May 30, 2016

Conservative convention: Pro-life amendment to party's constitution passes with double majority

Faith GoldyRebel Host
 

A first! At the Vancouver convention, the Conservative Party voted to amend its constitution by a double majority to recognize the value and dignity of human life at all stages.



 

Comments
You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2016-05-31 04:41:01 -0400
Andrew Stephenson said:

“Nobody does. However, the first six months or so are a matter of competing rights (a decision which is intensely individual and should not be decided by collectivist morality, particularly when it’s driven by a mythology to which an individual may not subscribe), and the timing of the last second should too be up to the individual. "

To clarify, to what are you referring when you say the first six months? Human life?
commented 2016-05-30 17:39:09 -0400
Uncontrolled, uneducated abortion is wrong of course. Which is why I stated that conversation shouldn’t be about pro life rather about placing appropriate controls and educational resources in place to aid women who are engaged in making this choice. I am telling you that people hear pro life and they think christian. Now it is a sad reality that the word christian raises all sorts of unreasonable fear (why doesn’t the word muslim?) but it is a reality. You need to face the fact that those who are on the fence about who to vote for need to be sold to, not preached at…
commented 2016-05-30 17:39:09 -0400
Uncontrolled, uneducated abortion is wrong of course. Which is why I stated that conversation shouldn’t be about pro life rather about placing appropriate controls and educational resources in place to aid women who are engaged in making this choice. I am telling you that people hear pro life and they think christian. Now it is a sad reality that the word christian raises all sorts of unreasonable fear (why doesn’t the word muslim?) but it is a reality. You need to face the fact that those who are on the fence about who to vote for need to be sold to, not preached at…
commented 2016-05-30 17:28:28 -0400
Deacon said, "However, I think the key with this is putting place concrete supports that cam help mothers along who would have otherwise terminated their pregnancies. If they are not allowed to abort then they need help to keep them away from illegal underground abortion services. "

Sounds like a very good idea.
commented 2016-05-30 17:27:04 -0400
Michael said, “Peter, I am not wrong.”

Oh, well then, if you put it that way, how could I have disagreed with you. Such a powerful argument. I am convinced!
commented 2016-05-30 17:11:19 -0400
We can avoid opening a new chapter on abortion. But we can still stand behind our firm belief that it is wrong. Chastising and marginalizing MPs because they are against abortion is and was wrong. That is what Harper did and that is what Ambrose wants to do. MPs should be free to hold their pro-life opinions without getting thrown under the bus by CPC leadership.

No one is suggesting we re-open the debate. Only that we recognize the modern day holocaust for what it is.
commented 2016-05-30 16:02:27 -0400
I’m fine with giving women choice regarding abortion but I support Peter’s view of limiting abortion after 6 months. However, I think the key with this is putting place concrete supports that cam help mothers along who would have otherwise terminated their pregnancies. If they are not allowed to abort then they need help to keep them away from illegal underground abortion services.
commented 2016-05-30 15:22:51 -0400
Peter,

I am not wrong. It’s the very reason why Stephen Harper stayed away from it.
commented 2016-05-30 15:12:12 -0400
“I am saying that if conservatives want to win election, they need to concede that Canadians are pro-choice, abortion is legal and that won’t change. "

They can only introduce the bill after they are elected. As for making it a part of their election platform, I think you are wrong on that it would make them unelectable. Recent polls have indicated that the majority of Canadians would be open to a discussion on the subject.

“abortion is legal and that won’t change”

No one at all that I know of is saying that they want to introduce a bill that would make abortion illegal, only to put limits on the time the fetus can be aborted, usually after 6 months. At present an abortion can legally be carried out up to seconds before birth. That is what the polls say the majority of people want to change.
commented 2016-05-30 14:59:44 -0400
Peter,

They can introduce whatever they want – it will only have a negative impact when it comes to elections.

You seem to think that I am saying that you can’t talk about abortion anymore. I am not saying that. I am saying that if conservatives want to win election, they need to concede that Canadians are pro-choice, abortion is legal and that won’t change. Fighting to change that, will only keep conservatives out of power.

Stephen Harper knew that – why don’t you?
commented 2016-05-30 14:48:08 -0400
So then, Ken and Michael, when the Conservatives take office again and an MP or the government itself introduces a bill regarding abortion, are you going to call them up and declare in no uncertain terms that the “the issue is close” and then order them to stop the bill?

Come on guys, grow up. The issue is never over so long as there is the legal avenue to introduce a bill.
commented 2016-05-30 14:15:40 -0400
Ken gets it as to other smart conservatives.

Peter is not one of them.

Conservatives can TALK about abortion until the end of the days, but the DEBATE is over. Laws will not change and Canadians are pro-choice.
commented 2016-05-30 14:11:01 -0400
I hate it but I have to agree with michael, the debate is over; not because we decree it but because the people have decreed it. If we as conservatives decide that running for election in 19 on a platform of pro life is the way to go their is zero chance that we will form government. That being said if we ran on a platform of reasonable restrictions on abortion already in place in other G7 nations it would probably be a non issue with most people other than those on the far right or far left.
commented 2016-05-30 14:04:51 -0400
Its hard to balance the fact that a society who send aid to tsunami victims on one hand, can celebrate murder on the other. It is so obvious that most Canadians just love the idea of murdering babies.
commented 2016-05-30 14:02:04 -0400
Andrew it is murder. The creature in the womb is so obviously a life. I just don’t see how you can run circles around that argument. Is it OK to say terminate the life of a child that is, let’s see, 10 days old? Then why is it OK to kill the child just because it is in the womb?
commented 2016-05-30 13:58:14 -0400
So what will Ambrose and her CPC gestapo leadership do now.? We know how much they deride and hate their pro-life members.
commented 2016-05-30 13:57:08 -0400
Jan said, "In the past three decades, 163 MILLION baby girls were killed due to sex-selection abortions. 163 Million. "

Absolutely disgusting and extremely immoral, isn’t it.
commented 2016-05-30 13:55:05 -0400
Michael said, "The debate is over, because abortion will never be made illegal. "

Michael, enough!

