CanPol - Fall election: Do we have an issue yet?

[notyoueither]

I'll bet there is a large mormon population in Winnipeg South-Centre.

[notyoueither]

London North Centre, Ajax?

Rural?

Oh, **** it.

[Ben Kenobi]

If Harper tried to ban abortions after 12 weeks, and got rid of funding for abortions, it would cost the CPC seats in Saskatchewan. Saskatchewan used to elect about an even number of CPC, Liberal and NDP. Recently it has changed to where almost all constituencies elect CPC. (This last election, Goodale and I think one Liberal up North was elected, the rest were CPC).

Yes, that is true. Opposition to abortion is very high in Saskatchewan. I hope you realise that 30 years ago, those same folks who voted NDP were voting for a prolife party concerned about social justice. The reason why the CPC swept Saskatchewan is because the parties left them, and they finally switched over to the conservatives. A prolife party will do just fine in Saskatchewan.

Abortion isn't an issue that only the latte sippers in Toronto care about. There was a huge feminist movement located in Saskatchewan, and while the movement is no longer near as strong, all it'd take would be for a PM to talk about restricting abortions and you would have every female in the province that doesn't usually vote deciding to run out and vote against the CPC. You are severely underestimating how much of a rallying issue this would become for the women's movement.

Do you not think I have poll results nationwide? Yes, there are feminists throughout Canada. Saskatchewan doesn't have enough of them. They will be a very vocal minority.

Saskatchewan is one of the provinces with a prolife majority.

[Ben Kenobi]

He'd lose Edmonton and most other urban seats across Canada the Conservatives currently hold.

He might lose another seat in E-town. I don't see him losing any in Calgary. Alberta is the definition of a captive audience.

[notyoueither]

He might lose another seat in E-town. I don't see him losing any in Calgary. Alberta is the definition of a captive audience.

He'd. get. wiped. out. in Edmonton. He might hold one or two seats due to the gerrymandering that has large swaths of the city wed to rural areas. Even in many of those, he'd run into the bedroom communities where a lot of professionals live. Professionals, many of them women, who normally think what is left of the Tories are a good idea.

I doubt Calgary would go true blue either.

This is assuming he survived the purge by his caucus when he proposes this. That is a very unlikely event.

[Flubber]

He'd. get. wiped. out. in Edmonton. He might hold one or two seats due to the gerrymandering that has large swaths of the city wed to rural areas. Even in many of those, he'd run into the bedroom communities where a lot of professionals live. Professionals, many of them women, who normally think what is left of the Tories are a good idea.

I doubt Calgary would go true blue either.

This is assuming he survived the purge by his caucus when he proposes this. That is a very unlikely event.

My take is similar to NYE-- This would be a dividing and hot button issue that would mobilize lots of people that are normally apathetic to elections. It would be divisive and like many divisive issues-- being on the wrong side for an individual can lose you a vote. being on the "right side' only gets you a vote if the issue is the most important one to the voter--


oh and newfoundland-- unless harper mends the fences bigtime with Premier Williams, the CPC could easily be 0 for 7 in NL wheneve the next election is held. The feeling is strong that Harper broke promises to NL to intentionally screw over the province

Oh and newfoundland is very rural but I doubt abortion would gain more votes than it loses even there

[notyoueither]

The feelings between Harper and Williams are likely mutual.

NFLD can go get ****ed so long as Williams is leading the gong show, and the Tories are in power. Like Alberta and Trudeau, small provinces seldom win when competing at a poo-throwing competition with the PMO. And don't think the Tories in general are not noticing.

[notyoueither]

And seriously? How ****ing stupid are Newfs?

There are three parties all in favour of taxes on Canadian hydro-carbon industries. The ****ing stupid ass b'ys are lapping up the rhetoric of the representative of Dion, carbon taxes, and the death of what little industry they have managed to finally build for themselves, finally, after all these years.

Come-by-chance is finally coming in, b'ys! Naw, they'd rather get into a partisan pissing match.

Should we begin rejecting Newfs in favour of more intelligent Mexicans?

[notyoueither]

How to win an election in Canada:

Our position will only effect Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Newfoundland. We propose to nationalise the energy industry, or tax it to death. Don't worry, urban dwellers in Vancouver, Toronto, and Monteal: you will not be effected by our policy.

How to lose an election in Canada:

We must meet our international obligations, and move our policies to be in accord with a North American Policy on GHG. We do not want to put our indiginous industries at a disadvantage, therefore we will tax all imports of oil produced outside of Kyoto regulated jurisdictions as they would be were they produced in Canada. We are certain that the people of BC, Ontario, and Quebec will agree that climate change is a burden faced by all of us, and they will readily agree to double the price for their gasoline.

[Ben Kenobi]

NYE:

His caucus split 55-45 on this question when it was raised at the convention, and that was for an outright ban.

[Ben Kenobi]

oh and newfoundland-- unless harper mends the fences bigtime with Premier Williams, the CPC could easily be 0 for 7 in NL wheneve the next election is held. The feeling is strong that Harper broke promises to NL to intentionally screw over the province

Don't get me started on the damn newfs. We have carbon taxes here and trust me, it sucks.

