• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

A Deeply Fractured US

IKnowNothing

Member
Reaction score
138
Points
530
I’m Pro-Life, but I know that simply having states outlaw abortion isn’t a solution. There needs to be educational efforts, and financial and emotional support services for families and single mother (and mothers to be).
...
While I am a financial conservative, I’m enough of a realist to know that it’s irresponsible and somewhat immoral to simply outlaw abortions without providing a support system that provides a means for low income parent to survive, and grow, and provide the child with a positive home life.
While much more reasonable than most similar stances, I feel the need to challenge a little deeper here.

Educational efforts etc- modern, secular sex-ed, including encouraged use of contraceptives, yes?

And assuming pro-life stems from a belief in fetal personhood, would you extend the right to life and imposition on others to support it to mandatory blood/ organ donation?
 

Brad Sallows

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,190
Points
1,010
There was plenty of Democratic gerrymandering this round, but they got skunked by courts. It was amusing to see a Democratic gerrymander overturned by Democrat-appointed courts.

The Florida redistricting was also amusing. The resulting map had fewer of the oddball boundary meanderings than the originally proposed one.

Almost any voting control measure makes it "harder" to vote. Flashing my ID when I vote is "harder" than just taking a ballot and filling it out. Requesting ID from government is "harder" than not having any at all. A criticism that something is "harder" is meaningless without explicating why it's unreasonable.

The US has standards; they just vary in the details from state to state.
 

Fishbone Jones

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
944
Points
1,060
I wonder if repossession of the disney land an property had anything to do with it. I really don't see DeSantis having to force his Republican legislature to do anything. The legislature is responsible for following the Florida constitution in regards to regular and scheduled redistricting. Done so fluctuations in the amount of people coming and going in a district results in up to date voter roles and proper representation of populations

Every government that votes by district, ward, county or hamlet regularly does this for the above mentioned reasons. This is not a US exercise. It is world wide in democratic governments.

Voter ID is not an option in an election. Voter ID is not difficult to obtain. The only ones complaining about people having ID are the far left socialist democrats. Black and Hispanics are complaining the left thinks they are too stupid to know how to apply and most agree with ID. Biden's own state has stricter voting rules than Georgia. Look it up. Non existent fraud? Even you aren't that naïve. Texas, Arizona, Nevada to name a few, all found fraud in their process and are moving to eliminate it by strengthening voting rules, like ID.

Our system works because we hand count every ballot in Canada, in front of scrutineers and Elections Canada personnel. No computers and you have to apply for a mail in ballot and provide proof you are, who you say you are.

Nobody said it was all soros. If you're intending on attacking me for saying his name, you best get your nose into US affairs and look up that whole mess. People that believe he's not real, hasn't got his fingers in US politics, and other countries, isn't intent on destroying things and laugh at those that point it out, are just soros' useful idiots. Even blue states are recalling his candidates for letting gun criminals and violent offenders off, without bail or charges. Go on, look it up. It's common knowledge down there. That's why voters are turfing them.
 

Brad Sallows

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,190
Points
1,010
No but the someone who will die without that liver is most definitely a person. And if one person's right to like trumps anothers bodily autonomy, where do we draw that line?

Easy. Between the people. And in the context of abortion, it's hard to find anyone who wants to deny abortion to a mother whose health is jeopardized by the pregnancy.
 

Fishbone Jones

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
944
Points
1,060
No but the someone who will die without that liver is most definitely a person. And if one person's right to life trumps anothers bodily autonomy, where do we draw that line?
Ask Red China. They grow and harvest people for their organs. Just like lettuce.
 

Fishbone Jones

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
944
Points
1,060
Easy. Between the people. And in the context of abortion, it's hard to find anyone who wants to deny abortion to a mother whose health is jeopardized by the pregnancy.
Exactly. People aren't typically adverse to abortion if it means the health of the mother or is a product of rape. They object to people being lazy and using it for birth control, instead of taking 5 seconds to put on a condom or take a pill.
 

