Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Only a zealot believes there’s no moral complexity around abortion.

There is moral complexity on a person-by-person basis on whether they should personally have an abortion.


There is no complexity around whether abortion should be available to those who need it.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by GGG

But having fewer restrictions and allowing non-medically necessary 3rd trimester abortion doesn’t actually change policy. So while people are opposed to them they don’t actually happen in the circumstances people imagine.

But they do.

It’s true that third-trimester abortions are rare. But they do happen. Representatives from the CDC, the pro-abortion-rights Guttmacher Institute, and the anti-abortion Charlotte Lozier Institute told me that national data simply aren’t available. But Colorado, which is home to clinics that perform third-trimester abortions, recorded 137 third-trimester abortions in 2023. That’s only one state—eight other states, plus Washington, D.C., have no restrictions on third-trimester abortions. Just a few minutes from my office building in D.C., a clinic offers abortions up to nearly 32 weeks. In nearby Bethesda, Maryland, a clinic performs abortions up to 35 weeks’ gestation.

Those who support such expansive abortion laws tend to argue that third-trimester abortions are the result of a devastating medical diagnosis. In many cases that’s true, but it is not always the situation. The D.C. clinic I mentioned above confirmed by phone that it performs abortions for any reason. Data on the reasons women have later abortions are also scarce. But when The Atlantic’s Elaine Godfrey interviewed a doctor who specializes in late abortions, he estimated that about half of his patients have healthy pregnancies. Of course, some of his patients are in serious distress for other reasons; some are victims of sexual assault, or are teenagers who didn’t realize they were pregnant. This leads to another logical flaw in how the pro-abortion-rights crowd tends to frame its argument.

The group complains that people are overly focused on exceedingly rare third-term abortions. But abortions after a pregnancy from rape or incest are also comparatively rare, and abortion-rights supporters still push opponents of abortion to take these rare scenarios into account. Discussions about third-trimester abortions should therefore be fair game as well.

Downplaying third-trimester abortions isn’t necessary for Democrats to protect reproductive rights, and could well alienate the plurality of voters best described as abortion moderates. The grim reality of later abortion is simply too much for most Americans to countenance—and reasonable policy makers should listen to them…

When Democrats hammer home just how rare later abortions are, they’re making an important point: More than 90 percent of American abortions take place in the first trimester. A reasonable platform would adopt the Western European standard, in which abortion is legal for any reason in the first trimester, but later procedures are restricted except in cases of devastating maternal or fetal medical diagnoses. Preserving women’s right to choose does not require Democrats to adopt an extreme position that allows for abortion at any stage of pregnancy, no questions asked.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...rtions/680163/

[GGG]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

But they do.

That article doesn’t state there are any medically unnecessary abortions. The data doesn’t exist. Healthy fetus does not equal not necessary as the article suggests that an indeterminate amount of these due to sexual assault or teenagers not knowing they were pregnant. So of the 25000 estimated abortions we are talking about 60 that we don’t know the circumstances of at least some of which were instances of rape.

This is a lack of data collection problem not a baby murder problem.

So proponents of no abortion laws and proponents of 22 weeks plus conditions for rape and incest and medically necessary are arguing for the same thing.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by GGG

That article doesn’t state there are any medically unnecessary abortions. The data doesn’t exist. Healthy fetus does not equal not necessary as the article suggests that an indeterminate amount of these due to sexual assault or teenagers not knowing they were pregnant. So of the 25000 estimated abortions we are talking about 60 that we don’t know the circumstances of at least some of which were instances of rape.

This is a lack of data collection problem not a baby murder problem.

So proponents of no abortion laws and proponents of 22 weeks plus conditions for rape and incest and medically necessary are arguing for the same thing.

If they never happen, then the downside of restricting them is what, exactly.

Or to put it another way, what are Western European countries getting wrong?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

If they never happen, then the downside of restricting them is what, exactly.

Or to put it another way, what are Western European countries getting wrong?

Nothing really. 100% of people who want no restriction on abortion would vote for a 24 week right to abortion. The 3rd trimester discussion is entirely made up by the right to entrap democrats into making stupid arguments. It’s not being made in good faith. Though using terms like fetal viability allow abortion to be walked back over time and I’m sure their are concerns with how that language will be interpreted in future years.

But from a practical standpoint Placing a legal decision point in the term medically necessary will lead to increased cost to the medical system from malpractice and wrongful deaths suits which in the much less litigious Europe doesn’t occur.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Only a zealot believes there’s no moral complexity around abortion. Most people believe a fetus becomes a life worthy of protection under the law sometime before birth - the question is when. You see this in polling - 8 per cent of Americans believe abortion should be banned in all circumstances, while 19 per cent believe it should be legal in all cases. And yet the debate is couched in those two extremists, unpopular stances.

Even if they took only the opinions of women into account, U.S. states would allow ready and free access to abortions in the first trimester, with abortion restricted only to medical emergency in the third trimester. So pretty much the abortion laws what every country in Western Europe has.

