Premier Doug Ford's Ontario

[BurlOak]

If we are talking about life experiences, maybe we should look at the electorate as well. Back when election laws were set, by 18 years of age people were moving out, soon getting married, and having kids. Now that happens much later. If we demand "life experience" from the candidate, then we should expect the same from the electorate.
I think a great argument can be made for increasing the voting age to 21 or 25.
In conjunction with this, I would be fine with the candidate age increasing from 18 to 25 or 30.

 

[Thinker]

If we are talking about life experiences, maybe we should look at the electorate as well. Back when election laws were set, by 18 years of age people were moving out, soon getting married, and having kids. Now that happens much later. If we demand "life experience" from the candidate, then we should expect the same from the electorate.
I think a great argument can be made for increasing the voting age to 21 or 25.
In conjunction with this, I would be fine with the candidate age increasing from 18 to 25 or 30.

To be fair: Sam might be a "nice" person, but he does lacks certain experiences that most 21 yr old men might have experienced. As you know Sam was homeschooled and never had to experience the pecking order in the classroom or school yard, education wise he led a sheltered life. The one year in college can't be counted as an experience as most of us had in college and living in another city or country. Sam lives with his deeply religious parents, members of a Dutch reformed congregation - known for its strict views and views. He does have a girlfriend and intends to get married. Just let's hope they will healthy hetero sexual children as no doubt his intended will have the same homophobic views. IMO Sam is just socially awkward and led a sheltered life and lacks skills to interact with people outside his circle.

Having said that, I believe NO MAN regardless of his age, should have the power to dictate what a woman does with her body. I find it even more offensive when a 21 yr old should potentially have the means to open the abortion debate -again- when they (the caucus) voted to modify and roll back sexual health and education back to the 1980's, omitting dangers that exist in 2019. Women, teenagers might find themselves stuck with an unwanted pregnancy due to whatever reason or medical cause and thank (insert deity of choice) this province has the means to safely terminate such pregnancies before 20 weeks. I have seen the results of back alley abortions and they are not pretty and women died and if they lived were (it was the law) reported to the police to be charged. So, Sam should keep his views to himself and cease his attempts to force others to live by his standards. Women who make the choice to terminate a pregnancy most likely do so when this embryo is no more the size of a two dollar coin and doesn't even resemble a baby. Sam should perhaps educate himself a little more before he starts quoting Dr. Seuss and comparing a two dollar size of embryonic tissue with an at term fetus. Not everyone is able to cope with an unwanted pregnancy or raising a child that's unwanted. (mental or social) So let's tell Sam to keep his mouth shut and yeah he's still a snot nosed kid in my eyes.

 

[BurlOak]

I believe that if men can't weigh in on women issues, then it should work the same way in reverse. But what happens if the baby is a male? Also, does the same apply with other things such as race - only blacks can weigh in on black issues. If an issue has an 80% effect on black and 20% on white, would a white be allowed to have a say? What if an issue affects Albanian-Canadians and there is only 1 Albanian-Canadian in the Legislature - do they unilaterally decide.
In our system, we elect legislators to make laws. We also allow people to have free speech. If you don't like the laws that were passed, then vote them out. If you don't like their hair, vote them out. But they are the ones that make the laws.

On abortion either extreme is not where I would want to be. One extreme is that the fetus is not considered human until the hour it is born. The other extreme is that there can be no abortion the moment after conception. Although Sam may be the latter, I suspect he represents the views of hundreds of thousands of women. Interestingly, Canada follows the first extreme. Although it is not often tested, that is where our law is. You can also say that murder, treason, terrorism, or a whole host of other laws are not often tested - but the purpose of the law is to cover the extreme events.

If no man can dictate what a woman can do with her body, why can another woman dictate what a woman can do? Is it all about individual rights? Should a woman be allowed to commit suicide? Can a woman hang out on the railway tracks because a man put up the no trespassing sign - and no man can tell a woman what to do? I think abortion is a complex issue with space in the middle for compromise, but so many people (on both sides) turn off their brain and just repeat the rhetoric. European countries have yet to achieve consensus on the issue, but it appears to be legal somewhere in the 12 to 22 week range, and beyond if complications. I am surprised that Canada doesn't impose sanctions on the EU until they follow our definition that it's only a life when born. Those women's rights are being trampled on by the EU countries.

 

[Northern Light]

If we are talking about life experiences, maybe we should look at the electorate as well. Back when election laws were set, by 18 years of age people were moving out, soon getting married, and having kids. Now that happens much later. If we demand "life experience" from the candidate, then we should expect the same from the electorate.
I think a great argument can be made for increasing the voting age to 21 or 25.
In conjunction with this, I would be fine with the candidate age increasing from 18 to 25 or 30.

Sigh, it would serve you well to know why voting age is what it is..............

