• 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

lenaitch

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,160
Points
1,040
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.
Still? I honestly don't remember the last federal election but our recent provincial one it was a paper ballot but it got inserted into a device that looked like a big photocopier that I figured was a counting machine/ballot storage box.
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.
I'm not sure I draw a straight line between 'property of the state' and 'autopsy'. The coroner/medical examiner can order a post mortem but it is done so by warrant (in Ontario anyway). All sorts of deaths under medical care happen every day without the involvement of the coroner/ME.
If the cops get a search warrant for your car or house it doesn't mean they own it.
 

Fishbone Jones

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
941
Points
1,060
Still? I honestly don't remember the last federal election but our recent provincial one it was a paper ballot but it got inserted into a device that looked like a big photocopier that I figured was a counting machine/ballot storage box.

Does Elections Canada use automatic ballot-counting machines to count the ballots at federal elections?​

No, Elections Canada does not use automatic ballot-counting machines to count the ballots.
Elections Canada has trained and paid election workers who count the ballots by hand. Election workers follow the strict counting procedures set out in the Canada Elections Act, the law that governs federal elections.
While Elections Canada does not use automatic ballot-counting machines, they are used successfully and securely in some other jurisdictions in Canada and around the world. Provincial, territorial and municipal governments determine their own election laws and procedures, as do political parties when it comes to their leadership contests. Election administrators determine whether or not to use technology to support their electoral process based on their context and needs.

 

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
8,135
Points
1,140
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?
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?
I am an organ donor - I think people should be encouraged to organ donate - but I am not at the point that I think it should be mandatory, I'd prefer to use a public information campaign to encourage folks to opt for that.
 

IKnowNothing

Member
Reaction score
131
Points
530
Yes


I am an organ donor - I think people should be encouraged to organ donate - but I am not at the point that I think it should be mandatory, I'd prefer to use a public information campaign to encourage folks to opt for that.
Thank-you.

In your opinion, is there any situation other than that of a pregnant woman where an individual's right to bodily autonomy is/should be completely superseded by a 2nd individual's right to life?
 

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
8,135
Points
1,140
Thank-you.

In your opinion, is there any situation other than that of a pregnant woman where an individual's right to bodily autonomy is/should be completely superseded by a 2nd individual's right to life?
Self Defense.

My attitude is that basically everyone deserves a chance. I support the Death penalty, because I see those individuals have forfeited their chance.

Rape and Incest are areas where I will support the individuals choice to abort the pregnancy, as it wasn’t a consensual encounter. I do believe that in both those cases, the health and mental health system needs to do a lot more for the victim than is done now (at least down here).

I’m not naive enough to think my beliefs are a majority of people however and there are a lot of different opinions on both sides.
 

Brad Sallows

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,165
Points
1,010
If the rape-incest fetus/person is not worthy of protection, why is the not-rape-incest fetus/person worthy? It's not a dispute between the mother and the father; it's a dispute between the mother and the child.
 

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
8,135
Points
1,140
If the rape-incest fetus/person is not worthy of protection, why is the not-rape-incest fetus/person worthy? It's not a dispute between the mother and the father; it's a dispute between the mother and the child.
At the end of the day, it’s all based on what one can justify.
I have seen rape victims just after the act - and later on, and the trauma many have suffered is compounded by trial and pregnancy. As much as I would prefer a pregnancy not be terminated, I don’t think most women would be comfortable raising the baby, if they are that is fantastic, or if they are willing to give it up for adoption that too is great, but given they have already be violated against their will - this is on area where I feel that it is up to the mother to be.

Again my personal opinion, and I won’t claim to be the be all and end all opinion.
 

IKnowNothing

Member
Reaction score
131
Points
530
If the rape-incest fetus/person is not worthy of protection, why is the not-rape-incest fetus/person worthy? It's not a dispute between the mother and the father; it's a dispute between the mother and the child.

Furthermore, what makes the fetus/person more worthy than the living breathing child person? Abortion restriction compels a woman to forfeit bodily autonomy in favour of the right to life of the fetus, but that same woman could not be legally compelled to donate to save the life of the child once they are older.

What I'm getting at is that even if fetal personhood was settled (it's not), the pro-life stance ignores the precedent that would be set if the moral principles were used consistently and applied legally. It's a huge pandora's box that's hard to justify not opening if preserving life is the only driver of reducing abortion.
 
Last edited:

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
8,135
Points
1,140
Furthermore, what makes the fetus/person more worthy than the living breathing child person? Abortion restriction compels a woman to forfeit bodily autonomy in favour of the right to life of the fetus, but that same woman could not be legally compelled to donate to save the life of the child once they are older.

