Abortions can still be carried out in hospitals in NB. Pretty sure they have a few of those . . .
Fair enough - as long as the women in question seek and receive permission from two other doctors (statistically speaking one of whom would be male - isn't that ironic).
As for being a "good" person, I like to think that I qualify.
My main belief in an argument like this one is that "life" wins.
With respect to abortion, that means I am against it, as I view it as the taking of a human life.
I realize that this puts me in conflict with a pregnant woman who sees her situation as negatively impacting her life, but I do not believe that makes me a "bad" person. I do think her position is one of convenience in most cases, rather than conviction, but that is simply my opinion.
My personal beliefs will not see me with the crowd of zealots carrying on in front of the hospital like you described, Mark, but I will speak my mind when asked, as in this thread.
In the end, each of us must make our own decisions on right and wrong. I am content in where I draw that line. What others think of that, or of me as a result, matters little to me.
Fair enough - as long as the women in question seek and receive permission from two other doctors (statistically speaking one of whom would be male - isn't that ironic).
Mark
Again . . . if the people of NB (who this affects) do not like this system, they are free to change it through political action. You are free to advocate for that change, others are free to oppose you, or advocate for stricter controls.
As for Morgentaler's clinic . . . feel free to cut them a cheque.
The ironic thing is if you'd admit that you only think resources and efforts should go towards people that think like or will bend to your way of thinking, it would actually make you an arrogant bastard.
And at least it would look better than how you've managed to come off here.
The ironic thing is if you'd admit that you only think resources and efforts should go towards people that think like or will bend to your way of thinking, it would actually make you an arrogant bastard.
And at least it would look better than how you've managed to come off here.
Mark
(An arrogant bastard)
Wrong again . . . I accept that, in our system, things will be arranged in a manner that does not necessarily mesh with my beliefs. And I have never said that I would ban abortions outright (I wouldn't).
This is not even about what I would do if I were dictator for life in this country.
You started out decrying the closure of the Morgentaler clinic in NB. That is natural, as you are a supporter of unfettered access to abortion.
Then you said that the government should step into the situation to make sure that women could still have that access.
When it was pointed out that the closure of this clinic would not prevent women from accessing abortions in NB, only that it would become less convenient, or that government should not be subsidizing private businesses, you began throwing up other tangents to your point.
At it's simplest point, and with respect only to the closure of the Mortgentaler clinic, you do not have a leg to stand on.
Women in New Brunswick will still be able to kill their babies, if they want to. and we have agreed that Government should not be subsidizing private enterprise.
As for any admissions on my part, I admit that I wish more people felt as I do about abortion, but I am not about to insist that they feel that way. nor would I support a Government that insisted on that kind of conformity.
There actually are certain situations where I would not object to abortion.
SURPRISE . . .
Bfillmaff . . . check out the demographics in western countries. Most of them have declining birthrates. this was already mentioned earlier.
Wrong again . . . I accept that, in our system, things will be arranged in a manner that does not necessarily mesh with my beliefs. And I have never said that I would ban abortions outright (I wouldn't).
Except for your "callous bastard" which clearly you imply "tough for you women".
This is not even about what I would do if I were dictator for life in this country.
You started out decrying the closure of the Morgentaler clinic in NB. That is natural, as you are a supporter of unfettered access to abortion.
Then you said that the government should step into the situation to make sure that women could still have that access.
Actually, I started out saying "Most can guess my stance on this", and then went to discuss the pros and cons of accessible abortions, and how many of the cons are disputed or discounted one you remove moralistic or outdated points of view. Following that I confronted a myth of abortion as birth control showing statistically that the vast majority of women do not use it as a viable birth control, and then further said that hardly matters IMO. The said that people would ideally you preventative measures, but that I'd bet abortion is still cheaper than an unwanted child.