IKnowNothing

Member
Reaction score
138
Points
530
Easy. Between the people. And in the context of abortion, it's hard to find anyone who wants to deny abortion to a mother whose health is jeopardized by the pregnancy.
Many living donor situations come with little to no risk. Still, a potential donor cannot be compelled. Hell, without my preexisting or a proxies consent my corpses organs can't be used to save a life. So, is all life sacred to the point where preserving it trumps bodily autonomy, or does that line stay in place?
 

Brad Sallows

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,190
Points
1,010
So, is all life sacred to the point where preserving it trumps bodily autonomy, or does that line stay in place?

Depends on how panicked or greedy people get. Read Larry Niven's "A Gift from Earth" (or a synopsis). Worry about political doctrines that exalt collective rights over individual rights, if you want to worry.
 

IKnowNothing

Member
Reaction score
138
Points
530
Depends on how panicked or greedy people get. Read Larry Niven's "A Gift from Earth" (or a synopsis). Worry about political doctrines that exalt collective rights over individual rights, if you want to worry.
This isn't a hypothetical. Over riding bodily autonomy to priortize the life of another human being is the foundation of the pro-life stance.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,827
Points
1,160
Many living donor situations come with little to no risk. Still, a potential donor cannot be compelled. Hell, without my preexisting or a proxies consent my corpses organs can't be used to save a life. So, is all life sacred to the point where preserving it trumps bodily autonomy, or does that line stay in place?
For the present. A very socialist government could declare that your body becomes property of the State once you die and of course they might get impatient waiting for you to kick the bucket.
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
11,363
Points
1,160
For the present. A very socialist government could declare that your body becomes property of the State once you die and of course they might get impatient waiting for you to kick the bucket.

For example, it has been well known for quite some time that the Dutch are a little too keen on culling the herd of weaklings assisted dying.


How Dutch Law Got a Little Too Comfortable With Euthanasia​

The story of a 17-year-old’s assisted death wasn’t real—but it could have been.


However alarmist some stories about Noa Pothoven’s death might have been, one should remember that euthanasia of a minor as young as 16 for psychiatric suffering is indeed legal in the Netherlands.

Pothoven, a 17-year-old girl in that country, had struggled with depression, anorexia, and post-traumatic stress disorder, reportedly after being sexually abused at age 11 and raped at 14. She had sought permission for medical euthanasia and announced on Instagram that she intended to die. Her passing on June 3 prompted news stories around the world, their dramatic headlines an implicit rebuke of Dutch assisted-death policies.

In most countries, the debate over physician-assisted suicide has centered on adults in the final stages of incurable physical illnesses. Pothoven’s age and mental illness made her case quite different, which is why the initial English-language news stories on her death sparked such alarm. That uproar subsided when subsequent reports clarified that Pothoven’s euthanasia request had been turned down, and that she had instead died by refusing to eat and drink.

This sad outcome does not, however, show that all is well with the Dutch approach to assisted death—or that fears of a slippery slope are merely alarmist.

I have researched the Netherlands’ experience in detail and written a number of peer-reviewed papers about it. In Dutch usage, the term euthanasia legally covers cases in which medical professionals administer lethal injection and those in which doctors provide drugs that patients ingest to end their life. The Dutch system gives deference to doctors’ expertise; it respects the relationship between an individual doctor and a patient; and it recognizes that mental illness can be painful and debilitating. Yet this system illustrates how priorities that appear logical on their own terms combine, in some cases, to produce disturbing results. A respected Dutch-language medical journal recently reported that an 18-year-old had died via medically assisted suicide for psychiatric problems.

In the United States, debates about physician-assisted suicide are typically couched in terms of patient autonomy. The rationale for the landmark 2002 euthanasia law in the Netherlands, though, was that it codified a legal option for doctors, whose primary duties—to preserve life and to relieve suffering—were thought to conflict in the case of certain anguished patients. In the decades before 2002, a series of court rulings had offered legal protection for Dutch physicians who facilitated patients’ deaths.