No taxation without representation is a fundamental of the democratic process. Read that raving lefty Thomas Paine......

While there are some exceptions such as babysitting, camp counsellor and acting.........overwhelming the accepted age at which one may and indeed likely will get their first job is 16 (an argument for lowering the voting age), but in any event its rare someone hasn't had a summer or part-time job by 18.

Where the government collects income tax, CPP, and EI from you, you get a vote in how they spend it.

The other key argument is whether you, independent of your parents are subject to the full weight of the law, an age which is also 18 in Canada (with criminal responsibility beginning at age 12, and sentencing ramping up as one progresses to 18)

We do not delay criminal responsibility nor income taxation based on one's life experience, nor should we defer the right to vote.

 

[lenaitch]

I believe that if men can't weigh in on women issues, then it should work the same way in reverse. But what happens if the baby is a male? Also, does the same apply with other things such as race - only blacks can weigh in on black issues. If an issue has an 80% effect on black and 20% on white, would a white be allowed to have a say? What if an issue affects Albanian-Canadians and there is only 1 Albanian-Canadian in the Legislature - do they unilaterally decide.
In our system, we elect legislators to make laws. We also allow people to have free speech. If you don't like the laws that were passed, then vote them out. If you don't like their hair, vote them out. But they are the ones that make the laws.

On abortion either extreme is not where I would want to be. One extreme is that the fetus is not considered human until the hour it is born. The other extreme is that there can be no abortion the moment after conception. Although Sam may be the latter, I suspect he represents the views of hundreds of thousands of women. Interestingly, Canada follows the first extreme. Although it is not often tested, that is where our law is. You can also say that murder, treason, terrorism, or a whole host of other laws are not often tested - but the purpose of the law is to cover the extreme events.

If no man can dictate what a woman can do with her body, why can another woman dictate what a woman can do? Is it all about individual rights? Should a woman be allowed to commit suicide? Can a woman hang out on the railway tracks because a man put up the no trespassing sign - and no man can tell a woman what to do? I think abortion is a complex issue with space in the middle for compromise, but so many people (on both sides) turn off their brain and just repeat the rhetoric. European countries have yet to achieve consensus on the issue, but it appears to be legal somewhere in the 12 to 22 week range, and beyond if complications. I am surprised that Canada doesn't impose sanctions on the EU until they follow our definition that it's only a life when born. Those women's rights are being trampled on by the EU countries.

To be accurate, Canada's abortion law was, in fact, tested by the Supreme Court and found to be unconstitutional and, since then, no law at all exists. The courts cannot test a law that doesn't exist. The matter, whether to have a law and what it says, has reverted to a political issue, and has been treated as kryptonite ever since.

Abortion is a very personal and complex issue and it should not be surprising that the various sides expound their "rhetoric" since that is the position they believe.

Imposing our laws on other sovereign nations, or theirs on ours, and enforcing that with actions like sanctions, is the very 'virtue signalling' that the current government is roundly accused of. If it happens on our shores, it is ours to govern. If we do't want to trade with some other nation because we don't agree with their law on some point, that is our decision to make, but it has impacts.

 

[Northern Light]

I believe that if men can't weigh in on women issues, then it should work the same way in reverse. But what happens if the baby is a male? Also, does the same apply with other things such as race - only blacks can weigh in on black issues. If an issue has an 80% effect on black and 20% on white, would a white be allowed to have a say? What if an issue affects Albanian-Canadians and there is only 1 Albanian-Canadian in the Legislature - do they unilaterally decide.
In our system, we elect legislators to make laws. We also allow people to have free speech. If you don't like the laws that were passed, then vote them out. If you don't like their hair, vote them out. But they are the ones that make the laws.

On abortion either extreme is not where I would want to be. One extreme is that the fetus is not considered human until the hour it is born. The other extreme is that there can be no abortion the moment after conception. Although Sam may be the latter, I suspect he represents the views of hundreds of thousands of women. Interestingly, Canada follows the first extreme. Although it is not often tested, that is where our law is. You can also say that murder, treason, terrorism, or a whole host of other laws are not often tested - but the purpose of the law is to cover the extreme events.

If no man can dictate what a woman can do with her body, why can another woman dictate what a woman can do? Is it all about individual rights? Should a woman be allowed to commit suicide? Can a woman hang out on the railway tracks because a man put up the no trespassing sign - and no man can tell a woman what to do? I think abortion is a complex issue with space in the middle for compromise, but so many people (on both sides) turn off their brain and just repeat the rhetoric. European countries have yet to achieve consensus on the issue, but it appears to be legal somewhere in the 12 to 22 week range, and beyond if complications. I am surprised that Canada doesn't impose sanctions on the EU until they follow our definition that it's only a life when born. Those women's rights are being trampled on by the EU countries.

The nonsense above shouldn't merit a response, but I need something to do while sipping my coffee..................