Instead, the ferocious polarization of American political activism makes it difficult for states to craft abortion legislation that accords with the values of most citizens. So they wind up with many U.S. states imposing far tighter restrictions than anywhere in Western Europe, while many others have fewer restrictions than anywhere in Europe.

I'm not following the logic here...its only the polarization from one side that is preventing reasonable legislation. Please elaborate how its ultimately the progressives fault that conservatives have no choice but to do their monstrous things?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

I'm not following the logic here...its only the polarization from one side that is preventing reasonable legislation. Please elaborate how its ultimately the progressives fault that conservatives have no choice but to do their monstrous things?

It’s a totally absurd position, because it supposes that “total ban” and “no government restriction” are at opposite ends of a balanced spectrum, when in reality, if you drew the spectrum of opinions on abortion regulation, “total ban” would be a single point at the end of a line and all the rest of the scientific, well reasoned arguments would look like a cluster at the other.

This is partly because, thanks to things like ethics in medicine and good practice, a world without government intervention (in north america, at least) still has a significant number of safeguards. On the other end, it’s literally removing a potentially lifesaving medical procedure that is safe and effective from the options medical professionals have, and going back to an era with back alley coat hanger procedures that killed people.

“The mindless centrist” is such a funny trope. No reasonable person believes “total ban” is even in the same league as “leave it to the doctors.”

[Doctorfever]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

And you do realize that even with the existing gap between the two countries since the 1970s, it started widening notably in late 2014, mainly due to the oil price crash, A full year before Trudeau took office and well still under the Harper administration?

This decline marked the beginning of a lag in Canada's GDP per capita growth compared to the U.S. and other advanced economies. Although the gap continued to widen under Trudeau’s leadership from 2015 onward, it was largely due to pre-existing economic dependencies and productivity challenges rather than his administration alone. Canada's slower productivity growth, low investment in technology and R&D, and reliance on resource-driven economies are key reasons behind its stagnation in GDP per capita. Rapid population growth has also diluted per capita gains, as productivity struggles to keep pace.

So before we go and praise Elmo's tweets of gas lighting politicians he doesn't like, let's consider nuance before nonsense, shall we?

It’s a good thing we have had a government implementing strong economic policies. Sigh.
Haven’t we been near the worst of all countries in OECD for growth since 2014?

[Winsor_Pilates]

You guys are misinterpreting Elons tweet anyway.
He was trying to say how well the Biden administration has done.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

You guys are misinterpreting Elons tweet anyway.
He was trying to say how well the Biden administration has done.

Elon only uses "wow" re-tweets to draw attention to what he thinks are bad things. It's how he amplifies rage with his misinformation platform, because he's made sure every Xitter account sees his droppings.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

I'm not following the logic here...its only the polarization from one side that is preventing reasonable legislation. Please elaborate how its ultimately the progressives fault that conservatives have no choice but to do their monstrous things?

It’s both party’s fault that America’s abortion laws don’t reflect what most Americans want. Most of the political energy on the issue comes from conservative Republicans. But doing the 180 degree opposite of what your enemy wants - in this case countering the most restrictive abortion laws in the Western world with the least restrictive - usually makes for bad policy.

[Fuzz]

One of the problems is that the right has given up any ability to negotiate and compromise. So the only counter to that is to oppose their policies completely. This has been going on since the Tea Party, and has only gotten worse. Mitch McConnell is one of the biggest drivers fo this, and you can go back tot he Republicans refusing to the hearings for Obama's SC nominations as a good example of this obstructionism, and how it has been so successful for them and why the left now has no other choice than this. It's that, or be completely run over and cede all policies to these wankers who pretend to champion freedom while restricting individual rights and freedoms.


To bring this back to Canada, that's why many of us are terrified to put any of them back in power, because we've seen how they will abuse it the second they have it.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Elon only uses "wow" re-tweets to draw attention to what he thinks are bad things. It's how he amplifies rage with his misinformation platform, because he's made sure every Xitter account sees his droppings.

I thought my sarcasm would be obvious on this one.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

It’s both party’s fault that America’s abortion laws don’t reflect what most Americans want. Most of the political energy on the issue comes from conservative Republicans. But doing the 180 degree opposite of what your enemy wants - in this case countering the most restrictive abortion laws in the Western world with the least restrictive - usually makes for bad policy.

Well, no. Policy should be judged on its actual merits, not whether it’s the opposite of another proposed policy. There are plenty of policies where a good policy is the polar opposite of a bad policy.

Legal slavery? Bad. Making slavery illegal? Good.

Centrists: “Instead of these extremes, we must find a middle ground where some people can own some slaves.”

