Renegade

Er, you mean lack of education of those hetrosexual couples which Leafless claimed were responsible for the creation of society? Hmm, quite impressive that a group that while ignorant, can still engineer a society. I can't wait for the day that Harper uses the notwithstanding clause to overide the SCC. Maybe he'll open the abortion debate the same day. Don't worry, he won't do it quite yet because he still values the PM's residence.

I think you would have to go back further than 30 years to find a homogenous Canadian society with a uniform set of values. Yes, Canada has evolved toward openness and accommodation so that it set of values are ambigious and ill-defined. Still, if you want to obligate immigrants to adopting a set of "Canadian national values", someone should define what that is.

Exactly what are "Canadian national values"?

If you want to claim that hetrosexual couples are responsible for the creation of society, then you should also claim that hetrosexual couples are responsible for all the damage that overpopulation has caused. The fact is many societies go to great extents to encourage birth and population control simply to mitigate the effects of uncontrolled reproduction. Maybe its the homosexual couples which shoudl be given "special benefits" because they biologically cannot produce children and are thus less likely to deplete the earth's resources.

You demonstrate absolute contempt and total lack of respect against in most part the entire population of this planet who have traditonally used marriage as a major part of religious ceremonies regarding the heterosexual union of a man and a woman. No, I have no contempt for the population who has used marriage as a hetrosexual religious union. What I have contempt for is the presumption that religious definitions should extend to secular society.

link As defined above, I see nothing wrong in the goal or idealogy of accomodation. What I would take exception to is going beyond simply not passing laws which do not discrimminate on a cultural basis. By this I mean, that we should not be funding cultural programs. Those should be left for the cultures themselves to fund. We should not promote discrimminatory practices in the name of promoting diversity.

It IS the issue of marriage itself! THEY wanted to change the DEFINITION! I have always agreed that THEY should be allowed to have their own definition of a union...with all the protection and benefits of any married couples. The outrage is not about whether they can openly and legally shack up together in a union.....the outrage is about the changing of the definition of marriage! betsy, it is interesting you think in terms of "us" and "them" . When exactly did the church or even the hetrosexual community become the dictators of the definition of marriage? By our laws, that definition is Federal juristiction, which means it is the domain of our representatives (aka the Federal Government). By "our" I mean all of Canadian society, gays, straight or whatever. Given that it is "our" definition, and we have chosen to be an inclusive society, it is only logical that we create the most inclusive definition possible. I think the problem could be solved equally well, if not better, by abandoning the need for a definition.

Huh? I don't speak my opininons as a head of state or head of a church. The Pope does. I speak only for myself as a private citizen. I'm not criticizing his morality. Since he speaks leader of the Catholic Church, I am crticizing the Church's presumption that it should lecture Canada on how it should legislate. As for thinking the religious people are all wackos, where have I said this or implied this? My reaction would be the same if the US or some other world leader started lecturing Canada on what it could or could not permit of it's citizens. My response was to betsy statement which implied because of Canada's Christian hertiage, the Pope somehow represents the views of Canadians. It is quite one thing for private citizens to criticize the church. It is quite something else for a world leader to do the same as he represents an organization far beyond his personal views. Can you imagine Cahholics reaction if Stephen Harper or George Bush started lecturing the Catholic church on their policy to exclude woman from ordination?

What is anti-semitic and anti-woman of the Catholic church? Sorry, I phrased that badly. I didn't mean that their policies were necessarily anti-Semitic or anti-Woman. I meant that it was fair game that others outside the church to examine their policies and criticize the church for policies which they FELT were unfair to woman, Jews, or anyone else. During WWII the Roman Catholic church was accused of being complicit in Nazi extermination of Jews. The Catholic church is still accused of an anti-woman policy by prohibiting the ordination of women.

Based upon what do you say this? And even if the roots of the European peoples who conquered the country were, Chrisitian, is the morality vision not allowed to change over time? Even the Catholic's version of morality has changed over the last several hundred years. Most people in Canada today, do not consider themselves religions fundamentalists. Even if they are affiliated with a religion, most Canadians are not dogmatic about adopting every religious policy for that religion. Most Canadians support a secular state and the tolerance for all religions beliefs and the ability to exercise freedom of religion If you want to claim that the Popes' values speak for the Canadian people, show some evidence that today's Canadian society want Canada to be a Catholic Theocracy. The Pope is going beyond just lecturing Catholics on how to live their lives. He is even going beyond telling Catholic politicians that religion should dictate their legslative choices. He is now criticizing a secular state for not conforming to his religious view. Of course, he has the right to free speech and he can levy such criticism if he chooses, but it should then be fair game for states to openly criticize the Catholic church for their anti-Semitic and anti-Woman policies.

