RB

my criticism is that the numbers become very skewed when we start counting business as a labor number. For example a person might be moonlighting and decides to get a business number but we are already counting this person working?. However, dependence on quarterly UI and payroll reports as a reflection of accurate labor information stats is hypocritical, because if you look at the following link below you’d understand that a whole lot of folks that are working and are not included in the stats including … agriculture http://www.bls.gov/opub/hom/pdf/homch2.pdf the point is, that the validity of the argument of > 2 million job creation stands if you did start considering all the people [individually] employed simply because there is sufficient discrepancies of collection of data as in this case of non-inclusive stats

it is immoral for someone else to pick up the tap on your university education. from an economics view point the private benefits to the individual far exceeds the social benefits. firstly, there is no guarantee that you will get a better job, higher wages with you higher education (HE) hence no correlation between HE, jobs and paying more taxes here is what i believe in - compensation benefits when some cost is imposed. means if the good kindly doctor that has been operating for years in one location one day finds a big company, big businessmen with big business intention moves in next door and proceed with their daily annoying hammering. compensation in principle should be awarded...to who? well ... sometimes is difficult to determine: to the patients, the doctor, and who knows maybe benefits to the smart company because this company can argue that it will provide benefits to a wider mass of people, contribute more to the economy than the good doctor. in your HE argument the compromise is that in the end society benefits because you are all going to gather special skills and knowledge to do very well to become politicians, doctors, lawyers and you are going to provide a some real value to society as a whole. hence governments should not be precluded from facing up to responsible, take the burden of cost to mostly capitalise on the gains of social benefits. parallel to your arguments of free university education i would also submit that my neighbors say if i park my BMW’s in the driveway for show it will increase the value of all our surrounding properties. now the question i would like to ask is should i forced someone to give me my rightful benefits as i am doing a good to the city and society non, and now i would like to find out when i can collect on those benefits. students are the main benefits to HE and the private benefits > social benefit i question also if say 1/3 of students decided to go for HE why should the 2/3 pay for this governments need JOB CREATION programs to solve job and social economic problems not higher education but i can also agree limited subsidised education (such as grants) when the private benefits=social benefits my one time experience with the loan programs served me excellent in 1998, only because i capitalise on "forgiveness" and took 72 credits that year. i think racked up about 23K that one year in loans but the consolidated pay back was what counted . if your GPA is good - apply for scholarships

NAFTA was a trade deal made in America and like any adjustments some industries become victims. if the potential to increase the GNP even 3-8% i believe the economic benefits is outweigh. canada is by far more dependant on the US market than vice-versa. in fact while the US continues to look globally, canada remains in this hub with the US i have had the opportunity to operate on an expansionary global scale with NAFTA ... trading/distributing tonnes of product between Mexico, most of the states in the US, Canada and also movements worldwide. when Chile entered into the FTA zone an entire new market became immediate to "exploit" or rather explore and diversification to "pesquera" fishmeal and fishoil became a sought after business. so i can only comment about a resultant good of FTA. if efficiency, new business, competition, increase in scale of production and solving trade disputes were part of the deal it was accomplished. sometimes we have respect government and their politics and so bonus points to a reactionary Ministry of Agriculture - Ottawa who were always reliable and knew how to settle problems before they really escalated into nightmares i don't see how we are put into a weak and dependant position with NAFTA, we have not started to think global policy or on a global scale. well maybe here is what is weak with NAFTA, we as canadians are locked into these trade laws because we somehow can keep changing and adding to our legislatures to become "law of the land", that law usually did not apply to the US. but if you say that the US have an agenda with NAFTA i agree, because that is increasingly evident. - the US is dependent on world economies -japan and europe is posing an economic hegemony challenge -so in order to gain competitive and economic influence -just lock Canada and Mexico into an American model