Following this I questioned your accustations that the Margentaler clinic was only profiteering, and that philanthropy and profit aren't exclusive. I challenged your statement of 2-tier medical arrangements, and first pointed out this isn't about "classes" as much as it is about misogyny. Then I pointed out you didn't read the stats from earlier, or at the least discounted them for pithy response fun. I went on for a bit about government tax dollars being spent on support and care of children that were born to unfit living situations, and postulated that these cost way more than abortion. Then we discussed adoption a bit, and how I'm truly hopeful for those looking to do so, but still think it's unfair to expect someone that is pregnant to go through all of the physical / emotional pain (not to mention societal judgeyness) for their benefit. I also pointed out again that this is a government failing by effectively removing the CHOICE from women (note, not an "inconvenience" which you keep repeating in tremendously dickish fashion).
I then straight out say that you are making this about Morgentaler, and not the government's failing. We talk about population a bit, and how it's the immigrant population that is fostering national growth instead of native born - I essentially said I still think we have too many people so let the population grow from immigration is fine. Retirement came up, and admittedly, I'm not as vested in that as others, though that is somewhat off topic.
I then say that it's an embarrassment that the NB Government allowed "this" to happen, which I guess you could misconstrue as letting the MC fail. I meant to say that "this" is a glaring lack of service for women. Then I straight out say that a public facility (without the stupid hoops to jump through) is preferrable. Rehashed the cost argument is bullshit since it's cheaper for abortions. Pointed out that yes, having 2 medical professionals agreeing you need an abortion is an unreasonable thing to ask. You crawled back to economic moaning despite the fact that had already been negated. Then you went with the adoption thing again, which is still unfair to ask of people.
Then I posted (as I am here in much greater detail) that I never said the MC had to be saved, but a clinic should be available. Then I re-hashed how the money argument is again garbage. Then you came back with cancer treatments should be funded - which I agree to - and talked about your prostate screening thing not being covered - which I said it should be. Oh, and btw, looked that up, $30? Really? vs. $700? Then you said there is misandry which I'm guessing is the male equivalent of misogyny... which reminded me of this . Then you said I'm ramming my morals down your throat, which I responded that I'd never tell someone they should get an abortion, and that legal abortions aren't restricting you folks from not having one. I used an example of a fictitious, and over the top nutty lesbian to point out the wackiness, and also drew an analogy to vegetarianism and abortion debates. Pointed out that YOUR stance is passively enforcing your morals, not mine. Money came up again... still not a good argument.
Then you posted the most embarrassing thing I've seen you post (and you post a lot) and if you re-read it carefully (post #52), I hope you see just how incredibly brutal what you said is - and just how dismissive to an entire section of the population you are. Then you threw a hail mary pass questioning the legality of abortions (sorry, no immaculate reception this time). Then you whined again that there is a process for abortions, ignoring the ridiculousness of it, and discounting the discrimination of it. Then you straight up went with a moral viewpoint.
Then Bfillmaff posted a funny. I liked that one. And that brings us here... so hopefully this will stop your incessant "you wanted the MC to be funded so they can make money" stuff.
When it was pointed out that the closure of this clinic would not prevent women from accessing abortions in NB, only that it would become less convenient, or that government should not be subsidizing private businesses, you began throwing up other tangents to your point.
See above
At it's simplest point, and with respect only to the closure of the Mortgentaler clinic, you do not have a leg to stand on.
See above
Women in New Brunswick will still be able to kill their babies, if they want to. and we have agreed that Government should not be subsidizing private enterprise.
See above
As for any admissions on my part, I admit that I wish more people felt as I do about abortion, but I am not about to insist that they feel that way. nor would I support a Government that insisted on that kind of conformity.
There actually are certain situations where I would not object to abortion.
SURPRISE . . .
Bfillmaff . . . check out the demographics in western countries. Most of them have declining birthrates. this was already mentioned earlier.
So, in summary.. you're not really reading things through, you're not listening, and you're not making good points.
