Drea

That is correct -- A woman has the right to sustain herself without interference from any other individual or the state.

IMO, the cost of extracting this oil is much much less than what we are paying now (in lives!) no matter how much water we use or "popcorn" shale we have to dispose of...

Looks like the end of Middle East Oil Dependancy! Stansberry & Associates

Ah but why would'nt students lurk on boards such as MLW? Apparently there is a cross section of political ideas that would give students a peek into the minds of Canadians... So the story certainly could be true. According to the right wing, aren't all Canadian universities bastions of commies indoctrinating our youth anyway?

LOL You're not the only one -- is there an English version? I can't read it either - I only got a 'C' in grade 8 French!

She could, as stated earlier, simply drop it off at a hospital or police station with no obligation whatsoever. Absolving herself of any duty to find a home for the child. The mother's identity may never be known if she drops it off without letting anyone see her. Desperate mothers have done this before.

Ridiculous! No one is advocating that we kill newborn babies. Pro-choice is about one thing. CHOICE. It is not about killing babies. It is not about not wanting a kid with brown eyes... it is not about having a boy over a girl... It is about the CHOICE. I, for one, am glad we live in a society where my choice is respected and acted upon. In February of 1993 I made another choice. The choice to keep the fetus inside of me. Isn't it wonderful that I, as a female human being, was able to make that choice? No one forced me to have an abortion, that no one forced me to give up the baby once he was born; No one forced me to carry the pregnancy to term -- I CHOSE to keep the fetus, to let it feed off me <heh> until it was ready to enter the world as it's own living, breathing entity.

I agree. Alcoholism is a "disease" that can be "cured" by the effort of the alcoholic. Trust me, I've known many drinkers in my life -- two of them have quit drinking completely, on their own. Another couple of them needed AA to get off booze. We certainly should not be treating alcoholism/addiction like a physical or mental disability where a person cannot work. It may take an awful lot of effort, but at least it is possible to overcome alcoholism. It is not possible to overcome real mental/physical disabilites. Now, some disabled person is going to say "but I overcame my illness!". Ah yes, but were you the cause of your illness or were you born that way? I could say that I am an "addict". I smoke. Every couple of hours I gotta go outside and have a cig. Is this my fault? Should the gov't pay me simply because I am an addict? Should I take responsibility for my self-caused addiction or do I blame the govt? Self-imposed "illnesses" such as smoking or alcoholism are not disabilites but dependancies. Big difference IMO.

IMO, the woman's life is more important than the fetus'. Period. It is like this in nature as well. In a pride of lions, if food is scarce, the females will eat before the cubs. Why? Because the female can go on and have more cubs, while the lives of the current starving cubs is precarious at best. No, BD is saying that if the lawmakers decided that abortion was a crime (illegal) then would women who have abortions be subject to criminal prosecution? Glad to hear it. Yet in the same post you state: I see no difference between a religious anti-abortionist shooting abortion doctors and many other types of warfare. Our military soldiers sacrifice their lives to defend causes they believe are just and so do the religious anti-abortion shooters. We justify killing out of convenience and so do they. So it's ok to commit a crime (murder) a doctor to forward your cause? Aha! "...everybody has the right to life and control over their body." Then we agree. A woman has control over every aspect of her physical being. Including pregnancy. I am glad that you can accept that others may have different ideas as to "right" and "wrong" and respect that view by not imposing your values on society. You are certainly entitled to your opinion. Of course not, just because a person believes a woman should have a choice as to what to do with her body, does not mean they condone or support abortion based on gender or other frivilous human characteristics. If you will notice, women in the countries mentioned have been forced to have abortions based on gender or limits on numbers of children per family. These women do not have a choice. As a woman in our society, I demand (and get, thankfully) the respect to do with my body what I see fit.

Why is it undesirable? Killing anything is undesirable (except mosquitoes -- I get pure pleasure out of killing those buggers!) Some people seem to believe that having brown eyes is akin to having severe spinabifida or having a baby born with no brain. Sad really. That people can't see the difference.

Charles -- gender is not a deficiency. So no, I do not agree with abortion for gender selection. Abortion for any reason is undesirable. So is putting a live new born in the woods to die on its own (this was how it was done for millenia). No one will ever agree on the abortion issue. So why not just agree to disagree and leave it at that. Those who don't believe in abortion certainly do not have to have one -- ever. Simple innit?

What about if the kid doesn't have desirable eye colour? Where do you draw the line at an "acceptable" reason for saying the kid is genetically deficient? Gee I don't think one can see eye colour in an ultrasound... by the way -- I said life altering deficiencies As far as I know, eye colour doesn't affect your life, does it?