First, the principle is not women deciding 'women's issues' The principle is any human being, irrespective of sex, getting to determine a health matter in direct relation to their own body. Period. Full Stop.

I firmly support that no one should determine for you, whether or not you have an abortion. Putting aside whether that is physiologically possible in your case.

This principle applies equally to people of either sex, any gender identity, or orientation, and people of any colour or faith. Its YOUR body, not anyone else's and not the state's.

***

Your suicide analogy is beyond bizarre, and completely off point. Nothing in the law allows any woman to dictate to another that she must or may not have an abortion. It has nothing to do w/the sex of speaker per se, it has to do w/the person whose rights are being trampled by the speaker. The fact that Sam is a male, who simply will not ever experience this particular issue, nor has he even done so tangentially via a GF/Wife makes him that much less fit to comment; but if he had that greater life experience it would still not be his place to trample on the rights of others, particularly their autonomy over their own bodies.

We do have a right to assisted death, in certain circumstances, which is a totally unrelated issue, and not one which is arbitrated by sex either.

Your tangent on the EU makes even less sense. No foreign powers are imposing our treatment of this matter on us. It is our constitution, interpreted by our Supreme Court that has rendered the accepted norms in this country.

There is no logic that it our place to impose our view on other countries on this or any other matter.

As a practical matter, abortions beyond the first trimester are fairly rare in Canada, as might be expected when the matter is left between a woman and her doctor.

Per the stats below, 83% of abortions in Canada are in the first 13 weeks.

Canadian Abortion Statistics

Facts and figures relating to the frequency of abortion in Canada.

abort73.com

Clearly, no law was required to achieve that.

Also note that abortions are in decline; if you really felt strongly that you would like to see fewer happen, then champion free contraception, male and female as part of our healthcare system.

As shown in Colorado (link below) doing so would likely result in a 50% or greater reduction in numbers, all without the weight of criminal law.

A Lesson for the March for Life: Colorado Invested in Contraceptive Access and Cut Teen Abortions by Half

Want to reduce abortion? Then increase access to contraception. Colorado shows how.

theintercept.com

 

[BurlOak]

Sigh, it would serve you well to know why voting age is what it is..............

No taxation without representation is a fundamental of the democratic process. Read that raving lefty Thomas Paine......

I'm not an accountant - but I suspect that most who have part time jobs in High School, and even University pay no tax.
I also suspect that 100 years ago (maybe more) when the voting rules were being set, kids attended school until grade 6 or 8 (12 to 16 years of age), got a job thereafter, and were not allowed to vote until age 21 (the reduction to 18 was a relatively recent thing - 50 years ago). Thus, the age was set ~5 to 8 years after they started full time work. The thought was that it took some time to understand how the world worked.
Now, the vast majority attend college or university, so I would say people start their full time jobs around age 22 (or higher). The equivalent would be making the voters age ~28.

 

[Northern Light]

I'm not an accountant - but I suspect that most who have part time jobs in High School, and even University pay no tax.
I also suspect that 100 years ago (maybe more) when the voting rules were being set, kids attended school until grade 6 or 8 (12 to 16 years of age), got a job thereafter, and were not allowed to vote until age 21 (the reduction to 18 was a relatively recent thing - 50 years ago). Thus, the age was set ~5 to 8 years after they started full time work. The thought was that it took some time to understand how the world worked.
Now, the vast majority attend college or university, so I would say people start their full time jobs around age 22 (or higher). The equivalent would be making the voters age ~28.

Your argument, such as it is, is fallacious as usual

There were also property ownership requirements, at one point, of course, women couldn't vote, and we didn't lift all racial restrictions, sadly, until 1953!

The Evolution of the Federal Franchise

Information on the evolution of the federal franchise in Canada.

www.elections.ca

All of which is entirely off-point. You are an expert in only one thing, deflection.

 

[zang]

I'm not an accountant - but I suspect that most who have part time jobs in High School, and even University pay no tax.

They PAY tax. They get a refund equivalent or greater to offset the cost of living in this country on a minimum wage.

Pay people enough, refunds wouldn’t be required, but for the cases of over taxation.

Regardless, there are still sales taxes, of which my six year old herself has paid more than a few times in her life already, and she isn’t getting a refund for those anytime soon.

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

I truly thought this country was above discussing abortion as a policy issue in current year.

If there is any legacy that all Canadians should be thankful for Harper on the social policy realm, it is moving our country forward on this issue.

 

[Thinker]

I believe that if men can't weigh in on women issues, then it should work the same way in reverse. But what happens if the baby is a male? Also, does the same apply with other things such as race - only blacks can weigh in on black issues. If an issue has an 80% effect on black and 20% on white, would a white be allowed to have a say? What if an issue affects Albanian-Canadians and there is only 1 Albanian-Canadian in the Legislature - do they unilaterally decide.
In our system, we elect legislators to make laws. We also allow people to have free speech. If you don't like the laws that were passed, then vote them out. If you don't like their hair, vote them out. But they are the ones that make the laws.