Mark, did you post this thread simply because it's right after the Royal, and you knew I might poke my head around here?
I've read some but not all of the posts in this thread, and then stopped because it sounds like everybody is trying to pussy-foot around and be politically correct or sound smart. Bottom line, this IS a moral question, everything after that like politics and funding stems from that. IF you believe that life starts at conception (or prior), than abortion is categorically wrong, whether it's legal or the majority disagrees is irrelevant. If you believe that life is a big accident and there is nothing beyond this, who cares, do you what you want. Using the "but it's legal" argument could be used for many other moral travesties throughout history such as slavery. Was slavery fine because it was legal at one time, and plantation owners had the choice of whether to participate? Does that mean the intolerant North was taking away the then legal right to choose from the south, and that those Pro-choicers should have just been able to do what was best for them? Sounds silly if you consider a coloured person an actual human being, doesn't it?
And calling somebody a "zealot" or "crazy" for trying to force their belief in murder as being a personal choice, and petitioning for government funding of said murder, how often do you hear that? I don't hear you calling the Pro-choice picketers with signs that, but they are doing the exact same thing as the Pro-lifers, just from a different underlying belief system. Interesting how the "open-minded" and "tolerant" can justify the reservation of those derogatory labels for those they don't agree with. There are extremists on both sides, but there are also normal, intelligent people on both sides, who simply don't agree with that foundational decision. And Mark, do you realize how dismissive and offensive YOU are to an entire section of the population? Considering somebody an "arrogant bastard" for believing that there is a right and wrong, or for making a stand that disagrees with you is downright a bit ridiculous and... arrogant.
To sum up, in my mind there really is no debate about abortion, the debate is about core values and beliefs, and everything else stems out of that. Trying to avoid that issue but instead only focus on the decisions that flow out of it is a waste of time. Somebody can totally understand your position, but if they disagree with the fundamental premise, it's over before the conversation starts. My belief is that life starts before birth, fetus are no less people than 6 month old babies. I'm not going to try to sugar coat my perspective to avoid being labeled or ridiculed, that's simply how I see it. So once that's out in the open, discussing whether that killing should be government funded just because it's legal is irrelevant and a waste of time, since neither of us are going to change our mind. Most of us aren't truly open-minded, we just aren't honest enough to admit it, and thus participate in these farcical debates to try to give the appearance of open-mindedness...
Anyway, now that my posting quota is filled for this year, I'm off. Mark, I'm sure we'll continue this conversation in a few days when I see you. To everyone else, I'll be back in around 6 months when the next RC comes up.
Is it technically not legal? Sure. Does that change the fact that this is, and has been for years an accessible, and necessary option for women? No. Is it illegal? No.
Someone brought up that slavery used to be legal... cute point, except you need to remember the timeline. Great big wealthy majority members institute a policy / practice and inflict it upon others vs. society in general recognizing errors of their ways and taking steps to change things to be better for all.
So... slavery is legal because white affluent people enjoy their station and the moral and ethical things can be explained away --> slavery becomes illegal because "stop being dicks".
Abortion was illegal because white affluent people enjoy their station and the moral and ethical things can be explained away --> abortion becomes legal because "stop being dicks".
And I refuse to accept the "my religious / theological beliefs" as a valid explanation, because fairy tales.
And I am sure you will find some BS reason to ignore the fact that the Supreme Court of this country says that the State has a vested interest in protecting the Rights of the unborn, and that the Government should enact legislation that balances this interest with the Rights of the unborn.
That various governments have NOT done this speaks to the cowardice in politics today.
And I am sure you will find some BS reason to ignore the fact that the Supreme Court of this country says that the State has a vested interest in protecting the Rights of the unborn, and that the Government should enact legislation that balances this interest with the Rights of the unborn.
That various governments have NOT done this speaks to the cowardice in politics today.
What do you think politicians are more afraid of? Speaking up on issues that they have thought out with logical and reasonable premises, or upsetting the religious vote?