Sounds silly if you just pretend two “extremes” are equal, or that two opposites are both “extreme” just because they’re opposite. That’s an anti-intellectual way of approaching essentially any issue, but is absolutely how those who have succumbed to identity politics and the treatment of politics as left/right team sports would have you believe these things should be approached. Very often, in the real world, the opposite of an extreme policy is a sensible one.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Only a zealot believes there’s no moral complexity around abortion. Most people believe a fetus becomes a life worthy of protection under the law sometime before birth - the question is when. You see this in polling - 8 per cent of Americans believe abortion should be banned in all circumstances, while 19 per cent believe it should be legal in all cases. And yet the debate is couched in those two extremists, unpopular stances.

Even if they took only the opinions of women into account, U.S. states would allow ready and free access to abortions in the first trimester, with abortion restricted only to medical emergency in the third trimester. So pretty much the abortion laws what every country in Western Europe has.

Instead, the ferocious polarization of American political activism makes it difficult for states to craft abortion legislation that accords with the values of most citizens. So they wind up with many U.S. states imposing far tighter restrictions than anywhere in Western Europe, while many others have fewer restrictions than anywhere in Europe.

The very fact there is a moral complexity, means ANY bans shouldn't exist. Seems like you're trying somehow to both sides this. Couching "legal in all circumstances" as extremist makes this apparent. I suppose "9 month abortion" might be one of those circumstances. But if you ban that, you are going to kill women with still born complications.

I suppose you could write a law going into very specific medical instances, but then there'll be medical exceptions to that too. At the end of the day, mapping laws surrounding determining what is the right course to save a life seems, unethical? If life is sacred, and that's the reason for this stance on abortion, there should not be DNR designation, you should not be able to stay no to any type of care, etc.

Nobody thinks you should be able to terminate a healthy 8 month fetus, AND NOBODY IS TRYING TO. That's the strawman in your "extremist" take that doesn't exist. It's silly to think that 19% wants anyone to be able to terminate a health 8 month fetus, and no doctor would do that

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

I suppose you could write a law going into very specific medical instances, but then there'll be medical exceptions to that too. At the end of the day, mapping laws surrounding determining what is the right course to save a life seems, unethical? If life is sacred, and that's the reason for this stance on abortion, there should not be DNR designation, you should not be able to stay no to any type of care, etc.

And yet almost every country in Western Europe has conditional restrictions on late-term abortion, even though those countries have barely any pro-life political movements to speak of. This theoretical law you dismiss as unworkable already exists in a bunch of modern, progressive states.

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Nobody thinks you should be able to terminate a healthy 8 month fetus, AND NOBODY IS TRYING TO. That's the strawman in your "extremist" take that doesn't exist. It's silly to think that 19% wants anyone to be able to terminate a health 8 month fetus, and no doctor would do that

I didn’t suggest 8 months. And you most have scanned past this:

The D.C. clinic I mentioned above confirmed by phone that it performs abortions for any reason. Data on the reasons women have later abortions are also scarce. But when The Atlantic’s Elaine Godfrey interviewed a doctor who specializes in late abortions, he estimated that about half of his patients have healthy pregnancies.

[Fuzz]

Cliff pushing his bull#### narratives again.

Time limits
Some European countries’ laws
set the time limit for abortion on
request or broad social grounds
between 18-24 weeks of pregnancy,
whereas many set the limit around
the first trimester of pregnancy.
However, all these countries’ laws
also allow access later in pregnancy
in specific circumstances, such as
where a woman’s health or life is
at risk. The standard practice across
Europe is to not impose time limits
on these grounds.
A number of European countries
have enacted reforms to extend the
time limits for access to abortion
on request or broad social grounds.
These reforms recognize that
although most abortions in Europe
take place during the first trimester
of pregnancy, rigid time limits
can have harmful impacts, create
pressure and further complications
for women who seek abortion care.

https://reproductiverights.org/wp-co...ive-review.pdf


You couldn't come up with a rational policy like this, because the pushback from the Christofacists would never allow it to pass. We are where we are(with no legislation) because the alternative is vastly restricted regulations, not common sense ones.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Cliff pushing his bull#### narratives again.

???

I never suggested North American states impose strict limits. I pointed out that European laws around late-term abortion take the welfare of mothers into account.

Originally Posted by Fuzz

You couldn't come up with a rational policy like this, because the pushback from the Christofacists would never allow it to pass. We are where we are(with no legislation) because the alternative is vastly restricted regulations, not common sense ones.

Several Republican states (Missouri, Arizona, Nevada, and Montana) just passed abortions rights amendments, which suggests even in Republican states, pro-life conservatives don’t have the unassailable political power you fear.

[Fuzz]

Well that's reassuring. Tell that to all the dead women this year in Republican states who lived thanks to their ability to stand up to weak Republican laws...Oh wait, they're dead now.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

It’s both party’s fault that America’s abortion laws don’t reflect what most Americans want. Most of the political energy on the issue comes from conservative Republicans. But doing the 180 degree opposite of what your enemy wants - in this case countering the most restrictive abortion laws in the Western world with the least restrictive - usually makes for bad policy.

Are you suggesting that if the democrats called for moderate to restrictive legistlation that the republicans would just go with that...for some reason?