In some cases genetic deficiencies (ie; conjoined twins, spina bifida) are not detectable within the first 3 months. If a fetus (beyond the first trimester) is discovered to have these or other life altering deficiencies then abortion should still be available.

A person aquires the right to life when they are born. In some cultures a child's age begins at conception and they are considered "1" when they come out of the womb. Our culture states that a child's age begins when they exit the womb. So for us, at least, life begins at birth. That being said, I believe abortion should be available on demand up to and including the 3rd month of pregnancy. If a woman can't make the decision before then she should be stuck being pregnant. I've had 2 abortions in my life -- once when I was 15 and once when I was 32. When I was 15 the doctor refused to give me birth control -- we used a condom but the condom fell off... When I was 32... the man in question was genetically messed up and the chances of the child having his problems was 80% so I decided not to have the child. (Ok it was a pity **ck, the poor guy was a virgin at age 30) So hate me if you will but the son I do have has a great life. Imagine if I would have had that first child -- I would not have gone to college, I probably would've had to marry the boy who was a loser. Imagine if I would have had that other child. Genetically deficient, probably in need of major heart operations for the rest of its life. As a single mom of one already I really could not have dealt with a.) marrying the pitiful guy or b.) raising a handicapped child on my own. By the way, both abortions were performed at less than 8 weeks of pregnancy and the decision was instant. I knew exactly the right thing to do in the beginning and never waffled even once. Also, I have no guilt to this day. I know I did the right thing -- twice.

Quite definitely not. And for more on the religion of peace, and forced proselyzing, check out this New York Times article on forced conversion of kidnapped Fox newmen (link). Disgusting. ================================================================ JERUSALEM, Aug. 27 — Two journalists kidnapped in Gaza were released unharmed on Sunday after being forced at gunpoint to say on a videotape that they had converted to Islam. *snip* “I’m really fine, healthy in good shape and so happy to be free,” Mr. Centanni told Fox News. He said the two had been forced at gunpoint to say that they were converting to Islam and had taken Muslim names. “I have the highest respect for Islam,” he said. “But it was something we felt we had to do because they had the guns, and we didn’t know what the hell was going on.” Earlier on Sunday, their captors delivered a video showing the two men in Arab robes reading from the Koran to indicate their conversion. *snip* In a brief news conference, Mr. Wiig said he hoped the kidnapping would not prevent foreign journalists from covering Gaza. “That would be a great tragedy for the people of Palestine and especially for the people of Gaza,” he said. Mr. Wiig’s wife, Anita McNaught, a television journalist, thanked Palestinian officials and Fox News for their efforts. The men refused to take questions, then traveled to the Erez border crossing and entered Israel. Mr. Centanni told his network that he and Mr. Wiig had been blindfolded, handcuffed and taken to the abandoned garage with a generator. “I was thinking, ‘Oh God, O.K., so a remote warehouse with a big noisy generator. I’m toast,’ ” Mr. Centanni said. “They could simply shoot me in the head, and no one would hear it.” He said he and Mr. Wiig had been forced to make videotapes denouncing American policies as well as saying they had converted to Islam. *snip* All the captors did to them was force them to convert? Pretty tame compared to what could've been done to them. 100 million to 1 says they lied. I'm sure they would have "converted" to anything -- as would anyone with a gun pointed to their head... Now, these journalists, are they going to keep their new names? Go to mosque? Begin denouncing the western way of life from now on? Of course not - they lied to their captors -- wouldn't you?

-- that's too funny! No employer would put up with workers drinking on the job either. One of my coworkers, if he's had a liquid lunch with one of his clients comes back to work all glassy-eyed and chatty (and he avoids the boss like the plague LOL). I can't imagine trying to do my job under the influence of weed or alcohol. Smelling pot on an employee would be enough to a.) send them home or b.) fire their butt. No one randomly tests for alcohol on the job so lack of "testing ability" is a poor argument. If a guy showed up at work and you knew for certain he'd had a few beers, would you whip out the breathalizer? No, because chances are you don't have one. So how does one tell a person has had a few beer without the official breathalizer or blood test? One doesn't. One simply goes on the fact that they smelled it or that the employee is acting "strange".

and I will say it one more time too.... ... some US states have decriminalized small amounts of marijuana -- has the US federal gov't stopped "trading" with these states? Hmmm..... It's marijuana for pete sake, not crystal meth!