Rights of people actually here living on planet > rights of the unborn. Not too big a BS reason IMO. The government has no fucking right to dictate my spawning practices or lack thereof... keep away from my junk in all regards, be it reproductive, homo/hetero, or that kinky BDSM stuff that Jacknok's into.
Well, then you are at odds with the Supreme court and the decision they published when they struck down the laws surrounding abortion in the first place.
The Court SPECIFICALLY UPHELD that the State has a vested interest in safeguarding the Rights of the unborn (the Right to life and security of the person being enshrined in our Charter), and that it was up to Parliament to bring forth legislation that BALANCED the Rights of the Mother with the Rights of the unborn child in her womb.
No Government of any stripe has had the courage to do so, despite the urging of the Court in it's decision. and it doesn't look like the boy wonder is eager to give it a shot, either.
No offense, Mark, but I think that the Justices of the Supreme Court would have a little better understanding on this issue than either of us. If they think that it is a good idea to have reasonable restrictions on abortion, from both a legal and moral standpoint, then I think you have to concede that you might be wrong.
Not that I expect you to . . . that would be wholly inconsistent with your character.
If you fill out those lists a bit more, one will have "religious wingnuts" and one will have "people that respect individual's rights to choose how to live their lives and would like to do so without aforementioned religious wingnuts"
Look at this.. I know it's 20 minutes, and I know that's like a 3 day video in internet time, but I've watched it twice, and it's stunningly important for not only this thread, the "prove atheism" thread, and even make some of y'all better poker players.
Will watch after work, but I am pretty sure the Justices of the SCoC know a thing or two about respecting individual's Rights. The thing is, in this country, it how YOUR Rights get balanced against MY Rights that is the issue. OR, in this case, the woman's Rights v. those of the unborn child.
Unlike you, the SCoC says that the unborn DO have Rights and, seeing as how they are the arbiters of Law in this country, that puts your opinion in the "wrong" camp. You're still entitled to that opinion, but it is still the wrong one.
Unlike you, the SCoC says that the unborn DO have Rights and, seeing as how they are the arbiters of Law in this country, that puts your opinion in the "wrong" camp. You're still entitled to that opinion, but it is still the wrong one.
Love TED talks.
I prefer to think of it as "the forward thinking group of people that just have to wait for the old bigots/misogynists/homophobes/etc. to die off, since almost as a rule, they won't change their ways.
I prefer to think of it as "the forward thinking group of people that just have to wait for the old bigots/misogynists/homophobes/etc. to die off, since almost as a rule, they won't change their ways.
how about basing our societies on personal politics?
if you're crazy left wing you can live in the city with lots of social services, locally grown food, small close-knit communities, poor and minority voices are represented, etc.
if you're crazy right wing you can live in the city where only the rich can afford social services, processed and modified food is shipped from across the planet, no one gives a shit about you or anyone else, only rich/white people have a say, etc.
how about basing our societies on personal politics?
if you're crazy left wing you can live in the city with lots of social services, locally grown food, small close-knit communities, poor and minority voices are represented, etc.
if you're crazy right wing you can live in the city where only the rich can afford social services, processed and modified food is shipped from across the planet, no one gives a shit about you or anyone else, only rich/white people have a say, etc.
sounds like paradise to me.
Ya...
And let's not forget that separate water fountains just mean shorter lines for everyone. Just what we all need, another means for people to discriminate and dictate to one another. In general, the righties and the lefties both have contributions... I wish lefties were a little more conservative in some regards such as fiscal planning, and I wish the conservatives would recognize the saving in non-occurrences (i.e. $100k in custody spending "helps" 5 people, $100k in prevention helps 20 - no I did not check the accuracy of these numbers).