if you can name one more person in the PM office that actually has some military experience = "peace-keeping", then Pratt is your man of glory at this moment. now Pratt, try appealing to the folks who can never relate to what are talking about, for example those complex equipment you need for defence .. want to give a speech about those advise now... Pratt buddy you have to toil for what you believe nevermind the tears in the eye .. did you say “Martin's recent funding increasing for the military” … a tat-for-that

i don't see how this is going to happen soon....not with so many imbalances - first the U$ is falling unevenly against other currencies - the dollar continues to fall against trading partners -- the more the dollar falls, it is likely to fall further in danger - a likely collapse the only way to see a balance is to spead the dollar drop evenly this means that the asian currency has to float

it would be an untruth and by far more hypocritical to pronounce a believe of god. here is what is the truth though. that there is a decay of "lifestyle" and that there is a decay of religious practice and is attributed to the fact that most of what is written in the bible is mostly: - speculation - that you have indeed given power to fallen man instead of to the grace of god - that you are neglecting to preach and practice the word of god as a lifestyle - that you are neglecting to teach the young about lifestyle -and now there is contempt and defection from what is faith -and as always there is much corruption in the church it is no wonder folks leave the church in search other styles well, it is related to me that the pseudo-ignorant is a person who actually knows what "pseudo" means because it is only he that is aware that knowledge gained is just a small percentage of what is contained in ignorance. what i meant is that it would be all righteous if we can all just agree for something less than ordinary and settle for some simple motive. now, here’s to try and make things difficult for those who are closed-minded, and indeed why approve of anything that tampers with what is natural ignorance.

leadership is sadly lacking – and we are not getting the leaders we deserve maybe if we can identify what is the big part of our disillusion with the government we can hastily come to some rhetoric - (i didn't read the fraser report) but here is what i meant ... for example: i have some experience interacting with the folks from the canadian arm forces … they are always trying to encourage folks to sign on and i would listen intently to question usually asked of them from the public… well what do you do really ? - most of our government are not visible in the community, you almost not know what they are up to - people scarcely know who is in charge , or never heard of the folks in power – well how can we change power of the most important position and BC did not care i was in grad school in Nebraska a couple of years back, most of my group was from the military but i had the special opportunity to visit their station, and i also had daily interaction with them. it was not about doing a damm good job, we acertain that yesterday, there is special pride in each of those folks, a bond so strong first with themselves and then to the people of the land … from an outsider perspective and more so for the american public you are convince to the extreme that you can put your faith in the hands of these trusted folks. they respect and honor their highest government in control, and then they respect, show of honor and display of dignity to the direct leaders in charge and for the people just a chain-reaction…they believe in their government is special …and they probably know all their leaders by names… i know we do makes you truly wish canadians had such fierce pride and dignity with themselves and in their government

religion is an attitude, and the sciences are what should belong to the church because it is a truth in all absolutes. here is what i meant. that men who cannot be equal with themselves and events seek higher explanation and higher appeal to a some conscience that is greater than their own and ask questions, and hasten to solve riddles no question we are born a loyal person and born in believes.... by what is public and what those around us is loyal to and believe those who usually find the truth, do not need to appeal to some higher conscience but more likely to seek science on acceptance of: faith, morality, love, time, space, things evolve and change. our recent culture has shift to science. now we have explanation for manners of the sun, moon, stars, ocean, weather, gravity, to atom i had admiration for all that was excellent including the gods growing up. nowdays, my admiration rest with what the eyes have seen, and that the mind is persuaded to a new insight of not only what we hear men say but also what men they do not say and an anticipated reaction. but what i am trying to say is that how on earth i am to believe that the thoughts e.g. (curing those of all diseases) are conveyed to another while i vainly make up my mind i wanted to say it and that someone actually heard this that i have never spoken. but indeed they have heard but continue to punish the diseases to extremity. i have a better motive to believe in science. i can’t buy into the riddles that are independent of the intellect. for those skeptics i quote: “if we meet no gods, it is because we harbor none”

