jimrahn

First, yes, you are 100% correct. I am asserting that a fetus is human. If it isn't human, what species is it exactly? Second, you are wrong about a fetus not breathing: they have their own circulatory systems delivering oxygen to their tissues and developing organs. And besides, if someone accidentally electrocutes themselves, stops breathing and their heart stops beating, they may be classified as technically dead, but it doesn't mean they are no longer human. Speaking of irrelevant, I see no logic in that argument at all. Third, how can the question be irrelevant? Who would you save: the adult woman or the baby? What it comes down to is a matter if significance: A full grown woman is more significant than a human fetus (and it is human, it can't be anything else), so abortion at any stage of pregnancy is okay? Fine then. But given my example, if you reach into the water to save the baby instead of the adult woman, by you r own logic you're saying a woman is less significant than a baby. I can understand standing up for womens' rights, but your argument doesn't hold up because it's circumstantial and not based on a universal premise. That's the real issue here. Human rights have to be universally held, or they don't amount to squat, not for an unborn fetus, and ultimately not for women or anyone else either. To address Mona's comments: I'm not sure I understand your point: we give human rights to babies and not to fetuses because they it sounds cuter? Human rights are granted on the basis of who gives us the warm fuzzies? cheers

And you don't think withholding human rights from the foetus diminishes it? Who's definition of a person are you referring to? Politicians? You swallow everything politicians tell you to swallow? We don't want women dying in this country from backstreet abortions, but neither should a living breathing HUMAN foetus stop living and breathing for no reason other than convenience. I can sympathize with a women not wnating to bear an unwanted child. Many of the same politicians who claim to be pro-life are not very supportive of strengthening the social safety net to suppport a woman, and her unborn child I might add, who might be in a difficult situation financially. The situation might be the fault of the mother 100%, but it certainly isn't the fault of the child. You think the pro-life movement diminishes women? Let me ask you this... If a twenty-two year-old woman and a 3 month-old baby both fall into some deep water, who would you try to pull from the water first? Does your choice diminish the value of women? Cheers!

It's fun. Plain and simple. There is some good discussion, good information, humour, and you can get people upset at you real easy without meaning any harm, which I think is kind of a gas. cheers

I think because it's cheaper for them (ie shorter distances, less fuel used up, longer time between maintenance checks) Bottom line is a nation owns the airspace above it right up to the edge of the atmosphere. It's American airspace, therefore we follow American rules or we choose an all-Canada route. Simple. I think actually private proerty owners do own the airspace above their property right out to the edge of space, they just aren't allowed to do anything about it without following FAA or Transport Canada regulations. However if the guy next door to me decides he wants to park a truck-mounted crane in his back yard, with the crane overhanging MY backyard, I have every right to have him remove it. Similarly, if a neighbours tree has branches hanging over my side of the fence and is getting it's pine needles into MY eavestrough, I have every right to cut those branches off the tree. Besides, Canadians want a fair deal from the US. If we want them to respect the our high arctic, then we shoudlr espect their high airspace. cheers

C'mon, here. You really think that's a reasonable statement? You honestly believe you know definitively how someone else would vote based on a question that, as seems to be the consensus, has nothing to do with political ability? How can anyone claim to know that about another person? I think I get your point though. People reading the poll question zero in on the gay/straight aspect of it. Unfortunately, that happens to be the way the question IS written, so you just can't ignore it wothout changing the sense of what's being asked. Actually, I have to confess -- I voted for the bad prime minister who's also a raging hetero. Looks like I'm not exactly a "lone" homophobe, though. But you never know. Maybe I just voted for the straight PM to get people ticked. Maybe that's NOT really how I feel. Unless I tell you, you never know, right? You can't slap a "homophobe" label on someone unless you are completely sure what they say and do is the truth all the time. And there's no way to be absolutely sure of that. Just depends what a person's motive is for saying or doing something. tsk, tsk. I suppose we all see what we wan't to see, and thus create our own reality. Of course, following that line of thought would mean that if I'm a homophobe and anyone has a problem with it, it's really their fault and not mine. But lest anyone think I'm intolerant, I respect your reality and in no way wish to impose my own on you, so I hope you respect mine the same way. So if in fact, we do respect each other's moral universe, tell me then, am I wrong? Cheers all!

Ya know, this poll is actually areal toughie. It's not like we've ever actually had an openly gay PM. If we ever do, will he be any good? On the other hand, we've had more than our share of openly heterosexual Prime Ministers who were bad... cheers!

I came across a website that mentioned Rona Ambrose as having memebership in the Trilateral Commission. <http://www.namebase.org/xalm/Rona-Ambrose.html> I've heard different things about the Trilateral Commission, some information says it's nothing more than a political think-tank, other information says it is actually the organization running the world (pulling the strings, so to speak) from behind the scenes and is working, not for the good of all, but for the wealthy and powerful of the developed world. I'm pretty sure the truth falls somewhere in between. I do know that the Trilateral Commission does have political leaders, business leaders, and influential media types on its membership list. (The fact that there are media people with memberships makes me think something isn't quite above-board here. I didn't think ethical journalists were supposed to make attempts at influencing public policy, but simply report on current events and let the public at large decide for themselves the importance of political developments. Does anyone have any information on the Trilateral Commission and/or Ms. Rona Ambrose's possible involvement with the organization? <www.trilateral.org> Cheers!