And let's not forget that separate water fountains just mean shorter lines for everyone. Just what we all need, another means for people to discriminate and dictate to one another. In general, the righties and the lefties both have contributions... I wish lefties were a little more conservative in some regards such as fiscal planning, and I wish the conservatives would recognize the saving in non-occurrences (i.e. $100k in custody spending "helps" 5 people, $100k in prevention helps 20 - no I did not check the accuracy of these numbers).
Mark
are you suggesting that we don't discriminate along political lines while currently living altogether? at least you'd be living with like-minded people. also, i'm not suggesting that this is a separation by force or something. if you really want to live in the city with opposing views you are allowed to. i don't quite see why you'd want to though.
btw, i'm just be stupid. i don't think this is actually a good idea.
I prefer to think of it as "the forward thinking group of people that just have to wait for the old bigots/misogynists/homophobes/etc. to die off, since almost as a rule, they won't change their ways.
Mark
It is not a question of "changing their ways" The SCoC does not write the laws, they decide what those statutes mean.
In this case, our Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the Right to life, and security of the person.
The SCoC, in their decision on the Morgentaler case, has stated that the Charter extends that right to the unborn, and that it is up to Parliament to come up with a statute that balances the competing Rights of BOTH the Mother and the unborn child.
I find it ironic that, when they ruled on same sex unions, you were all happy and pleased with their decision, but when pointed in the direction of a decision you personally disagree with, they suddenly are a bunch of, "old bigots/misogynists/homophobes/etc. ".
Comments
Fair enough - as long as the women in question seek and receive permission from two other doctors (statistically speaking one of whom would be male - isn't that ironic).
Mark
My main belief in an argument like this one is that "life" wins.
With respect to abortion, that means I am against it, as I view it as the taking of a human life.
I realize that this puts me in conflict with a pregnant woman who sees her situation as negatively impacting her life, but I do not believe that makes me a "bad" person. I do think her position is one of convenience in most cases, rather than conviction, but that is simply my opinion.
My personal beliefs will not see me with the crowd of zealots carrying on in front of the hospital like you described, Mark, but I will speak my mind when asked, as in this thread.
In the end, each of us must make our own decisions on right and wrong. I am content in where I draw that line. What others think of that, or of me as a result, matters little to me.
Again . . . if the people of NB (who this affects) do not like this system, they are free to change it through political action. You are free to advocate for that change, others are free to oppose you, or advocate for stricter controls.
As for Morgentaler's clinic . . . feel free to cut them a cheque.
The ironic thing is if you'd admit that you only think resources and efforts should go towards people that think like or will bend to your way of thinking, it would actually make you an arrogant bastard.
And at least it would look better than how you've managed to come off here.
Mark
(An arrogant bastard)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkgDhDa4HHo
Don't forget that sodomy is also against the will of god.
Mark
Wrong again . . . I accept that, in our system, things will be arranged in a manner that does not necessarily mesh with my beliefs. And I have never said that I would ban abortions outright (I wouldn't).
This is not even about what I would do if I were dictator for life in this country.
You started out decrying the closure of the Morgentaler clinic in NB. That is natural, as you are a supporter of unfettered access to abortion.
Then you said that the government should step into the situation to make sure that women could still have that access.
When it was pointed out that the closure of this clinic would not prevent women from accessing abortions in NB, only that it would become less convenient, or that government should not be subsidizing private businesses, you began throwing up other tangents to your point.
At it's simplest point, and with respect only to the closure of the Mortgentaler clinic, you do not have a leg to stand on.
Women in New Brunswick will still be able to kill their babies, if they want to. and we have agreed that Government should not be subsidizing private enterprise.
As for any admissions on my part, I admit that I wish more people felt as I do about abortion, but I am not about to insist that they feel that way. nor would I support a Government that insisted on that kind of conformity.
There actually are certain situations where I would not object to abortion.
SURPRISE . . .
Bfillmaff . . . check out the demographics in western countries. Most of them have declining birthrates. this was already mentioned earlier.
So, in summary.. you're not really reading things through, you're not listening, and you're not making good points.