Did you not say it it was unreasonable that the parents are deemed to accept responsibilty by virtue of their participation in the sexual act? Is there really any difference in them accepting responsibilty by participation in sex and accepting responsibility when they find out of the pregnancy? What happens in the case of rape? There is a difference between two people stranded on an island with shared resources and a pregnancy. It would be hard to imagine that the woman's body is a resource which should be under the control of anyone else but her. She can share that resource or choose not to at her own discretion. Let's extend the question further, if the woman's womb is a resource which potentially can be shared, why limit it to just the woman and fetus?. Suppose a man, wishes to reproduce, and can't find a willing woman. Can he claim an unwilling woman's womb as a shared resource and force her to host a pregnancy? ------ When you look at the abortion issue as a conflict of rights, in implementing a policy, there is always a decision to be made on who's rights should prevail. In many cases the decision is easy, as the balance is heavly tilted one way or the other. You can always contrue situations where rights violations are egregious regardless of which side the decision falls on, and in these situations the decisions can be somewhat arbitrary. In general, regarding the abortion issue, it is clear to me that balance is heavily in favour in preserving the mothers rights to choose the use of her body, at least until such time that she implicitly or explicitly makes the decision to host the pregnancy.

I will agree that that in situations where nothing in a woman's actions indicate implied consent to bearing or parenting a child, then they would not be culpable if they did not provide sustinance to the child. In the case of rape, it would be the rapist who would be culpable. Of course it is unreasonable, because the scenerio you are portraying is unreasonable, at least in our society. You are construing a scenario where either choice (ie abandonment of the child vs violation of a woman's control of her body) is egregious. There is no "correct" choice in such a situation and in either case someone's rights will be violated to a considerable extent. Any criterion selected is somewhat arbritary. Our society picks the age of 18 as the threshold. Parents are aware of this support obligation until age 18 at the point they make the decision to be parents. While age is an unambigious means of defining the threshold, it would be equally valid to choose some other criterion (such as when the child moves out or gets a job). Of course I'm glossing over some of the complexities involved in determining when the child can be deemed "independant". I expect that what woudl happen, is exactly what does happen in many poor societies which bear unwanted children. They are left to die. Maybe I can ask you a question. In your opinion at what point does the father and mother decide that they will be the child's parent (ie when to the accept the obligations of parenthood). Also, once they accept it, what does that obligate them for?

No, my concept of rights does not depend upon available services. What I have always said is that there is a conflict of rights. Where there is availability of abortion, the mother's rights take precedence, at least early in the pregnancy. If despite the avaiability of abortion, should she decide to continue the pregnancy, in my view she has given implied consent that she will bear the child. At that point the child's right would take precedence. This is why I don't think late-term abortions should be allowed. In my view, if no birth control or abortion were available, and a woman got pregnant, she is deemed to have consented to carry the child to term by vitrue of the act of her consentual participation in sex. If after the birth, she kept the child instead of putting it up for adoption, she is demed to have consented to accept the responsibilites of parenthood. As a practical matter in our society any parent who did not want to provide a child with sustenance, is free to do so without causing infanticide. They simply have to give up their parental rights and responsibilities, and put the child up for adoption.

I like that definition. I will be a little nit-picky by suggesting that it be re-phrased: "The right of a human being to sustain itself without interference from any other individual or the state and without interfering with any other individual's rights." Huh?Left alone when I was about 4 years old, I probably would have died. Do you mean that infanticide should be legal? No infanticide should not be legal, but for different reasons. It is not that the child's right to life has been violated, but the parent has violated a commitment which they voluntarily signed up for (ie parental responsibility). If they did not provide necessary sustaniance and care to the 4 year old, they would be guilty of criminal negligence (ie child neglect)

margrace, your responses do not address the question put to you. Why are "we" guilty of crimes committed by priests many decades ago? By "we" I mean Canadian society as it is today, many of whom did not even have ancestors in Canada at the time the alleged incidents happened. Can you please be more specific who you think is guilty?