The debate can be raised by any MP or the government at any time. You simply do not have the authority to declare that the debate is over.

If you have some law that you can reference that indicated that the debate is over, then I will listen, but as it is, your statement, “The debate is over” is just rhetorical nonsense.
commented 2016-05-30 13:50:17 -0400
Peter,

The debate is over, because abortion will never be made illegal. It’s the very reason why Harper wouldn’t touch the abortion issue – it’s a big time loser for conservatives – he knew it and that won’t change.

Just like the gay marriage debate is over.

As I said before – smart conservatives recognize this, but you are obviously not a smart conservative, who understands when it’s time to move on to other issues that conservatives can win.
commented 2016-05-30 13:43:52 -0400
In the past three decades, 163 MILLION baby girls were killed due to sex-selection abortions.

163 Million.
commented 2016-05-30 13:18:29 -0400
“Comparisons to murder are disingenuous. "

I was just following you logic to its’ conclusion.
commented 2016-05-30 13:16:17 -0400
Andrew said, "it has been a continuous chain of life going back three billion years or so. "

That is a belief, not that life existed back that far, but that human lives are in a “continuous chain”. That is the belief of reincarnation, not science. The only science part is that life existed back then and that there is life and death. The “continuous chain” implied that I or you or anyone had also existed way back a million years ago. I guess if you only see life as a collection of atoms, that may be true to a certain extent, but life is far more than a collection of atoms.

Okay, Andrew, I am going follow through on your definition of life being a continuous cycle. If that be the case, then it is definite that there is life not only from the point of conception but also from before as a sperm and egg separately. By you own definition, then, aborting the fetus at any stage is to cause the cessation of life.
commented 2016-05-30 13:05:44 -0400
“If you believe that North Korea is “right wing” then you truly are uneducated. They are a communist dictatorship. "

I meant that as in it’s used as a talking point, by conservatives, not that the state itself is right wing. (It lies so far beyond the spectrum that such descriptions are meaningless)

“And speaking of facts, not mythology, can you prove scientifically when life begins? "

Life doesn’t begin, it has been a continuous chain of life going back three billion years or so. It does not initiate with fertilization; the ovum is itself alive (albeit haploid after completing meiosis). The concept of a soul being bequeathed at conception is very much a Christian idea with little evidence; certainly the neural structures capable of supporting any sort of “soul” in even the most basic definition don’t exist until several months into development; does a blastocyst have a soul? That’s one for the philosophers, I guess, although something like 60% of fertilized blastocysts naturally fail to “take” and are lost with the next period (what cruel God would give something with a 1/3 chance of coming to term a soul?) I personally believe that the individual is nothing more than electrical patterns in the brain and without a brain there is no individual. Capacity to live independently is about 25 weeks into pregnancy. True self-awareness arises a few years into life. I think you could spend a lifetime debating this.

That’s not really the crux of the argument though. The crux is, does that ball of cells have tenancy rights to a woman’s uterus? The answer creeps into the philosophical rather than empirically determinable, thus moral absolutes are impossible to determine. This is where individual choice comes into play. I can’t make that determination for you; that’s entirely yours to decide.

Comparisons to murder are disingenuous. That’s not what the debate centres around, at least in my opinion (for others, it may differ). I’m not necessarily pro-killing; merely of the opinion that women have the right to self-determination. Perhaps, let’s conduct a thought experiment of a more comparable situation. Let’s imagine your brother needs a kidney transplant; but you have a rare compatibility group and you are the only person they’ve found who could donate. Are you morally obligated to donate a kidney? I think most of us would agree that it’s the right thing … but, we would not support the concept of the State claiming right to your kidney, and forcefully taking it. The choice is available, to keep your kidney and let your brother die. Same is true of one’s uterus. Who owns my uterus? Me? Or is it the state/church/society in general? Is it right to carry a baby to term? I happen to think so. I may even find it akin to the kindey scenario, reprehensible not to. However, I don’t have the right to force that choice onto others.
commented 2016-05-30 12:59:10 -0400
Stephen Wiodworth tried to reopen the abortion debate and was voted down. Where is he now? On the unemployment line. Now he has plenty of time to write letters to our local paper whining about how the conservatives lost.
commented 2016-05-30 12:47:57 -0400
I would be happy to see them make exceptions like that.
commented 2016-05-30 12:45:22 -0400
Deacon asked, "One more thing, I’m trying to figure out if the CPC policy on abortion makes exceptions for things like maternal health, fetal health, etc. "

Won’t know that until the policy is ratified by the members, But I would suspect it would take into account the health of the mother and child.

As much as the left likes to paint conservative minded people as stupid and uneducated rednecks, nothing could be further from the truth.
commented 2016-05-30 12:43:58 -0400
I think the debate isn’t over but the group is getting smaller and smaller.
commented 2016-05-30 12:41:59 -0400
Michael Mann said, "It’s good to see that some conservatives here are smart enough to recognize that the abortion debate is over … "

But it is not over, Michael. You say that it is over because that is how you want the debate to be, but it is not so long as there is a group of Canadians who do not want it to be closed.

The arrogance in your statement is astounding. That statement is tantamount to saying like a parent, “That’s enough now. The conversation is over!”

By what right, Michael Mann, do you presume to dictate to those Canadians who feel the debate is not over?
commented 2016-05-30 12:24:44 -0400
One more thing, I’m trying to figure out if the CPC policy on abortion makes exceptions for things like maternal health, fetal health, etc.