Mark
Mark
I've read some but not all of the posts in this thread, and then stopped because it sounds like everybody is trying to pussy-foot around and be politically correct or sound smart. Bottom line, this IS a moral question, everything after that like politics and funding stems from that. IF you believe that life starts at conception (or prior), than abortion is categorically wrong, whether it's legal or the majority disagrees is irrelevant. If you believe that life is a big accident and there is nothing beyond this, who cares, do you what you want. Using the "but it's legal" argument could be used for many other moral travesties throughout history such as slavery. Was slavery fine because it was legal at one time, and plantation owners had the choice of whether to participate? Does that mean the intolerant North was taking away the then legal right to choose from the south, and that those Pro-choicers should have just been able to do what was best for them? Sounds silly if you consider a coloured person an actual human being, doesn't it?
And calling somebody a "zealot" or "crazy" for trying to force their belief in murder as being a personal choice, and petitioning for government funding of said murder, how often do you hear that? I don't hear you calling the Pro-choice picketers with signs that, but they are doing the exact same thing as the Pro-lifers, just from a different underlying belief system. Interesting how the "open-minded" and "tolerant" can justify the reservation of those derogatory labels for those they don't agree with. There are extremists on both sides, but there are also normal, intelligent people on both sides, who simply don't agree with that foundational decision. And Mark, do you realize how dismissive and offensive YOU are to an entire section of the population? Considering somebody an "arrogant bastard" for believing that there is a right and wrong, or for making a stand that disagrees with you is downright a bit ridiculous and... arrogant.
To sum up, in my mind there really is no debate about abortion, the debate is about core values and beliefs, and everything else stems out of that. Trying to avoid that issue but instead only focus on the decisions that flow out of it is a waste of time. Somebody can totally understand your position, but if they disagree with the fundamental premise, it's over before the conversation starts. My belief is that life starts before birth, fetus are no less people than 6 month old babies. I'm not going to try to sugar coat my perspective to avoid being labeled or ridiculed, that's simply how I see it. So once that's out in the open, discussing whether that killing should be government funded just because it's legal is irrelevant and a waste of time, since neither of us are going to change our mind. Most of us aren't truly open-minded, we just aren't honest enough to admit it, and thus participate in these farcical debates to try to give the appearance of open-mindedness...
Anyway, now that my posting quota is filled for this year, I'm off. Mark, I'm sure we'll continue this conversation in a few days when I see you. To everyone else, I'll be back in around 6 months when the next RC comes up.
Continue futile discussion now...
Life begins at erection?
It's the truth. Kinda scary when you think about how much the rest of the world is out-fucking us!
Discuss . . .
Is it technically not legal? Sure. Does that change the fact that this is, and has been for years an accessible, and necessary option for women? No. Is it illegal? No.
Someone brought up that slavery used to be legal... cute point, except you need to remember the timeline. Great big wealthy majority members institute a policy / practice and inflict it upon others vs. society in general recognizing errors of their ways and taking steps to change things to be better for all.
So... slavery is legal because white affluent people enjoy their station and the moral and ethical things can be explained away --> slavery becomes illegal because "stop being dicks".
Abortion was illegal because white affluent people enjoy their station and the moral and ethical things can be explained away --> abortion becomes legal because "stop being dicks".
And I refuse to accept the "my religious / theological beliefs" as a valid explanation, because fairy tales.
Mark
That various governments have NOT done this speaks to the cowardice in politics today.
What do you think politicians are more afraid of? Speaking up on issues that they have thought out with logical and reasonable premises, or upsetting the religious vote?
Rights of people actually here living on planet > rights of the unborn. Not too big a BS reason IMO. The government has no fucking right to dictate my spawning practices or lack thereof... keep away from my junk in all regards, be it reproductive, homo/hetero, or that kinky BDSM stuff that Jacknok's into.
