Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next

So we should shut down all those homeless shelters run by religious organizations and let those people freeze to death? Is that what you're saying?

   

A lot of progressives seem to feel open access to abortion is a Charter right. It's not. The Supreme Court was very clear on that when they issued their ruling. They invited the government to alter the law in order to make the system work better. They never said the government could not restrict abortions.

   

If they're run on grants from the government? Not exactly. Just take the money that is being provided to them by the government, and then give it to something secular to run it. Look at that, people don't freeze and aren't indoctrinated!

If it's by donation, then no, because no government involvement.

   

Unique DNA makes someone a human?

   

Abortion was explicitly and almost universally illegal until 1969, then became legal under certain circumstances until 1988.





https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Morgentaler

Before that last sentence sets people off, there’s no criminal law that specifically prevents a doctor from trying to cure your headache with a black and decker cordless drill or treating a papercut with limb amputation but there are all kinds of medical regulations relating to malpractice that would result in serious criminal charges for inappropriate treatment.

   

Does your dog have 48 chromosomes?
If not, then NO, your dog is not a human OK?
Pretty simple.

   

Another dealer of death.
Reap the whirlwind bro.

   

I will thank you.

   

We have 46 chromosomes, not 48...

...and by your logic, this thing has 46 chromosomes too, must be human.

   

Ahaha then none that of us are human since we mostly have 46 chromosomes.

Also what about people born with extra/missing chromosomes are they not humans? And what about identical twins who don’t have “unique DNA”? You’re just trying to make up definitions now to suit your position.

   

Lot of private enterprise people looking to open up for-profit homeless shelters, are there?

   

If you read the decisions you'll find that the abortion law mainly failed on procedural issues. I.e., that the procedure for determining/getting permission for an abortion was unfair.

Dickson found that the violation could not be justified under section 1, focusing on the means chosen by the government to achieve its objectives. In the end, the law failed on every step of the proportionality test. First, he found the administrative process was often unfair and arbitrary. Second, the resultant impairment of the women's rights was beyond what was necessary to evaluate their case. Third, the effect of the impairment far outweighed the importance of the law's objective.

Beetz J, joined by Estey J, wrote a second opinion finding the abortion law invalid. In it, Beetz noted that by adopting section 251(4), the government acknowledged that the interest of the state to protect the woman is greater than its interest to protect the fetus when "the continuation of the pregnancy of such female person would or would be likely to endanger her life or health". The Justice's reasoning closely resembled that of the Chief Justice. He found a violation of section 7 as the procedural requirements of section 251 were "manifestly unfair".
Beetz reasoning in the section 1 analysis was also similar to that of Dickson. He found that the objective had no rational connection to the means, thus the law cannot be justified. He also speculated that if the government were to enact a new abortion law, this law would require a higher degree of danger to the woman in the later months rather than the early months for an abortion to be allowed. In this case, it could be sufficiently justifiable under section 1.

   

Those don’t sound like mere “procedural issues” to me. At any rate, the summer job grant application doesn’t require you to support the current abortion policy or even the right to abortion ar all. It just requires you to state you endorse the concept of “reproductive rights “ which aren’t even defined anywhere.

   

They sound like the judges thought restrictions on abortion were fine as long as they were implemented in a fair way which didn't cause undue delays. I know the meme is that anyone withthe slightest doubts about abortion access is some kind of evil socon rube from the sticks, but there are laws governing abortion in Sweden and France and Germany too. In fact, in every European country.



Then why have it? Everyone knows what they mean by reproductive rights and knows what checking the box suggests - that you agree with them about abortion rights. A lot of religious folks feel that infringes on their religious rights and I agree.

   

They can be government run.

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next