Just before the last provincial election in ALberta, I asked a co-worker if she was going to vote Conservative or for another party. She said she liked the way the tories had eliminated the deficit, so I assumed she was voting tory. After she left the room, another co-worker said to me, "Just because they got rid of the deficit doesn't mean I'm going to vote for them...with all that oil money, you could put a monkey in the premier's office and still have gotten rid of the deficit." I think there's actually a great deal of dissatisfaction with the tory government in Alberta, but Albertans are scared if they change governments things will get worse before or instead of getting better. Albertans need to know just exactly how much wealth the province has. If we were discussing any other province in Canada except Alberta, I'd be afraid or at least cautious in voting for the the NDP (or Liberals) , and that a change in government would probably equate into a tax increase, but given that we are discussing Alberta, I don't think that's necessarily the case. If there's one thing that REALLY bugs me about the tories its' this: Mr. Klein has bemoaned the fact that Alberta pays on average $2000.00 more to the federal government than it receives in federal government services. I don't mind this in and of itself, because I think Alberta can well afford it and should use it to it's own advantage. What I don't understand is why we are paying our own healthcare premiums in Alberta when other provinces don't charge healthcare premiums. Why is the Alberta's provincial government in effect making me subsidize healthcare premiums in other provinces (so that people in other provinces don't have to pay them) when I have to pay them myself, despite living in Canada's richest province? There has got to be some mismanagemant going on there for sure, so I don't agree with voting tory just because they claim to be good financial managers. Sometimes I don't think they are. Let's remember too that resource revenue was not an invention of the Alberta tories, but rather Social Credit. One could argue the old Socred party was closer to the toriesm than the NDP are. Granted. But the point is this: Let's not credit the Progressive Conservative Party of Alberta for something they can't realistically claim credit for. Cheers!

So do you guys think the NDP will ever form the government in Alberta? Why or why not?

While the money appears to exist now, it won't exist if you try to tax it. *Bangs head against wall* TS, let me simplify down to the lowest level possible: I have time to wash dishes, and the desire exists to have cleaner dishes, so why are you surprised when I don't come to your house to wash dishes? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Money doesn't just disappear through taxation. There's a difference between money and disposible income. Let me use the same analogy: My three year old son is sick with a fever, I need to take him to the doctor, which I can do, having paid for improvements to the public healthcare system, although it has meant I have less money to spend on things like nice dishes. There are also other people in my neighbourhood who want to have lots of nice dishes, so don't support public healthcare, prefering to spend the money on dishes. Unfortunately, when they get older and are no longer able to work to pay their own health expenses their dishes will not be adequate to pay for healthcare in their old age, since the private insurance companies, having saked these people all their lives, will be able to buy all the dishes they themselves want and to heck with the people who paid for them in the first place...

Argus, sounds like you've put some thought into this,but you're also making some unsubstantiated claims. I don't think anyone is saying leave the system as it is. And I'm now sure how you can make a statement that most seniors are over-medicated. Cheers

You must be kidding. People are suffering and dying on waiting lists because the gov't is forced to prioritize how the limited amount of public funding get spent. The supreme court says this violates a person's rights and your solution is to make this suffering and dying constitutional? Our system cannot be fixed without changing the way it works. It is a monster that WILL consume every tax dollar that we spend on it because the cost of healthcare increases as the amount of money available to spend on it increases. A leader with vision and imagination could re-structure the system to allow a private system to supplement the public without undermining the public system. For example, rules could be put in place that only allow private care only if the public system is not able to provide care in a timely fashion (i.e. any surgury within a few weeks). You could add a special 'luxery' tax to private health care fees that are used to fund the public system. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I appreciate anyone who takes the time to stay on top of this issue, regardless of their opinion on it. It's important. But let me make sure I understand this... You want Canadians to fully support the public system,essentially as it now is, but bring alongside a private, for-profit system; force people to use the private system because the public system is in such bad shape, and then still tax them again for using that system? You really think that's a better solution? Look at the situation right now. The Supreme Court has in essence said that healthcare is a basic human right. The reason people are suffering and dying is that there is no law establishing that right before the federal and provincial governments. Ergo: Suffering and dying is already constitutional in Canada by defaut, since there is no law protecting Canadians against it. A constitutional amendment would make governments accountable for healthcare delivery. Allowing private healthcare to supplement public healthcare just lets governments off the hook further. I don't agree with your argument about the present system consuming every tax dollar available. And I'm not sure how private system brought along side the public system would make the overall cost of health care, public and private, less expensive anyway. If healthcare is opened up to free market forces there's nothing to prevent the private system from sucking up every available dollar either. Not only that, there's a good chance the public system will be forced to keep pace, making all services, both public and private even more expensive. What makes people think the present system is unsustainable anyway? Because the government tells them it's unsustainable? Sorry, but I don't believe everything the government says, regardless of their political stripe. Saying that Canada can't afford the public healthcare system is like saying Canadians can't afford healthcare period. I think that's nonsense I don't care which government says it, it's baloney. Apply the logic to anything else and it falls flat. It would be like saying we never should have stopped Hitler back in the '40s because fighting World War ll was just too expensive, that the war was "unsustainable". Well it was expensive, in lives as well as dollars, but here's the important factor: it was a national priority. Canadians fully funded it through tax dollars, bonds and victory loans because they believed in the importance of it and guess what? We won. Not only that, the economy grew substantially while we were doing it. Using the same analogy, it would be like someone suggesting that yes, maybe it's important to stop people like Hitler bent on world domination, but if we had a private contracted-out army to fight alongside Canada's national army it would be a cheaper war to fight. It's an argument that is utter nonsense. Besides, the standard of living in Canada is more than high enough to support a fully-funded, publicly administered, accessible healthcare system. It should go without saying Canadians who don't have to pay out-of-pocket for a private system (on top of a public system) will have more disposable income. Or maybe some people who support a private system are hoping employers will throw it in as a work benefit. Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but if an employer is stuck with paying for added health premiums out of your paycheck or out of their bottom line, guess what they'll choose? Bingo! Again, less disposable income for Canadians. Like it or not, that's the way business has to operate to survive. I think it's time to stop looking to the private sector for solutions that are in our best interest. We won't find them there. Let's stop allowing governments to make excuses. It's high time we hold them accountable for commitments to the health and well-being of Canadians. It's time to make healthcare a constitutional right. Cheers!

