Wilber

Consistent with our democratic processes? Huh.

You mean none of those countries use oil?

Wow! It's been a whole year. The environment wasn't even much of an election issue the last time around. The Liberals signed the agreement and made their promises. Little or nothing came of them after over a decade of majority government. All of a sudden, everyone has got religion. It is time to give someone else a try. It will be interesting to see if they can do anything with a minority. Since everyone all of a sudden thinks this is such a critical issue that must be dealt with yesterday, I wonder if both sides of the house can put politics aside and do something positive for the country for a change. Ya right, what am I saying?

You can dance around it all you like but only a human fetus can become a human being. Whatever your position on this issue, you have to deal with that.

Only if the mother that created it continues to live. There is a line somewhere between 6 and 9 months where a fetus could be seperated from its mother without immediately becoming a mass of dead tissue. At that time you could argue that it has all of the biological pieces in place to be called a biologically independent entity with human DNA. That could make it 'human'. OTH, that is my opinion and has no more scientific merit than the opinion that human life begins at conception. Only a human fetus can become a human.

Whether you regard it as human or not, it is the only thing that can become a human and if it is left alone it will inevitably become one. We were all a fetus at one time. A wart cannot become a human. A carbuncle cannot become a human. a Zit cannot become a human. Only a fetus, which after all is an unborn human. There is the dilemma.

Of course not. But when I say why I don't try to pretend it is science. The science is quite straight forward, it's the rest that is complicated.

Why should they be different? Biologically speaking humans are no different from any other carbon based lifeform. What you want to do is impose a moral/metaphsyical value on something that happens to have human DNA. There is nothing wrong with making that argument but you have no business claiming it is a argument based on science. You mean you don't? What do you eat? Is cannibalism on the same plane as eating a carrot?

The law has to pick a time for legal purposes but that does not make it a biological fact. Don't get me wrong, I am pro choice but that position is tested when I hear women saying, I don't give a shit, I have my rights, I can do anything I want. Recognizing that there are responsibilities dosen't seem to be a part of the equation for some. As I said before, the courts refusing to condem is not the same thing as expressing approval for any type of behavior that results in an abortion. Lets face it, when you get down to the nitty gritty, it is a last resort, the worst form of birth control. The Supreme Court could also say that they will strike down any law that forbids the use of heroin. A person might have the right to take heroin. A woman may have the right to take heroin, use other drugs and drink like a fish while pregnant. Just because I recognise a right would not stop me regarding a person knowingly doing this, regardless of the consequences to others, including an unborn child, as a scumbag.

This is so however they did not rule on when life begins or the morality of abortion. To infer that their refusal to condemn is the same thing as granting approval is dishonest. That is and always will be open to debate. I think blueblood has the nub of it.

Old enough to have sex maybe but not mature or responsible enough. If you are hiding your pregnancy, how is anyone going to know you need help? You will have to ask for it. It would be interesting to know something about this kid's history and how the parents fit in to it.

Logic and facts should never be confused with rights and laws. A right just means someone can get enough support for a position to have it made into law. Logic and facts may have little or nothing to do with it.

A good start Geoffrey, followed by a concerted effort to settle land claims. It might cost a bundle up front for compensation but it would be better than bleeding for eternity and possibly we could get rid of the Department of Indian Affairs once and for all.

Wonder if the Swiss have a special word to describe a person who speaks three languages but not one or two of the official languages.

A person who speaks two languages but one is not French or English is not bilingual, they are an allophone. Only in Canada eh.

Actually there was one settled last month in BC with the Tsawwassen band and another a few years back with the Nishga. The question open to debate is what exactly is their land.

Canada will never be a bilingual country, just a country where there are people who speak many different languages.

Wonder if the opposition will have any more success meeting Kyoto's caps than they did when they were the government. Talk about playing games.

I don't know that they ever have, I'm just stating that no one has a right to enter someone else's country. Alaska has nothing to do with anything. Americans don't have a right to transit Canada going to Alaska any more than Canadians have a right to transit the US going to Mexico. If an American who Canada finds undesirable wants to go to Alaska or Point Roberts, they would either have to fly or take a boat. Same goes for Canadians wanting to go to Mexico if the US didn't like them.

Closer call. There are parts of the US accessible only through Canada. What instance do you have in mind? Any instance. We don't have a right to enter a country unless we are citizen of that country.

So what, do you think that Canada should have to give a reason acceptable to to the US for not letting a US citizen into Canada?

If not and they go through with it, they deserve each other.

OK. So what does it mean to be a Canadian citizen? Once you get that Canadian passport, there is no going back, AFAIC. He's not only a Canadian, he's a Syrian too. The US is in their full right to deport people to their country of origin. Renounce your citizenship, no matter how difficult, if that's the issue at hand. The guy was a refugee to Canada, yet has not claimed to have ever tried to renounce his Syrian citizenship. So I have little sympathy, your either a Canadian or your aren't... this dual citizenship crap is just causing too much grief. Exactly, Canada gave him citizenship and has to treat him as such. As long as he maintained his Syrian citizenship the US had every right to treat him as one. They have no special obligation to Canadian citizens who maintain dual citizenship unless it is American.

Actually, I tend to agree. Just wanted to point out that the word does have a history. The Canadian military has its roots in the British system. Particularly our version of the regimental system, so perhaps it is not too surprising that a British word would be used for a militia.

Possibly because that is the minimum number which would allow us to maintain a heavy lift capability to most parts of the world. It would allow two or more oceanic flights per day with all aircraft serviceable and at least one if up to two aircraft were not. The civil airliners I used to work on required monthly checks that took two days and annual checks that took two weeks. That didn't allow for missed flights for unserviceabilities in between which although not common, do happen. Things have changed some since then and I'm sure the military does things somewhat differently but I don't think I would be that far off when it comes to total down time. With only four of them, these aircraft will probably be working pretty hard.