See, the real problem with you trying to be cute is that it makes it even harder to figure out what in the world you’re talking about than would be the case otherwise.
OK, apparently what you’re harping about is abortion laws. Harp away, but leave me out of it. I’ve not said anything about any abortion laws in this thread, other than to point out to you that I’m not discussing that issue last time you tried to pretend the discussion was about that.
Why did you ask if you’d already decided on the answer? Rhetorical gamesmanship?
Anyway, to get back to the OP (because he seems to feel the thread is about abortion law to some extent), I’m not sure why it implies hypocrisy for a pro-choice American to not have a strong or stated opinion (or even specific knowledge of) abortion laws in other countries.
I mean, seriously? To have an opinion on what the laws should be in one’s own country requires one form an opinion on what the laws should be elsewhere, too? Heck, the laws and application thereof vary significantly in Europe, as they do in various parts of the U.S. How “granular” should one’s opinion be? Somebody who objects to the current state of abortion laws in South Dakota should also have an opinion on the current state of abortion laws in the Swiss canton of Vaud, else they are a hypocrite?
I think that’s a hard claim to make, Bryan.
The first attempt was in the spring of 1988. It was defeated in the Commons, but that fall, Mulroney won a second majority government: the first back-to-back Conservative majority governments since Sir John A. That doesn’t sound like a weakened government on the way out.
The second failed attempt was late in 1989, and passed the Commons in 1990. I don’t think it was the case at that time that the Mulroney government was clearly weakened; it failed in the Senate because it was a free vote.
Perhaps I’m misremembering exactly when and what extent the Conservatives’ popularity plunged in the reaction to the GST. The Conservatives didn’t have the political capital to force the abortion issue, and certainly the Liberals (regardless of how individual members felt about it) weren’t inclined to help, throw in the Daigle case and a Senate packed with Liberals from the Trudeau years to (barely) defeat the Tories’ second attempt…
Overall, I’d describe it as something of a perfect storm of politicians who had more pressing concerns willing to let the issue slide, resolving it through political nullification rather than political activism. I don’t expect to see this happening again anytime soon in Canada, let alone in the U.S. where demonizing a political opponent on even trivial or fictional issues is the norm.
At the very least, I give the GST partial credit. It was arguably a more significant influence than Henry Morgantaler.
Well, you have to take into account the ideal of “universal rights.” But you also have the pragmatic matter that my views have no representation in Switzerland.
Yes, I believe that everyone, everywhere, should enjoy human rights, to the highest possible degree. In the moral abstract ideal, even one political prisoner, anywhere on earth, is an indictment of the moral values of the entire human race. (I’m fond of reciting Bertolt Brecht’s “All of Us, Or None.”)
In practice, I can have much more influence on laws passed in my home state (U.S.) and at the federal level (voting for a President who will nominate judges, and a Senator who will vote to confirm them, in accordance with my values.)
I might sign a petition protesting some particularly arrant violation of rights in Switzerland…but the Swiss government will likely pay very little attention.
ETA: I am actually in favor of a meaningful World Government. But that isn’t likely either.
Thing is, the rights and freedoms we enjoy in our various liberal democracies (even it varies somewhat) are not shared by a majority of humanity. I’d have strong misgivings about sharing a referendum ballot box with someone from Utah, let alone Saudi Arabia.
I’m cool with Vermont, though.
But none of that applies to the first attempt by the Mulroney government, in 1988, to re-introduce abortion restrictions. That was defeated in the spring of 1988, just a few months after the SCC decision in Morgentaler, when Mulroney had a majority and was looking to a successful re-election on the free trade issue.
That first attempt was rejected by an unusual coalition in the Commons on a free vote: pro-life MPs who thought the bill was too soft, and pro-choice MPs who thought it too harsh. Together they voted it down.
The second bill was introduced in 1989, so it may have been affected by the anti-GST sentiment, but remember that that bill passed the Commons, on a semi-free vote: Cabinet members were whipped, but all other gov’t MPs could vote their conscience. That bill was stricter than the 1988 proposal, so it picked up support from the pro-life MPs.
It then went to the Senate on a completely free vote, and lost on a tie vote. By that time, Mulroney was weakened by the GST issue, and didn’t re-introduce the legislation - but he was in that situation because he hasn’t got the first bill passed by the Commins in 1988, when he was pretty much at the height of his power.
I cheerfully accept revision, but in any case the circumstances were unusual, to say the least.
To answer the OP, some are, some aren’t, and there are shades of grey. Europeans are also more likely to think in terms of a balance of rights and responsibilities. So consider the following package, which I believe a wide swathe of European opinion would sign up for:
It’s left as an exercise for the reader to decide if this violates anyone’s rights. If you look closely you’ll notice that if a women let’s a pregnancy develop to the stage that she is carrying a baby then that baby does acquire its own human rights at some point while still unborn. You’ll also notice that the obligation to pay taxes is relevant to reproductive rights, but that any purported rights to bear arms is not.
Bear in mind that right-wing political leaders (Cameron, Merkel, Rajoy) would be slow to disagree with any of the above - though they would add some caveats about practicality and affordability. In Europe the right tend to stress pragmatism over the left’s idealism.
So, what say you, is the USA more free than the European ideal or not?
What’s the current bill for an uncomplicated delivery in the US? European women see that bill as a violation of women’s rights.
Fair enough.
European micro-swathe of opinion checking in.
Sure. Not that they ever taught us shit we didn’t already know, but sure.
I’m not sure what primary school is however - we got the condoms-and-diagrams busses rolling in back when I was 13 or so, and that seemed about right.
The Don’t Smoke busses rolled in earlier than that, but they were lamer.
Obviously. Well, not “free” free since healthcare does cost, but free as in “freely availlable, no questions asked”, sure.
Depends. Mandatory counselling and shrink appointments before abortion can eat a duck. Weird dick and all.
Who doesn’t want that ? Sadly, the cheap part is all about local supply and demand.
That’s between employer and employee, innit ? However, I do support the notion that employers shouldn’t be able to fire employees just because they got preggers and have different scheduling priorities now.
Yup.
Fo’ sho’.
Naturally. That’s, like, the point.
nod
There’s always gonna be kvetching on what “fair” means in that sentence exactly, innit ?