I argued before the Romanow Comission that Canadians needed a constitutional amendment, similar to the Charter of Rights and Freedonms, to fix the healthcare system, in fact, as the only way to fix the healthcare system. I thought my argument was very well thought out and practical, but unfortunately got laughed at mostly: Mr Romanow himself was very tactful, but basically said it would never fly. I'm hoping the recent Supreme Court decision creates some momentum for such a measure. If Canada is going to have single-tier, accessible, publicly-funded and administered healthcare, Canadians need to be able to hold their governments accountable in the courts for healthcare commitments. Healthcare is possibly the most important issue facing Canada today. It wasn't addressed constitutionally back in 1867 because the issue byand large was non-existent. It's time to address it constitutionally before we lose it for good. Cheers!

Uh, sorry, but what exactly does Canada having a strong military in the 1950's do with our quality of life in 2005. Canada's miltary capabilities in the '50s would do nothing to add to our security today, the threat is completely different. I would argue our economy was stronger. Back in the 50's, the large military structure Canada maintained sucked megabucks out of the economy, while at the same time Canada's national debt was never higher than in the 1950's. (Remember World War II? That wasn't paid off until the mid-60's.) Drive down almost any street in any city or town in the country, look at the houses built in the 1950s and compare them with the houses being built now. There is no possible way anyone can argue that the standard of living was higher then than it is now. Just exactly how was democracy stronger? The Charter of Rights put severe limitations on government power to act in an arbitrary fashion. And I don't think you can realistically blame Pierre Trudeau for everything that is wrong in politics today. He hasn't been prime minister for over twenty years. Besides, Canada had a Liberal prime minister back in the1950's as well. That is until John Diefenbaker got elected. Look at the numbers: When the Conservatives came to power in the late 50's is when the economy went into the toilet. Fact is, Liberals are better money managers than Conservatives, despite the perception that the opposite is true. Western Canada historically has experienced the most rapid economic growth when the Liberals were in power in Ottawa. Case in point: Alberta in the early 80's, boom! boom! boom! Prime Minister: Pierrre Trudeau, Liberal. Alberta in the late 80's early 90's, bust! bust! bust! Prime Minister: Brian Mulroney, Progressive Conservative. Anyone see the pattern? Cheers!

Unfortunalely though Canada's media have the principles of gangsters and are drunk with their power. I am looking forward to the day when Canadians will say enough is enough, and legislation will be brought in across Canada to disallow our media to have any connection to any political party in the country. Whoa, whoa, whoa! You're making a very serious and unsubstantiated allegation here. The Journalists that I know abide by a certain set of ethics and like everyone else are innocent until proven guilty. If you have any information or evidence of the fantastic claim your are making, bring it forward. As for disallowing the media to have any connection with any political party, exactly what "connection" are you refering to ahnd just exactly how are you planning to legislate against it? Are you saying that organizations like Canwest_global or Bell Globemedia would not allowed to have any official relationship with the Conservative or Liberal parties? Well, here's a news flash...there is no "official" relationship now! Or are you speaking about not allowing individual journalists to have any contact with individual politicians, which would convene the principle of freedom of association, which even pre-dates the Charter of Rights? Sorry, but only a society with the principles of gangsters would allow legislation like that. The media cannot mislead anyone if people take on the self-responsibility to remain informed on the issues. 'nuff said. Cheers!