Oh and newfoundland is very rural but I doubt abortion would gain more votes than it loses even there

A three month limit would be seen as rather sensible, and most people already assume one is in place.

[ShaneWalter]

Oh? Do you have any evidence to suggest this? From what I can see all you can say is that 700 were done, and not any breakdown as to why.

There are approximately 340,000 live births in Canada. If even 1 in 1,000 of pregnancies had complications that occurred in the last trimester of the pregnancy that would basically explain all abortions occurring in the last trimester.

Well, lets be clear here, we aren't talking about a small number. We are talking close to a percent of all abortions, which is close to about a third of a percent of all pregnancies. For example, ectopic pregnancies as an incidence are about 1 in every 250 pregnancies.

However, the problem for you is that ectopic pregnancies are not a late term complication.

What complication associated with pregnancy in the late term cannot be solved through an emergency c-section to save the life of both the mother and the baby? We are talking after 20 weeks here, when the unborn child is viable outside the womb.

I don't really know exactly what complication would cause that. I'm not a medical professional. I think it is absurd to suggest that there are no complications that can occur in the third trimester. Besides that, you are equivocating. Like I said in my edits to that post, the 700 number doesn't really matter except to establish that abortions in the third trimester are extremely rare. What I was originally responding to was your statement that "Abortions in Canada are legal up to the 9th month." Which, as I said, doesn't really matter, because if an abortion occurs close to the 9th month, it is extremely rare.

So you don't think doubling our homocide rate would be significant?

Not relevent. Equivocating again.

The poll I posted earlier already showed that over 50 percent of Canadians would support such a ban. Why shouldn't it be supported?

I question the validity of that poll.

http://angusreidstrategies.com/uploads/pages/pdfs/2008.06.20_Abortion.pdf

This poll suggests that 49% of Canadians believe "abortion should be legal under all circumstances." In the younger demographic, it goes to 56%. Of people who are university educated, it jumps to 66%. These are the people that will become politically active, and will be influencing votes.

So you are ok then with abortion up to 27 weeks? Seriously? Your only issue is if the abortion happens after 6 months?



At 27 weeks, the baby is viable. You can perform an emergency c-section to save the life of the mother and the child.



So why is that number significant? Before that, its perfectly acceptable?

It doesn't matter whether I think it is acceptable at 27 weeks. The point is that abortions after 27 weeks are extremely rare, if they even occur. Which goes to the whole point that, yes, there is no law against abortions in the 9th month, but it doesn't really matter. Abortions even after the 6th month (if they occur at all) are extremely, extremely rare.

[Flubber]

What complication associated with pregnancy in the late term cannot be solved through an emergency c-section to save the life of both the mother and the baby? We are talking after 20 weeks here, when the unborn child is viable outside the womb.

errr the death of a fetus? I haven't been tracking your fight on the numbers closely at all and I do have a question-- Do your numbers track how many of the "abortions" were of a live fetus? I am just wondering if your stats differentiate between an abortion and a miscarriage (in which the very same d and c procedure is performed)

Of course if the woman is far enough along, I know they will sometimes induce labour to get the dead fetus out.

[Flubber]

. I think it is absurd to suggest that there are no complications that can occur in the third trimester. .

.

It is absurd. In my personal experience I know of several people that underwent the horror of later term miscarriages with respect to babies that were very much wanted. Its far less common that early term obviously (since doctors speculate that 1 in 2 pregnancies miscarry (its between 1 in 3 and 1 in 4 of KNOWN pregnancies

[Flubber]

Great, where are the attack ads going to be directed? The core of Vancouver, Montreal and Toronto. That's not going to hurt Harper.

What are people going to think when they pull out the "Harper is scary ads", and they find out that Harper is advocating 3 month limits on abortion and zero federal funding for abortion? They are going to treat it as the usual liberal lies and garbage. And I think Harper's going to be running the Iggy ads 24-7, which help him around the clock. Why is an evil american calling Harper scary?

Ok 3 month limits and zero federal funding? Are they going to explain exceptions like health of the mother or rape? If the US repugs can turn Obama's medical reform plans into talk of "death panels" I can only imagine what attacks are possible on the abortion issue.

Are you really so dense you cannot see it.

1.An ad showing some impoverished teen who is completely unable to get an abortion due to cutting the funding. "Harpers choice is no choice at all"

2. An ad talking about a woman's doctor not having the authority to perform an abortion after 12 weeks even if her health is in jeopardy-- I assume your rules couldn't leave the decision to an individual doctor after all.

3. Ads with hints of homemade coathanger abortions or back alley illegal clinics


Are not all three of these things very possible? Tell me what your abortion rules would be, in a way that can clearly be conveyed in a 30 second ad, that refutes all three of these-- Or just one message/theme for each. Remeber it has to be short and easily understood. I can convey the above three scenarios in 30 seconds-- can you refute them as quickly?