Ever see someone doing a mental aptitude test while under the effects of alcohol? I haven't, but I have witnessed some pretty insane actions by those under the influence of this legal drug. So why is alcohol legal while marijuana remains illegal? Again... some US states have decriminalized small amounts of marijuana -- has the US federal gov't stopped "trading" with these states? Hmmm..... They need our resources (they don't buy them out of charity!) and so I highly doubt if they would stop importing oil or lumber or raw logs from us if we legalize this harmless herb. Again - why would the US have a problem? The problem is not with the USA - the problem exists only in the minds of those Canadians who cower at the face of the elephant next door.

Why?

Over 70% of BC Bud is exported. Decriminalizing it in Canada would have no effect on organized crime. I have mixed feelings on the subject of decriminalization but this is one argument that won't stand up as long as it it illegal in the US. It then becomes the US's problem. Why are we so concerned about their laws? If weed were legal here and illegal in the US (which it is NOT in some states) it would have no effect on me personally at all. Unless I am stupid enough to take it across the border. The argument that we can't legalize it because of our puritan (not so puritan, as some states have decriminalized the possession of small amounts) neighbour is simply ridiculous. Legalize it so I can grow a few plants or (being I don't have a very green thumb) so I could simply purchase it at a government controlled liquor store.

Iran is a fine example of your precious "monoculturalism". (so was Nazi Germany) Don't see too many cultures being flaunted there - gee I wonder why? I prefer to live in a society where all cultures are welcome.

Llegal trade in marijuana in Canada will not end the illegal production controlled by organized crime that ships to the US. That means that if we legalize it we end up with the worst of both worlds: all of the social problems associated with a legal substance that is harmful _and_ the social problems created a crime culture devoted to the illegal production and sale.We are better off keeping it illegal until the US decides to legalize it. It wouldn't make sense for illegal production of marijuana to continue if the government sells it in government run stores (like liquor). Let's assume the government charges the same price as the street value...would you rather go to a reputable, government run store that is legal, or go to a dealer and risk being caught? Personally, I'd go with the government run store. Think about alcohol, how many bootleggers are there these days compared to when prohibition was in effect? Organized crime could easily ship the drugs south of the border, sure. I'm sure it would piss off the americans, but heck who gives a damn, we are a sovereign nation, if they are worried about marijuana coming through the border that's their own problem. Besides marijuana already heads south of the border, I doubt there would be that much of a difference if it were legal. How about we keep marijuana illegal if the U.S. keeps guns illegal? What would you rather have going through your border, marijuana or guns? I'd rather have marijuana thanks. P.S. I wonder how the countries surrounding the Netherlands feel about it being legal there? LOL I've wondered that often myself. Are there truckloads leaving Amsterdam? I highly doubt it. I agree -- so what if the US has different laws regarding marijuana -- if you take weed across the border you will pay the penalty -- the US penalty -- whatever they deem it to be. If you are here and you smoke it then go home, who cares. No one will know -- unless of course they are going to start putting drug testing equipment at the border...

Llegal trade in marijuana in Canada will not end the illegal production controlled by organized crime that ships to the US. That means that if we legalize it we end up with the worst of both worlds: all of the social problems associated with a legal substance that is harmful _and_ the social problems created a crime culture devoted to the illegal production and sale.We are better off keeping it illegal until the US decides to legalize it. It is already been decriminalized in a number of states. How do they keep people from bringing it across state lines? It is simply silliness to keep the use of this harmless herb as a criminal offense. As stated many many times by other posters -- the best harm reduction is full legalization. Short of that -- decrim will do (as a first step) -- at least it's better than getting thrown in jail for smoking a doobie.

What get's me is WHY Canada is afraid of the Big ol USA when it comes to decriminalizing pot. In some states, Alaska and California are two I know of, it is not a crime. Has the USA "disowned" or done anything negative to their own states? No, they haven't. So why would they be "upset" if Canada decrimed?

Condoms can fall off or break. Do you see on the package where it says: "You must pull your penis out of the vagina while it is still hard or your condom will fall off inside the vagina"? Is that anywhere on the package? Or what about the poor guy who mistakenly buys a size large... Anyway, condoms don't always prevent pregnancy and they do nothing to prevent herpes as the herpes sores are usually on the outside of the genitalia, the parts which "bump together" during sex. A combination of the pill and condoms is still the best protection going -- aside from abstinance, which is just as quaint as wringer washers. BTW, Melanie, bc pills don't cause bitchiness (PMS) in fact, they lessen or eliminate it. I was happy as a lark on the bc pill for 15 years. I thought PMS was something wimpy women made up in their heads -- until I went off the pill, now for one week a month I am the bitch from hell!