Unlike in most other jurisdictions where medically facilitated deaths are legal, the euthanasia law in the Netherlands has no requirement that a patient be close to death. The law’s directives are few and broadly drawn. Aside from obtaining formal consent—a patient’s request must be “informed” and “voluntary and well considered”—the doctor must be “satisfied” that two conditions are met: The patient has “unbearable suffering, without prospect of improvement,” and there is “no reasonable alternative” to address it. The doctor must use the euthanasia medications properly, and she must consult an independent physician—though she is not bound by this outside consultant’s opinion. Indeed, as long as the patient is at least 16, no other person’s consent except the patient’s is mandatory. (Parents of 16- and 17-year-olds are involved in the discussion, but their permission is not required. Patients as young as 12 can seek euthanasia with parental consent. In about 10 cases since 2002, children ages 12 to 17 have received euthanasia; as far as I know, all were for physical illnesses.)

 

The Bread Guy

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
2,359
Points
1,260
While I am a financial conservative, I’m enough of a realist to know that it’s irresponsible and somewhat immoral to simply outlaw abortions without providing a support system that provides a means for low income parent to survive, and grow, and provide the child with a positive home life.
Bang on. That bit in yellow, though, is what tends to get caught up in the whole "state isn't there to take care of all the moochers" narrative. Gotta be something there closer to the middle that all sides can buy into, one hopes, right?
 

suffolkowner

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
727
Points
1,060
Voter ID is not an option in an election. Voter ID is not difficult to obtain. The only ones complaining about people having ID are the far left socialist democrats. Black and Hispanics are complaining the left thinks they are too stupid to know how to apply and most agree with ID. Biden's own state has stricter voting rules than Georgia. Look it up. Non existent fraud? Even you aren't that naïve. Texas, Arizona, Nevada to name a few, all found fraud in their process and are moving to eliminate it by strengthening voting rules, like ID.

Our system works because we hand count every ballot in Canada, in front of scrutineers and Elections Canada personnel. No computers and you have to apply for a mail in ballot and provide proof you are, who you say you are
Why the states make things so difficult Ill never know. You dont need much to prove who you are in Canada and people can even vouch(?) for you and I think for the most part we have few issues. The same with ballots and I hope we never change
 

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
8,190
Points
1,140
Similarly lots of other examples of voter interference by doing things like taking away options for people to vote safely during the pandemic, trying to make voting by mail harder, and also specifically requiring additional ID to vote to combat non-existant fraud while knowing that will disproportionately impact POC voters.
I don't think you understand that actual scale of mail in voter fraud (ON BOTH SIDES) in our elections.
There is even a term "vote harvesting".

Comparing the insanity of the state by election groups and the total lack of standards on the voting methods pretty glad we have a fairly non-partisan, federally run setup with Elections Canada.

But sure, it's all Soros. It's too bad there aren't any Republican billionaires doing the same thing to counteract him... cough Kock brothers, Murdoch cough... and that a bunch of them didn't give a lot of Republican legislators large donations to try and overturn the election results. C'mon.
Both sides are equally guilty in this aspect.
However the Democrats are usually better at it.
 

Brad Sallows

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,190
Points
1,010
This isn't a hypothetical. Over riding bodily autonomy to priortize the life of another human being is the foundation of the pro-life stance.

Yes, but there's a bit of a difference owing to the natural (biological) relationship.

Also, pro-life is not "prioritizing the life of one over the other" unless the mother's life is endangered and abortion is still forbidden. "Prioritizing one life over the other" is what abortion does.
 

Fishbone Jones

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
944
Points
1,060
Like I say we have a tried and true system that works. Ours are all paper ballots and all counted by hand. All recieved by voters after showing ID They could do them same down there, if they wanted.
 

Eaglelord17

Sr. Member
Reaction score
431
Points
810
For the present. A very socialist government could declare that your body becomes property of the State once you die and of course they might get impatient waiting for you to kick the bucket.
Currently in Canada your body does become property of the State upon your death, that is how they are able to order autopsies.

In Nova Scotia it is a implied consent to donating your organs, you have to opt out if you wish otherwise now. I suspect many other jurisdictions shall go that way as time progresses as well.
 

ModlrMike

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
866
Points
960
The current problem with the States, was well described by Bruce Cockburn when he said:

"Idolatry of ideology"

Both the right and the left are so fixed in their positions, that their philosophies have become gods, and the voting booth the altar at which to worship.
 
Top