c'mon now motives always have some higher aim and are not always senseless - you free a land now you can give the peple samples of what they are missing, mcdonalds probably rule the land now... a success, how about more contracts for us of course because we have to congratulate ourselves, well maybe just 25-30 opportunities to others - and i didn't mention oil - much later how about owership of the economy next this is all about power and control hope you know that also

the government is overwhelm with itself, thats why they are getting bigger, shuffling problems into sub sections hrdc will be divided up, but watch how big the sub sections grow in the mean time … to reach the current bureaucratic alignment i like their theme of “cirles”. first you have a big municipal circle, then a bigger provincial circle and the biggest federal circle…none intersecting, each with their own circumference and arm of reach radius. the only reason I describe the government this way is because it gives the notion of no limitations, and never precluding higher vision for the land hence continually it raises above itself. the thing to realize is that limitation is considered a SIN. because only then you begin to comprehend the genius in the folks and to question their in/competencies: for example aren’t they suppose to be matched with talents, enterprises, knowledge … or are we going round table and ask which position is next, who is still not assigned … good grief I only had to look at the security minister biography and it is not fitting the job of the land isn’t there such an assembled group independent of politics that can keep these folks in check

well since we are comparing death:death from your reliable statistics canada website death from abortion = 0 … abortion is not recognized as a death stat, but there is documented record of infants' death from 0 – 1 year in 1997 < -- > 500 well i am glad you can all represent yourselves and the people in strong pride, talented with your believes. only the confident one can represent the resistant, ... not to be imprudent but to have faith in what seem fact and set forth to perhaps to trade, and exchange ideas to what is mutual benefit and isn’t it wonderful to watch an array of colorful display of selfish infusion scurry around in an instant to discover/uncover a truth. only now it looks black or white. in trade, these are the same folks that none can supply them, and that they must be born to trade or they can never learn it. what i meant is that the usual argument is with the rejection of a need to inquire about all possiblities and inclusion of all thoughts, so we come up with one sided solutions but indeed you are only in favor of the self in which only thine opinion rest. as women with pure conscience, we usually come face to face with our own dignity and what is rightfully our freedoms, and we pay our compliments the same way we own it

read the statistics of abortion http://www.webhart.net/vandee/abortstat.shtml#Reported Canadian women obtained 105,427 abortions in 2000, a slight decrease of 0.2% from 105,666 in 1999 From 1999 to 2000, induced abortion rates increased in all provinces except Ontario, Manitoba and British Columbia women in their twenties, accounted for 51% of all women who obtained an abortion in 2000, teens 20% does this sound like a crises situation that we need to change the laws. i did not think so. there are other pressing issues that the public is concern with and is of greater importance now such as: - gay rights - debt - high taxes - securing a position at competition/gobalisation for trade - jobs - a stable dollar and a stable economy - security - and just a watchful weary eye to the government. unless you have a judge that is much stronger in favor of life and sees a crisis situation you will meet much opposition to the "abolition of abortion" .. you are talking about taking away a constitutional right and freedom I like you prior post Hugo offering some working solutions at the grassroots - getting started at education I have my own puritan standards, but is hardly rational to expect to judge and impose upon others my standard. what is ideal is different from what is real how do you change a psyche overnight to realise some good morals, values and ethics and to achieve abstinence. maybe it starts right at home, then enforcement of those good system in the classroom If only you can see that it takes two to tango, then you can address both sexes and society instead of pointing a figure of which of the sex is in the wrong all the time. KK has some bang on ideas that can be mostly result oriented with the target groups:youths and women in their twenties and some of the services are probably in place and readily avail only needs to be more visiable..there was mention of the morning after pills avail unless your monetary reward system is closely monitored, it will bring out the capitalistic streak in others for big business .. money i find "walks and talks"