On abortion either extreme is not where I would want to be. One extreme is that the fetus is not considered human until the hour it is born. The other extreme is that there can be no abortion the moment after conception. Although Sam may be the latter, I suspect he represents the views of hundreds of thousands of women. Interestingly, Canada follows the first extreme. Although it is not often tested, that is where our law is. You can also say that murder, treason, terrorism, or a whole host of other laws are not often tested - but the purpose of the law is to cover the extreme events.

If no man can dictate what a woman can do with her body, why can another woman dictate what a woman can do? Is it all about individual rights? Should a woman be allowed to commit suicide? Can a woman hang out on the railway tracks because a man put up the no trespassing sign - and no man can tell a woman what to do? I think abortion is a complex issue with space in the middle for compromise, but so many people (on both sides) turn off their brain and just repeat the rhetoric. European countries have yet to achieve consensus on the issue, but it appears to be legal somewhere in the 12 to 22 week range, and beyond if complications. I am surprised that Canada doesn't impose sanctions on the EU until they follow our definition that it's only a life when born. Those women's rights are being trampled on by the EU countries.

Fluffing again! Both men and women can weigh in on any issue, but should not force either sex to live according to their religious and sometimes dictatorial beliefs.
This has nothing to do the abortion issues. It is personal and NO one or NO man should have the right to force any woman to carry the pregnancy to term when it can be safely dealt with before 20 weeks. BTW, the sex of an fetus is not determined until about seven or eight weeks into the pregnancy. And the fact remains it's occupying space in a uterus. Women should and never have made laws or rules regarding gonads and other male reproductive organs. And I am sure we don't want to either - they are part of your body.

What the heck had this to do with Albanian Canadians? - deflecting and whataboutism

This is NOT about race - although those who are racist need education and certainly living conditions or laws should not be based on skin color.

No one should hang out on railway tracks because it's dangerous - simple, nothing to do with women's issues - Or laws that are made by men. Trespassing is a law and mostly there to tell you about danger or protection of property. (not hard to comprehend)

A fetus becomes a baby when it born and viable at any age of gestation and no doctor will perform an abortion after 20 weeks unless it's deemed an medical emergency or a danger to the mother's health etc. and only after duly consultation with a team of experts. So rest assured, babies aren't yanked from their mother's womb (trumpism)

There is a right to die law and again the patient must undergo rigorous interviews and situations are taken in considerations, This is done with dignity and respect.

Your analogy about suicide is banal and weird and totally irrelevant. This not Europe, and Canada is not going to tell the EU how to conduct their health services or how they treat their female population, although letters of protests do get filed but no one is forced. so again, it's not making sense.. Fluff....

 

[BurlOak]

They PAY tax. They get a refund equivalent or greater to offset the cost of living in this country on a minimum wage.

Pay people enough, refunds wouldn’t be required, but for the cases of over taxation.

Regardless, there are still sales taxes, of which my six year old herself has paid more than a few times in her life already, and she isn’t getting a refund for those anytime soon.

Good point - we should lower the voting age to 6.
I actually got my 3 year old to pay for something - should the voting age be 3?
We are talking averages, or substantial numbers here, and it is obvious that people are having families and supporting themselves at a much later age than in the past. All logic would indicate that the voting age should go up - but it won't because it is not politically popular.

 

[Videodrome]

https://globalnews.ca/news/5267083/...ter_impression=true&__twitter_impression=true

Yeah...

 

[Northern Light]

Good point - we should lower the voting age to 6.
I actually got my 3 year old to pay for something - should the voting age be 3?
We are talking averages, or substantial numbers here, and it is obvious that people are having families and supporting themselves at a much later age than in the past. All logic would indicate that the voting age should go up - but it won't because it is not politically popular.

Not only does 'all logic' dictate no such thing; there is no logic that dictates it at all.

You're inability to perceive your own illogic is truly disturbing.

While it is entirely true that majority/widely held views can be wrong (see flat earth, misogyny and racism for a start); as a rule of thumb, when you are a lone voice in the wilderness and/or on Urban Toronto, it more likely than not calls for your own introspection rather than the assumption everyone else is wrong.

 

[Northern Light]

https://globalnews.ca/news/5267083/beer-store-ad-ford-government/?utm_medium=Twitter&utm_source=@globalnewsto&__twitter_impression=true&__twitter_impression=true

Yeah...

I must confess, while I have no sympathy for Mr. Ford or his possible plans to overpay to rush more widespread sales, neither do I find a self-serving ad from 3 major, foreign-owned breweries that only their monopoly can save us from rampant alcoholism, high beer prices and ecological disaster terribly convincing.