[romanP]

Yogi Yogi:

WBenson WBenson:

You could indeed apply the same logic to a flame. When a match first strikes whatever you call it that you strike it on, is there a flame as it first starts to rub the rough surface? Surely, if you keep going, there will be a flame, but if you stop just after you begin to strike the match, are you extinguishing a flame?

OK. So, just maybe we have a way of defining the difference in thinking, between 'pro-life & 'pro-choice'.

This is the way THIS 'pro-lifer' understands the 'flame/conception' theory.

I strike the match and get a spark = the sperm hooks up with the egg.

The 'spark is successful=flame. At that very point in time conception has begun.

Flame=fire.

Conception = Life.

Metaphor = scientifically irrelevant

[Pseudonym]

Lemmy Lemmy:

The Supreme Court of Canada bases its constitutionality decisions on something called the Oakes test. What the court does is asks itself 3 questions: Does the law achieve a government goal in a reasonable manner? Does the law interfere with peoples' rights as little as possible? Does the law create a greater problem than existed/would exist without the law? When we apply the Oakes test to the abortion issue, we get answers of "pass", "fail", "fail". The abortion law ultimately fails the constitutionality test in Canada because women being butchered by quacks is a greater problem than aborting pregnancies. I know it's not a perferct solution, but in this sort of "cost-benefit analysis", the Supreme Court of Canada got it right.

That is not a constitutional test. That is judicial activism.

[Lemmy]

Pseudonym Pseudonym:

Lemmy Lemmy:

The Supreme Court of Canada bases its constitutionality decisions on something called the Oakes test. What the court does is asks itself 3 questions: Does the law achieve a government goal in a reasonable manner? Does the law interfere with peoples' rights as little as possible? Does the law create a greater problem than existed/would exist without the law? When we apply the Oakes test to the abortion issue, we get answers of "pass", "fail", "fail". The abortion law ultimately fails the constitutionality test in Canada because women being butchered by quacks is a greater problem than aborting pregnancies. I know it's not a perferct solution, but in this sort of "cost-benefit analysis", the Supreme Court of Canada got it right.

That is not a constitutional test. That is judicial activism.

No, it's not. It's the way the Supreme Court of Canada rules on Constitutionality. The case of R. v. Oakes set out how the SCoC does this. They use this method to rule on ALL cases of Constitutionality now. I think you need to learn more about our Supreme Court. I'm just stating the facts, not my opinion.

[Pseudonym]

These questions:
Does the law achieve a government goal in a reasonable manner?
Does the law interfere with peoples' rights as little as possible?
Does the law create a greater problem than existed/would exist without the law?

Are not equivalent with this question:
Does it violate the constitution?

The Supreme Court of Canada may have the authority to rule in such a manner, but in doing so, they are not, to be precise, applying a constitutional test.

[Lemmy]

Pseudonym Pseudonym:

These questions:
Does the law achieve a government goal in a reasonable manner?
Does the law interfere with peoples' rights as little as possible?
Does the law create a greater problem than existed/would exist without the law?

Are not equivalent with this question:
Does it violate the constitution?

Yes it is equivalent, because that's the way they decide IF a law violates the Constitution.

Pseudonym Pseudonym:

The Supreme Court of Canada may have the authority to rule in such a manner, but in doing so, they are not, to be precise, applying a constitutional test.

When the answer to those questions results in a ruling that a law is either a) constitutional; or b) unconstitutional, what the hell else do you call it? It's the way the job is done here. You can't argue with the facts.