What I'm getting at is that even if fetal personhood was settled (it's not), the pro-life stance ignores the precedent that would be set if the moral principles were used consistently and applied legally. It's a huge pandora's box that's hard to justify not opening if preserving life is the only driver of reducing abortion.
Well you can't murder the child...

That is the parallel I see.
 

YZT580

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
489
Points
930
Furthermore, what makes the fetus/person more worthy than the living breathing child person? Abortion restriction compels a woman to forfeit bodily autonomy in favour of the right to life of the fetus, but that same woman could not be legally compelled to donate to save the life of the child once they are older.

What I'm getting at is that even if fetal personhood was settled (it's not), the pro-life stance ignores the precedent that would be set if the moral principles were used consistently and applied legally. It's a huge pandora's box that's hard to justify not opening if preserving life is the only driver of reducing abortion.
it isn't preserving life, it is taking another's life. Not donating an organ or providing a blood transfusion doesn't slay another directly whereas abortion does
 

Brad Sallows

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,165
Points
1,010
the pro-life stance ignores the precedent that would be set if the moral principles were used consistently and applied legally

The pro-life stance isn't that complicated, and isn't required to tackle what happens after birth, no matter what other people want to add onto it.
 

IKnowNothing

Member
Reaction score
131
Points
530
Well you can't murder the child...

That is the parallel I see.
Either way you're murdering them by denying to provide the use of your body to sustain life.
Time after time in court challenges Rescue Doctrine and the moral imperative to donate are raised, and yet bodily autonomy prevails. They actually developed a 4 part legal test to compel, but it's never adhered to. Because in every case but pregnant women, the court refuses to cross that line.
 

Brad Sallows

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,165
Points
1,010
I'll stipulate that dudes from the 1700s were wrong about some things, but also require stipulation that they were right about others. Given that, a simple criticism "they were wrong about some things" is trivially obvious and too vague to be useful (it is not a meaningful criticism of whatever it is that has the critic's panties in a knot). People have to show their work to establish what was wrong and how it might be corrected, if it hasn't been already.
 

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
8,135
Points
1,140
Either way you're murdering them by denying to provide the use of your body to sustain life.
That isn't murder - cold, callous, and pretty inconsiderate - but not murder.
Time after time in court challenges Rescue Doctrine and the moral imperative to donate are raised, and yet bodily autonomy prevails. They actually developed a 4 part legal test to compel, but it's never used. Because in every case but pregnant women, the court refuses to cross that line.
You're reaching for something that isn't there.

Murder is an active act.
 

rmc_wannabe

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,868
Points
1,310
I believe it was Madison or Hamilton, one of the Framers anyway, that felt the Constitution was a living, working document that was something to be adapted, vice adhered to in perpetuity.

The Constitutional Convention of 1789 was supposed to be the first of many, almost as if they knew the issues of the day would not be the issues of 1795, let alone 2022. The fact that there are these things called "Amendments" which "Amend" the Constitution based on different reasons like societal norms changing, makes me think they would be pulling out their powdered wigs in frustration.
 

Brad Sallows

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,165
Points
1,010
It's what has many conservatives pulling their own hair. An amendment process exists. It has been used. It was designed to force a high degree of concensus before altering the fundamental "contract" of the nation. "Living constitution" doesn't mean "amendable", though. It means that the interpretation can change. An example would be treating modern telecommunications as "expression".

There's substantial disagreement over what is in or out of bounds for interpretation. Some people want to use it to bypass the amendment process, and others do not.
 

Fishbone Jones

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
941
Points
1,060
Yet the Great Experiment has lasted 246 years. It's had ups and downs, but has survived, and in most cases, improved. It'll survive this. Currently, there's been little violence and right now, both sides are producing reasonable arguments and work arounds already, instead of rioting. The shit storm the democrats expected to ride into November has failed to materialize. Perhaps the democrats are having trouble following their administration or believing their leaders? I listened to a news report yesterday that said over 1,000,000 independents have gone republican. I don't remember the amount of democrats, but they've been changing from blue to red in droves also.

Bottom line, Canada has no room to sneer or deride the US at this point and time. Both parties in Canada know opening the abortion arguement here means not winning the next election. Everything else? Same same. Both our governments have pushed us into the same shithole. We have zero superiority to deride the US for anything.

If only we showed as much passion for our own politics as we show for theirs, we might not be sliding into the abyss. But Canada is pretty good about standing there with our pockets turned out, pointing fingers, extolling our virtues while blaming everyone else.

It's taken the US, 246 years to reach this point with 350 million people to get concensus from.

We managed to strap on the JATO bottles and got here in the same shithole in 155 years with a tenth of that population at 35 million.
 
Top