I do not discount your scientific or other moral arguments on when we can say child, or person or when it comes into being I said this before I support women in their right to choose and hence I support what are laws in this country. According to the law we can say it is a person when it is born - i approve of this law because it gives women their right to control their own body. But notwithstanding, there are no compromise when women rights of choices are taken. mind you the law actually help spare the hypnotical. what i also approve of: - there nothing wrong trying to influence and persuade decisions to pro-life however you are doing it well except for killing off and trying to sue our doctors - one of the prior post offer alternative solutions of attacking some fronts: eduation, economic, morality, support women are thinking individuals and can decide for themselves if all the information and choices are available to them. appeal to the women folks in this way instead of an outrageous proposition of abolishing abortion. for your information am more incline to pro-life (and I have had the opportunity to experience the counselling session and to walk the halls at the Mt. Sanai Hospital to abort or not to abort) and I can assure you the decisions that are made thereafter is not one of compliance. It is the ONE right decison for that individual. and would like to see all those females come into existence but you have to come up with a better solutions to achieve a higher ratio life:abort instead of attacking "women and their right to choose"

the hypothetical thinking "fetus" would surely be sorryful crackhead to reject what is beneficial. usually the courts would act in the best interest of the fetus would award favorable decisions to the benefit of the unborn. i maintain that a pregnant people owes no "general" duty to hypothetical people..meaning of course that the unborn and mother are one and from the law perspective the unborn is not a person until they are born Russ v. British Columbia (Public Trustee), (1994-03-25) BCCA CA016474 Source: http://www.canlii.org/bc/cas/bcca/1994/199...4bcca10157.html from the unborn perspective if they were here today and of course wanted to be born... the question arises as to whether this transaction is prudent from the unborn point of view. or the unborn decides on some business sense: - the saving of taxes - all the good benefits goes to living relatives per today..that seems sensible - or the good benefits to myself the law is broad regarding the unborn and property, some of the cases i hurried though talked about the property inheritance of a child's unborn but what remains significant: - the foetus have no rights if stillborn - only upon live birth can rights acquired during gestation be asserted. - and that the foetus is regarded as a person at birth in short, the law has set birth as the line of demarcation at which personhood is realized, at which full and independent legal rights attach, and until the childen ventre sa mere sees the light of day it does not have the rights of those already born. the same principle applies with sharing of assets say for dogs; that is dogs conceived but unborn (in ventre sa mere) are family assets-- Sherliker v. Sherliker furthermore, orders as to contingent rights of unborn persons does not come become entitled until the unborn comes into existent Source: http://www.canlii.org/sk/sta/cssk/20030227...t-23/whole.html Quoted what then is the legal position of an unborn child? is it regarded in the eyes of the law as a person in the full legal sense? does it have the capacity in law to prosecute an action sounding in tort or to sue for injunctive relief? The short answer to the latter questions is "No". While there can be no doubt that the law has long recognized foetal life and has accorded the foetus various rights, those rights have always been held contingent upon a legal personality being acquired by the foetus upon its subsequent birth alive and, until then, a foetus is not recognized as included within the legal concept of "persons". It is only persons recognized by law who are the subject of legal rights and duties. "Persons are the subjects of rights and duties: and as the subject of a right, the person is the object of the correlative duty ... A person is such, not because he is human, but because rights and duties are ascribed to him. The person is the legal subject or substance of which the rights and duties are attributes. An individual human being, considered as having such attributes is what lawyers call anatural person": Pollock,First Book of Jurisprudence, p. 110. Unquoted how do you plan to ban abortion?

"Quoted" The Supreme Court of Canada is firm on the issue as to the rights of the unborn child is not one of biological, spiritual or any status other than legal status. In deciding the issue then, the court's task is a legal one. It is for the Legislature to decide it on any other basis. see the decision of McLachlin, J. speaking for the majority of the Supreme Court of Canada, in Winnipeg Child and Family Services (Northwest Area) v. G.(D.F.)(1997), 152 D.L.R. (4th) 193, particularly at pps. 201 to 203. the common law does not recognize the unborn child as a legal person possessing rights generally, or under family, succession or tort law. any legal rights which may exist in relation to the unborn child accrue only at birth. however in a civil suit there are no proceeding with a criminal intend... then the law i hesitate to argue that perhaps the unborn is included in the terminology “everyone” but does not become a person until it is born, i am not an expert in civil cases - but is this a particular case you are questioning