I don't think it is unreasonable to expect integrity of a government. When they label a tax as a "health tax" it is reasonable to assume the government will spend the additional money on healthcare. When they don't, their integrity is called into question, as it is easy to conclude they intentionally misled the public. If they did not intend for the revenues to be directed at healthcare, why call it a "health tax" except to mislead the public?

Yes, and a zygote has no capability to sustain itself so its death by abortion doesn't violate its right to life.

So, you don't think that pregnancy imposes a risk to the health of the woman? What exactly is your criteria for drawing the line between when the risk is significant and one isnt? Are you suggesting that their can be no confict of rights? I believe the fetus does have a "right to life" as I have defined it. That means that the fetus is free to live without interference. It also cannot intefere with a woman's body so as not to violate her rights. It is an unfortunate fact of nature that the fetus cannot infact sustain itself without intefering with the woman's rights, as as such will perish. So what exactly would you do when with time, you accumulate all these millions of frozen zygotes which would ordinarilly be destroyed? Would you forcibly implant them in other women in order to preserve the zygotes's "right to life"? If you are hungry and I don't supply you with food, is that "having death imposed on you"? Or is it your own responsibility to provide your food? What exactly do you mean by having "death imposed"? BTW, you didnt answer if you are ok for the state to confiscate funds from an indivdiual if it use the funds to will save lives.

geoffrey, it occured to me that we use the term "right to life" but have not defined what we mean by it. Here's what I mean by "right to life": The right of a human being to sustain itself without interference from any other individual or the state. Can you state how you would define "right to life"?

Unfortunately you can't count on the conservatives to do any better in this regard. One of my few peeves about Mike Harris is his "Fair Share Health Care Levy". This was dishonestly named to imply it was meant for the health care system when in fact it went to general revenues.

I assume you are also ok with forcibly removing a kidney from a healthy live donor to save a life? Where exactly do you draw the line on your coercion? Will you let the state confiscate wealth from you if it saves lives? The position you have, that the fetus's rights trumps all other rights, is a personal one. Our society has made other choices. In the examples I gave above, society has chosen the individual's right to self-determination even if the impact is death to another individual. Our society doesn't forcibly extract blood or organs to save lives. It is quite different than someone killing me if my death is convenience for someone else. Convenience is not anyone's right. Control of one's own body is. Let me ask annother hypothetical. Let's say the technology existed to extract a fetus and "freeze" it so it didn't die but could continue regrowing once implanted in a womb. Would you then let a woman extract the fetus from her womb?

geoffrey, let me help you believe and comprehend since you seem to be having a hard time doing either. When two parties have rights but those rights are mutually exclusive, one set of rights has to take priority. I think you understand this, but what you seem not to accept is that pregnancy is a considerable mental, physical, emotional, and financial burden on the woman. It is much more than an inconvenience as you characterize it. If you are willing to let the state coerce a woman into hosting a pregnancy against her will, where will coercion end? Should we forcibly take organs from healthy people and use them for those that need them? Maybe you can answer in this scenerio. Person A is dying and needs an immediate blood transfusion to save his life, however Person A has a rare blood type. Person B is the only known person with a compatible blood type as Person A. Would you forcibly extract blood from Person B to provide a transfusion for Person A?

geoffery, first, you can't generalize about the pro-choice community. Different people have different reasons for being pro-choice. Second, there is no logical inconsistancy if you belive that both the fetus and the mother have rights, however they may be in conflict. I'm pro-choice because I believe the mothers rights outweigh the fetus's rights, at least initially in the pregnancy.

Drea, there is somewhat of an inconsistancy in your statements above. If a fetus doesn't acquire a right to life until it is born, presumably it doesn't have the right to life in the 8th month of gestation. So, why would you preclude a woman from having an abortion anytime before birth including the last trimester. BTW, personally I agree with you that the woman should make the abortion decision in the first trimester, I just don't agree that the rights only start at birth.

margrace, it is easy to not find any fault in the system when you personally pay little or none of the costs. In effect other taxpayers are paying for a medical system which you benefit from. It's a great benefit for you, but is it a benefit from their perspective? One of the people who are net losers in the system are those who fund it, but yet are given the same level (or worse) than those who provide no funding. Many of those would find the service better in a "pay for use" type of system, because they have the ability to pay. Maybe you can answer two questions for me. Do you think the healthcare system should be a forced wealth transfer system where the affluent pay for the healthcare of the less affulent? If so why? And also, should there be any limit on the amount of healthcare provided to an individual?