[andyt]

dino_bobba_renno dino_bobba_renno:

Ya, but how you answer certain questions makes a big difference. One example would be on charging young offenders as adults, you can answer strongly agree somewhat ... etc. Ya sure that's part of the platform but it's not like they're saying "lets lock up 12 year olds for theft". If you look at what’s being proposed it’s much more to the center of the political spectrum, not some extreme right view point.

Or abortion, ya sure that's kind of an ideological thing but abortion issues really are not even on the radar in the party, the only time it comes up is when either a media outlet like the CBC or another party like the Liberal party brings up to kick start another scare campaign.

The Conservative party as whole is a lot more central on most issues despite the CBC's portrayal of them.

I'm aware of that, which is why I came out as way more socially conservative than I think I am. But the left and right are relative to each other. The Reformacons are more "extreme" on youth offenders than the others. You may see the conservatives as central, but the ROC doesn't. Just like in this thread Canadian Mind is labasted as being a commie because he's economically very left, yet no one remarks on Lemmy being to the right of Attila the Hun on the same issue. I mean I'm surprised at how far left this questionnaire put me - I see myself as being quite centrist. To me this forum seems biased to the right overall, so of course for those people, they will see themselves as being the middle ground.

[andyt]

Unsound Unsound:

Seems that it most often comes up when lefties try to scare people with their whole "Harper has a hidden agenda" schtick.

Well that fits. Apparently I'm lefty, and I'm convinced that Harper has a hidden agenda. I'm more focused on it in economic terms, but I'm sure if he could get away with throwing some red meat to his base with abortion, without alienating the rest, he would do it.

[Lemmy]

andyt andyt:

I'm aware of that, which is why I came out as way more socially conservative than I think I am. But the left and right are relative to each other. The Reformacons are more "extreme" on youth offenders than the others. You may see the conservatives as central, but the ROC doesn't. Just like in this thread Canadian Mind is labasted as being a commie because he's economically very left, yet no one remarks on Lemmy being to the right of Attila the Hun on the same issue. I mean I'm surprised at how far left this questionnaire put me - I see myself as being quite centrist. To me this forum seems biased to the right overall, so of course for those people, they will see themselves as being the middle ground.

At what point does continual trolling result in a banning?

[Unsound]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Unsound Unsound:

REally? When?

That's exactly the question I ask of your assertion.

I asked first

Honestly, it's mostly just an impression I have, which I fully admit is influenced by my own personal biases.

A quick (really quick) google search didn't really turn up anything useful either way, but I just honestly cannot remember any kind of official statements or attempted legislation from the cons that had much to do with the abortion debate at all, but I know that every time I turn around someone is trying to tell me about Harper's "secret agenda". You know, the one where abortion will be outlawed and anyone who tries to get one will ge the death sentence. And we'll all have to go to church and stop learning about evolution and join the army so we can go kill innocent muslims and homosexuals around the world.

[dino_bobba_renno]

I was going to go and see what type of answers I would have to give to register close to where they have placed the Conservative party on the graph but for reason it's not working for me.

However, I'll bet I would have to reply in the "strongly agree" or "strongly disagree" in order to get where they have placed the Conservatives. That would mean I strongly disagree with prochoice, strongly agree with locking kids up under the age 18, strongly disagree with carbon taxes ... etc. It would basically mean I'm a hard core right leaning old school Conservative that verges on being a fundie and that is not where the Conservative party stands on most issues.

Also, wouldn't be reasonable that if you disagree with the conservative positions that they are inquiring about that you would be pushed an equal amount to the left which in turn would place the Liberals farther from the center?

[andyt]

If you click on the CPC icon in the graph, you can go thru each question and see how they answered it.

[Lemmy]

Unsound Unsound:

I asked first

Actually I did, just not of you.

Unsound Unsound:

Honestly, it's mostly just an impression I have, which I fully admit is influenced by my own personal biases.

My point exactly.

[martin14]

Lemmy Lemmy:

andyt andyt:

I'm aware of that, which is why I came out as way more socially conservative than I think I am. But the left and right are relative to each other. The Reformacons are more "extreme" on youth offenders than the others. You may see the conservatives as central, but the ROC doesn't. Just like in this thread Canadian Mind is labasted as being a commie because he's economically very left, yet no one remarks on Lemmy being to the right of Attila the Hun on the same issue. I mean I'm surprised at how far left this questionnaire put me - I see myself as being quite centrist. To me this forum seems biased to the right overall, so of course for those people, they will see themselves as being the middle ground.