23 million - this is far too disgraceful and tragic. but I like that you have turn around a reasoning of choice to some muted proposition. usage of words such as “denied the right” is in itself a discrimination. In Canada: equality rights guaranteed under Charter would certainly be breeched – thank heavens we are very liberal with abortion in a cc law context goverment or state interference with bodily integrity constitute a breach of security of a person what i meant is that under CC section 251 clearly telling a women you cannot abort interferes with a woman's physical and bodily integrity. The basic tenets of our legal systems hinges around the principles of liberty. you infringe on a right to liberty of a person you must comport with what is fundamental justice the right to "liberty" contained in ccs. 7 guarantee to every individual a degree of personal autonomy over important decisions intimately affecting his or her private life. liberty in a free and democratic society does not require the state to approve such decisions but it does require the state to respect them a woman's decision to terminate her pregnancy falls within this class of protected decisions only the woman making the decision understands what profound impact it has on her. the economic consequence and her social consequences and now maybe her lobbyist consequence. but really it is a decision that deeply rooted and reflects the way the woman thinks about herself . and the decision is not just a medical decision but also social and ethical situation respecting a woman's right to control her own person becomes more complex when she becomes pregnant, but also infer inequalities as to which point to discriminate against the women is so ghastly unreal that it is frightening to reconsider apply what is law to what is real – it is not as simple to say wrong we do not like it this way and therefore we do not accept it but must ensure it changes. it is my believe that if we encourage women greater freedom to make their own choices, encourage them to question discrimination, equality [really what is unfair practices], and give them opportunity to learn about solutions, about their rights, and entitlement about what is basically available they are more likely to make informed decisions. my sincerest wish is for all people to understand women in their new roles of expanding choices. control is a thing of the past, and for men and women to participate in responsible sexual behaviors but also to promote whatever alternatives at various stages of a consequence that even allow for substitution and not confiscate a liberty and freedom International Treaties Framework that should be capitalized for those 23 million women include: -Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (the Women's Convention) - affirms the reproductive rights of women, - right of women to family planning- Article 14(2) - right to sexual non-discrimination- Articles 1-2 - right to non-discrimination in the provision of health care and in the family-Articles 12(1), 16(1) -Article 18 - International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights -International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights -European Convention on Human Rights -American Convention on Human Rights -African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights you are right I don’t defy but mostly comply with the law of the land, in the US a right was bestowed with Roe v. Wade… -a landmark, and - decision recognizing a woman's constitutional right to choose - was right decided - woman has a constitutional right to privacy when making decisions concerning her personal reproductive choices. i am sure there is a lot on this throughout the discussion . but importantly that the decision is a precedent...hello..it was carefully crafted to be balanced and responsible while holding the rights of women paramount in reproductive decisions. informed reproductive choices it what the mantra, includes planning (this means when the time is right) it is time to nail the institution responsible for non compliance and to hold accountable for the protection human rights, women rights and you need to do a good job of reporting violations to the courts and international monitoring bodies if in breech

Hugo i support women in their ability to make decisions about their body. - to abort - not to abort i don't condone any of the those actions women intend to or actually participate in and i won't try to sway their psyche on what is right and wrong, or lie for themselves - i am not the person who will bear a consequence. however, i feel it is unjustify when you want to take away what i consider a right for women to control her body and a right to make up her own mind, because you have now decided and indeed when you can make some viable argument of controlling women body i guess we certainly have reconsider and make sure the loops are closed for a continuance of choices to exists for all women instead this one and only way you propose

