about 29 or thirty weeks, so 7-8 months. This information is from 2005. (citation: Lee, Susan J., Ralston, Henry J. Peter, Drey, Eleanor A., Partridge, John Colin, & Rosen, Mark A. (2005). Fetal Pain: A Systematic Multidisciplinary Review of the Evidence. Journal of the American Medical Association, 294 (8), 947-954). Note I did find that on wiki first, admittedly.

What do those "elitist" at the American Medical Association know about the issue though? I'm sure your data from the anti-abortion website from 1980 is correct.

Craig wrote:
Quote:
Mere opinion on your part.


Everything you state is either blatently wrong or mere opinion. At least we are providing facts. Everytime you TRY to make a statement of fact it is quickly proven wrong (see above).


Are ya sure?
Craig
Site Admin




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

PostPosted: Wed May 06, 2009 12:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

SmartCon wrote:
However, the Supreme Court considered whether a fetus is a person in the case of Tremblay v Daigle in 1989. In a UNANIMOUS decision the court held that a fetus was not a person nor was it a human being.


Wrong again. They DID NOT rule that it was not a person or a human being. This is what they ruled...

Quote:
As the Court noted, its role was to consider the fetus's legal status; it would not rule on its biological status, nor would it enter "philosophical and theological debates."


You are the one stating that it is not a human being or a person. For legal reasons that is obvious in Canada. But it IS a person and just because the law doesn't recognize that currently doesn't make it so.

Question for you: was a fetus a person in 1950? What has changed since then? The law - not the fetus. And it will change again......
Craig
Site Admin




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

PostPosted: Wed May 06, 2009 12:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

SmartCon wrote:
Umm..... a young fetus does not have muscles or really a body for that matter. I like your information from 1980 and from www.abortionfacts.com, which I am sure is very non-bias.


Hey look - more wrong...

If a young fetus doesn't have muscles then how does it move. I just got back from my wife's 13 week ultrasound and the baby was moving - strange that.

Week 10 - The fetus can make a fist with its fingers. <-- requires muscles
Week 13 - More muscle tissue and bones have developed, and the bones become harder.
Week 13 - The fetus makes active movements.
Week 13 - Sucking motions are made with the mouth.
Week 19 - The fetus is more active with increased muscle development.
Week 19 - Quickening" usually occurs (the mother can feel the fetus moving).

A young fetus doesn't "really have a body"?????

Looks like a body to me (18 weeks)...



But you support the "right" to do this to it...

chrisreid





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

PostPosted: Wed May 06, 2009 2:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Just because a court makes a ruling doesn't make the decision in itself right or just.

You stack a justice system with people that have the views towards the law as you want, you will get the outcomes you want.

Liberals do it, and then hide behind the claim that the justice system and bureaucracy are "independent", as though being independent of politicians is the same as being unbiased (as if it is possible to be unbiased).

Smartcon you are willingly bending over for every single liberal out there :p
It makes it so much easier for liberals to implement their agenda when there is one less conservative to fight their ideology.
Liberals fought to transform this country into their socialist image, and it saddens me to hear people claiming to be conservative bendover and take whatever liberals dish out.

Tell me, do you think a liberal would wave the white flag over a battle with conservativess as easily as you have for them?
Craig
Site Admin




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

PostPosted: Wed May 06, 2009 9:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

chrisreid wrote:
Just because a court makes a ruling doesn't make the decision in itself right or just.


Exactly - employing that logic would mean that women would still be not allowed to vote - things would never change. I'm willing to bet this guy thinks that weed should be legalized. Well the SCOC upholds our drug laws so I guess he is "wrong". This guy seems to crave to employ a Chinese system of government where select elites make your decisions for you and you can't argue against them - you must blindly accept their judgements as truth - they are the chosen and infallable ones.
amodray





Joined: 03 Dec 2008
Posts: 104
Reputation: 7.7Reputation: 7.7Reputation: 7.7Reputation: 7.7Reputation: 7.7Reputation: 7.7Reputation: 7.7

PostPosted: Thu May 07, 2009 11:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

SmartCon wrote:


A young fetus doesn't "really have a body"?????

Looks like a body to me (18 weeks)...



But you support the "right" to do this to it...



Just what this debate needs--some shock value. Refer back to some of my previous postings on this issue, I have drawn the line in the sand at when abortions can occur and when they cannot. The technicalities are what a bunch of other neo-cons jumped down my throat for, 'how can we tell the 6 month point?' This was just some part of the criticism I endured. Nonetheless, I feel I have put it at a point that will make both sides happy, if they are willing to grow up and compromise to resolve this issue.
Pro-life and Pro-choice are the two sides and they tend to live in their own little world of absolutes. No abortions because it is a life, but it is my choice to abort, are good summations of their sides. Compromise is there somewhere and everyone has to grow up and come to a decision on this issue.
Craig
Site Admin




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

PostPosted: Thu May 07, 2009 12:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

amodray wrote:
Compromise is there somewhere and everyone has to grow up and come to a decision on this issue.


Hey - compromise is a step in the right direction and I'm sure most prolifers would be happy with that. Try to mention your compromise solution in a prochoice forum and you will see reel venom. I would take compromise over nothing in a second.
SFrank85





Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 2269
Reputation: 59.8
votes: 4
Location: Toronto - Scarborough Southwest

PostPosted: Thu May 07, 2009 12:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

My first choice is a ban of state funding for abortions. However, I am with Craig on this one. Compromise would be better than nothing. However, I think 6 months is still a long time to allow an abortion.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 13 of 13

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


 
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