Mark
The Court SPECIFICALLY UPHELD that the State has a vested interest in safeguarding the Rights of the unborn (the Right to life and security of the person being enshrined in our Charter), and that it was up to Parliament to bring forth legislation that BALANCED the Rights of the Mother with the Rights of the unborn child in her womb.
No Government of any stripe has had the courage to do so, despite the urging of the Court in it's decision. and it doesn't look like the boy wonder is eager to give it a shot, either.
No offense, Mark, but I think that the Justices of the Supreme Court would have a little better understanding on this issue than either of us. If they think that it is a good idea to have reasonable restrictions on abortion, from both a legal and moral standpoint, then I think you have to concede that you might be wrong.
Not that I expect you to . . . that would be wholly inconsistent with your character.
those in favour of reasonable restrictions on access to abortions:
Milo, the Supreme Court of Canada.
those opposed to ANY restrictions whatsoever on abortions:
DrTyore, Justin Trudeau.
If you set aside the two idiots at the beginning of those lists, I am pretty certain which team I'd bet on.
If you fill out those lists a bit more, one will have "religious wingnuts" and one will have "people that respect individual's rights to choose how to live their lives and would like to do so without aforementioned religious wingnuts"
Look at this.. I know it's 20 minutes, and I know that's like a 3 day video in internet time, but I've watched it twice, and it's stunningly important for not only this thread, the "prove atheism" thread, and even make some of y'all better poker players.
https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDMQ3ywwAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ted.com%2Ftalks%2Fbrene_brown_on_vulnerability&ei=1D6FU4TZB8mNyATYsoCoAw&usg=AFQjCNFQI-PWMmxuPvQj0paL5569jTRwEw&sig2=HHpcWa5tzlcJtEOGqdyvQg
Mark
Unlike you, the SCoC says that the unborn DO have Rights and, seeing as how they are the arbiters of Law in this country, that puts your opinion in the "wrong" camp. You're still entitled to that opinion, but it is still the wrong one.
Love TED talks.
I prefer to think of it as "the forward thinking group of people that just have to wait for the old bigots/misogynists/homophobes/etc. to die off, since almost as a rule, they won't change their ways.
Mark
In more ways than one..>:D
You want a throwdown old man?
Mark
if you're crazy left wing you can live in the city with lots of social services, locally grown food, small close-knit communities, poor and minority voices are represented, etc.
if you're crazy right wing you can live in the city where only the rich can afford social services, processed and modified food is shipped from across the planet, no one gives a shit about you or anyone else, only rich/white people have a say, etc.
sounds like paradise to me.
Ya...
And let's not forget that separate water fountains just mean shorter lines for everyone. Just what we all need, another means for people to discriminate and dictate to one another. In general, the righties and the lefties both have contributions... I wish lefties were a little more conservative in some regards such as fiscal planning, and I wish the conservatives would recognize the saving in non-occurrences (i.e. $100k in custody spending "helps" 5 people, $100k in prevention helps 20 - no I did not check the accuracy of these numbers).
Mark
are you suggesting that we don't discriminate along political lines while currently living altogether? at least you'd be living with like-minded people. also, i'm not suggesting that this is a separation by force or something. if you really want to live in the city with opposing views you are allowed to. i don't quite see why you'd want to though.
btw, i'm just be stupid. i don't think this is actually a good idea.
It is not a question of "changing their ways" The SCoC does not write the laws, they decide what those statutes mean.
In this case, our Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the Right to life, and security of the person.
The SCoC, in their decision on the Morgentaler case, has stated that the Charter extends that right to the unborn, and that it is up to Parliament to come up with a statute that balances the competing Rights of BOTH the Mother and the unborn child.
I find it ironic that, when they ruled on same sex unions, you were all happy and pleased with their decision, but when pointed in the direction of a decision you personally disagree with, they suddenly are a bunch of, "old bigots/misogynists/homophobes/etc. ".
Funny that.