well, i don't want to seem only of a capitalistic mind or that i am not pro-life. i have much experience as single parent but “I CHOOSE”. heck, when I found out I was pregnant, I got kick out of the house the next day. talk about critical moments and predicaments made very real and hurtful. to borrow from murphy I remembered thinking it seems that each individual rises to their own level of powerlessness, and then seemingly remains there. but i am glad was given an opportunity to think…. about all “if conditions”, the pre, the interim, the post, challenges of raising the child and decided to keep the baby. i guarantee it is indescribably tough, we don’t need rehash stories you have heard thereof. unplanned pregnancies are much too serious in my mind, and an insult is added when we associated it with carelessness. well we keep thinking about what we fail to do: the contraceptives, the unwarranted behavior, the motives and want to solicit moral correction of punishment like forced swayed decisions to pro-life. force decisions on others for compliance they will rebel. i am incline towards a “right decision” based on preference to plan, and a constraint in the ability for workable solutions. it all connotes tough decision even when there is a lucky break. you give those the choices and all the alternatives available and they take charge of their decision, responsibilities and bear the consequences of their decisions without a societal judgements. The result an appeal to some intelligence.... maybe you can be looking at a higher percentage of pro-life.

abortion economics as an argument with a resultant savings to our tax dollars? i did'nt think so in ontario, canada since equal health care is accessible to all, we can only deduce that the removal of public funds for abortion would also suggest removal of public funds for child birth and associated post op. you could not justly implement some wise policy to descrimate the tax dollars. but if you wish to encourage "childbirth over abortion" by paying for the former and not the latter... they i am sure you are able to figure a cost differential the cost for abortion is approx. 485$ over the cost of an uncomplicated child birth $1,370 but you also did not calculate the resultant effects of pregnancies not wanted. trying putting figures to these problems if we say 50% of all pregnancies are unattended 1) the poorer the women the more likely they are unable to take care of the pregnancy such as: prenatal care 2) health and social cost such as: - smoking - drinking - result low birth weight - teen association of complications such as risk of obstertrical complications, premature 2) teen drop out of school means for future employment less skill jobs with low wages, are kept forever in proverty or perhaps you intended to keep them @ 4 3) more likely to access to welfare adapted from the link below here for more cost on contraception, prevention, abortion http://www.cbctrust.com/ECONOMIC.html 4)you would like to encourage a cycle of poverty, let the teens become parents would likely have a child that mirrors the cost for abortion by far out weight the cost of carrying a child to term. planning for kids is the best way, and a solution is to allow people to choose when it is right for themselves. it is rather condescending to keep saying it is the "mother" "daughter" "women" phenomena and to isolate action events such as "spreading of legs" leading up to the practice of impermissible sex discrimination. what i mean is heck, people (men and women) can have sex whenever they want it is a private matter and decisions thereafter are also private, you make it public when you wish to intrude

Derek Posted: Nov 20 2003, 09:36 PM politicians try to do this a lot by swaying the populace believe with appeal of emotion or pity. you cannot want to manipulate feelings with pleas, begs “please give…..a chance”, make up your own rules based on your own standards and value systems, willing the folks to succumb to some seduction and then say now think about it – there is no allowance for logic and application of rules there are much imbalances in the law. we have “Rights of the child”, the word parent or rights of parent is not mentioned anywhere, not even in the good charter adopting law that appears among the roman jurists “Law of Persons” has jurisprudence freedoms and rights might be worthwhile to explore

i had to momentarily pause to reflect that we are still with this notion of natural activity for women to bear children if you agree with the above statement, then women who opt not to have kids are not in sync with laws of nature i suspect that we would like to apply different laws to different issues such that we can confer with the invented criminal law to the rights of the unborn but take up natural law to explain our ethics and moral justification on some issues i wish to say that natural laws in all its ethical reflection seeks to embrace a hierarchical system and puts women in a predetermine role. what this means for women, sure we can have the right of choices, only it is endorsed when the reflection has the least compromise … sort of it is a natural function, no intercept (this is unnatural). so women speaking out on their own behalf are unnatural functions declaration of sentiments and resolutions affirms men and women were created equal and endowed with inalienable human rights… individual rights to liberty/freedom but you also want other readings and interpretations, now you are in a sense saying for bad behavior a right that was bestowed is now inalienable, and has been forfeited forever my darlings because of inappropriate misbehavior … you must think before you act to enjoy freedom. OR maybe this is a better scenario you forfeit your individual rights until your punishment is over which could mean 9 months or less. clearly the dilemma is the division of 2 freedoms of difference views of pregnancy. • freedom to abort • freedom not to abort now you want to compromise one of those freedom, but then you really have the answer if you can sincerely admit which freedom you ought to “choose” to protect this significance of this choice and freedom is beginning to sound like recurring themes of continuous wishy-washy chantings “now you see it …. now you don’t”