At what point does continual trolling result in a banning?

Around here ? ..... never

[CDN_PATRIOT]

0:

compass.jpg [ 20.13 KiB | Viewed 338 times ]

-J.

[Khar]

Lemmy Lemmy:

dino_bobba_renno dino_bobba_renno:

Or abortion, ya sure that's kind of an ideological thing but abortion issues really are not even on the radar in the party, the only time it comes up is when either a media outlet like the CBC or another party like the Liberal party brings up to kick start another scare campaign.

That is a load of utter bullshit. The left put the issue of abortion to bed 20 years ago. The only people who want to reopen the debate are the religious fundamentalists on the right.

I don't mean to argue the point, but the Supreme Court put it to death in 1988 on a national level and in 1993 for the provinces with the Morgentaler cases. It should be noted that Morgentaler would become a member of the Order of Canada in 2008 for his abortion activism. It was not so much put to rest by the left as it was killed in the Senate by a tie-vote when further attempts to place legal restrictions on abortion were passed in the House of Commons and it was summarily killed by the supreme court of Canada.

Several following cases have supported this stance by not granting the fetus legal status as a person in several following cases over the years. While there have been a few pro-life kick starts over the years, they rarely have had much of a following or gained much time in parliament, over both consecutive Liberal and Conservative governments. In recent years, it's been because of Harper's straight out promise that he will not introduce any abortion legislation. Since then, he has avoided the discussion and since he runs a tight ship, typically dissent on that ideal doesn't make it into parliament. Indeed, if anyone simply looks at any of the news articles, they will see that Harper has been distancing himself from it. It's been the advocates on both sides which did a good job inflaming it.

"I think the only tension is Canadian reporters that are reporting on it, to be quite frank," said Soudas.

"We will focus on what's important here. We will focus on the objective of saving the lives of mothers and children and making sure that basic services that can prevent the deaths of mothers and children are put in place."

~ source

There isn't a ton of interest on opening the issue itself on any side.

The most recent well known case was the maternal health debate, where Harper announced that Canadian aid would be focused on maternal health. The opposition asked if this meant that abortions and birth control would receive additional funding to be performed in developing countries (meaning that, in effect, it would be the Liberals who brought up discussion on abortions), which they followed up with an attempt to pass a law which would allow funding to go towards abortions with aid money.

The Conservatives voted against. As did several Liberals, with many others abstaining the vote. To be honest, if I were in either of those parties, I too would have voted against that (and the Liberals did not expect to win it) because it's ridiculous to make abortions a key issue for maternal health in developing countries when there are numerable other sectors we can make a bigger contribution to with the same amount of money. Almost all developing countries restrict it by law, making it incredibly difficult for any aid initiative to have a real effect. I do feel that abortions are an important aspect of maternal health in the developing world, but I feel there are other issues which take priority. As the quote above says, basic measures for safety of the mother and their children. This is just my own opinion, however.

Therefore, contrary to what Dino said, it does appear to have erupted into an issue. However, contrary to what Lemmy said, I don't think the blame falls onto the Conservatives on this one alone, and perhaps the Liberals deserve a lot more blame for it this time around. The topic of abortions was an unnecessary one. The debate crosses multiple governments and had been left alone for decades, without any real following and mostly only the media giving it more attention than it's due. Canadians don't want a change domestically, and politicians respect that. I find the question they provided on CBC's site is hence a bit misleading in what it meant.

Abortions are certainly an issue for some on the more religious side of the right, and a few other spots as well. However, it's not something which is going to get gumption in parliament and wouldn't have if not for the Liberal-led attempts in parliament (which I felt were just blown out of proportion anyways, since the Liberals only wanted to use it to get details on the plan rather than actually bring up the abortion debate).

The short of the short is that it's not really an issue worth getting people's knickers in a knot over. Both parties should assume some blame, many governments have had a role in the debate and it's been pretty much dead since the early nineties, with the recent debate having little domestic impact and, while an issue for our international platform, is not one which really should have been, in my opinion.

[Lemmy]

Khar Khar:

In recent years, it's been because of Harper's straight out promise that he will not introduce any abortion legislation. There isn't a ton of interest on opening the issue itself on any side.