we keep asking the questions because we are inquisitive and curious and therefore seek the thoughts of others while we try to compromise, adjust and figure the usual why? how? recurring why? and it has come time for communities, societies and attitudes to change, adjust and embrace facts a right to choose is hardly arbitrary, come what may invention. respect that a right to choose is a right already fought for.... and included in laws,[nowadays we have to try to save it because of this bushy moral agenda], but was stemmed from a frantic outcry, a struggle to change the notion of “bare foot, pregnant and in the kitchen”, to what is now it is a right/fight for equality and a right to reproductive freedom abortion rights jurisprudence in Canada is by far very liberal, it is so broad that it is not even define and practice in mostly every hospital – no disappointments here easy to read bit on history of canadian abortion below http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.o...nada.html#intro

we would like to take up "personal" accountability and responsibility for our actions of sex ... only it is not in congruent with your ideas see below we are bombarded with juxtaposition criminal labels taken from some of your various recent post that identifies sex as the root cause of all this evil the usage of words like kill, die, dead, murderers, kill, kill has connotations of criminal intention just maybe, maybe we might be able to agree on something workable for unwanted pregnancies, that we can now treat sex as criminal offence EQUALS criminal intention making sure of the such a thing as strict liability on the intent to commit a criminal offence. and by the way might even encourage persons to always complete the committed offence for example if someone set out to commit their offence, but abandon the idea before completing it … the same liability will now apply ... how useful that fits in because in a round about way it is the same conformist approach you wish us to take

obviously, we do not all share the same value system a system of abortion is clearly a need to balance individual need against a majority need that’s why women continue to strive for their rights and make unto law that are formed to encompass some majority. i respect that we cannot all agree hence the debate having sex without thinking about the consequences in my mind is breaking the rules “house rules” and should not carry as big a punishment as breaking a law so that even though consent to sex is given on impulse or however, people should be given a choice to allowed to reverse their decisions in the mornings after so that they do not bear suffering, and be punished and be judge ipso facto. that is what 99% of the abortion folks you quoted are saying - we had sex but we also would like some contingencies, like some solution abortion should not be viewed as punishment to appease others but practice because it is one workable solution available for “if nots” scenarios. Let me ask you this 1) should we set-up laws that punish people for having sex? 2) and does our current laws do this? 3) and perhaps should we have enforceable regulated sex? sort of treat problems even before they occur

i have no qualms when i say that as a woman i will continue to do what is right for me without apology or permission to the masses i believe reproductive choices are rights of women, and women’s rights are human rights what a horrible pretence, you can't want to give women freedom, equality and liberation and then continue to be brazen an issue you own rule of thumb the only appeal that women usually want is that they are allowed to think for themselves so that they can in end - take up responsibility for their action including the right to plan a family at an appropriate time - can make decisions concerning reproduction free of discrimination, coercion from the masses and violence all I am saying that you continue to failed to respect and invade women’s privacy when you try to make a decision on their behalf for us women we will continue to seek to end tradition and traditional practices in all its biases from a male perspective and make sure that you do not deny comprehensive health measures and put in place for policies for women’s health why are we not arguing to protect men from unplanned and unwanted children. paternity laws are highly discriminatory in favor of women and men should begin to have a viable discussion on a parallel reproductive choice