When NO ONE is talking about abortion, and the Conservatives come out and say "We will not introduce any abortion legislation", who brought it up?

Khar Khar:

The most recent well known case was the maternal health debate, where Harper announced that Canadian aid would be focused on maternal health. The opposition asked if this meant that abortions and birth control would receive additional funding to be performed in developing countries (meaning that, in effect, it would be the Liberals who brought up discussion on abortions), which they followed up with an attempt to pass a law which would allow funding to go towards abortions with aid money.

Third World abortions funded with Canadian aid is a COMPLETELY different issue altogether, but it was clearly the Conservatives that made that an issue as well.

[Khar]

$1:

When NO ONE is talking about abortion, and the Conservatives come out and say "We will not introduce any abortion legislation", who brought it up?

The reporters and critics when they asked (or made announcements to the contrary) Harper way back in 2004, in 2006, in 2008, and I have no doubt it will appear now, in 2011. It has been stated again and again in numerous interviews that Harper does not want to bring the abortion debate into his career, and generally the Conservatives have been following that line. He didn't give them a choice in 2008.

Unfortunately, people are just unwilling to let it go that the Conservatives will not follow an abortion platform so whenever an election comes around, the Conservatives are asked once again whether or not they will do anything abortion-wise. To be honest, I view this very much like how I view coalition talk for the other side -- Ignatieff has to come out again and again and say that he won't form a coalition with the Bloq or the NDP (in 2008, in 2009, in 2010, in 2011...), because people keep suspecting something like that would happen.

However, because of critics coalitions and abortions keep coming up to the forefront because, in the past, under different leaders and in different situations, leaders of the parties planned such things.

$1:

Third World abortions funded with Canadian aid is a COMPLETELY different issue altogether, but it was clearly the Conservatives that made that an issue as well.

I disagree, straight up.

The maternal health plan did not include abortion, yes. However, I'd challenge you to find an existing plan where abortion is high on the list of plans. You won't find many, because at this point abortion is mostly in the advocacy stages in most of the developing world, rather than being something Canadian money can be applied to. Stated aims of a lot of groups are fairly simple -- reduce the amount of unsafe abortions by reducing the need for those abortions.

The effectiveness of that is up in the air, but when I look at maternal health organizations around the world, it is not hard to see the direction maternal health is going. There is no pattern of abortion use being a prime topic (more the avoidance of expanding the need for abortions), and the topic was studiously avoided by the Conservatives. The aim of the abortion challenge in parliament by the Liberals was simply to see the plan behind maternal health plan, since no one really knew how it was going to be used.

This ended up being spun into something it isn't because advocacy groups got involved, taking far too much from Ignatieff's challenge and taking far too much from Harper's denial (the fact that a lot of Liberals broke rank was bigger news, to be honest). As I stated in my last post, it was blown out of proportion. As I stated in my last post, the blame should fall on more than one party for this one.

[Lemmy]

To suggest that abortion is an issue to anyone other than (and I'll grant you a minority of) conservatives is, IMHO, laughable.

[Khar]

I am not saying otherwise (although I recently posted here that it's not all Conservative either, but is likely based heavily in that camp). However, to suggest that it's the Conservatives who keep bringing it up makes no sense -- critics bring it up, and then it must be shot down. Ignatieff brought it into parliament, but not because of the abortion debate domestically. The Conservatives themselves have not brought it up without urging from others -- just as Ignatieff does not want to bring up the coalition, but has to because of urging of others.

Harper doesn't want to talk about it, and in 2008 he ordered that it will not be promoted in parliament by followers. Ignatieff didn't bring it up to make it a wedge issue, he brought it up so that the Maternal Health Plan's plan would be created and made public. Right now, abortion in and of itself might be an issue personally for some in the party, but it is not an actual issue which is before parliament (nor is there much will for that), as I stated in my first post. It has erupted into an issue because it's perceived as one, but I think it was more incidental and is not the fault of "Conservatives always bringing it up."

[ShepherdsDog]

seems to me it was the left that brought up the topic last time round. They were trying to use it as a scare tactic...the big bad evil Conservatives were going to roll back the rights of women if they gained power. The Conservatives responded, 'no, we aren't.'

Soldiers in our cities....soldiers with guns.