Hugo

It's flawed. Nazism and Communism are the same ideology. "Socialism" and "Communism" are also two words for the same thing, Marx and Engels use the terms interchangeably. Modern "socialists" e.g. NDP are not socialists at all, but rather democratic-capitalist statists. He should stick to his day job.

Niagara region, Ontario and Conservative. I think Harper stands for better democracy - more power to the provinces (grassroots democracy), free speech in his Party (e.g. his MPs are allowed to be pro-choice or pro-life, whereas the Liberals make sure everybody sings Martin's tune no matter what their personal beliefs or those of their constituents) and bringing to heel the undemocratic but definitely partisan powermongers in Canada (Supreme Court and Senate). So I'm backing him.

The latest data was collected in 2000 by Stats Canada and it shows exactly the same trend. If you have some conflicting information, share it. But I don't have much time for people who rubbish my research while remaining too lazy or ignorant to perform any of their own.

Facts in Brief, Alan Guttmacher Institute, September 1995.

Oh, yeah, right. Well, then, myself and the 18m or so other Canadian taxpayers are also "involved" in every abortion that takes place in Canada, because we're paying for them. Why are we not allowed a voice in the decision? I bet you had a voice in your partner's decision, Blackdog.

No, you haven't. According to you, it's a woman's choice, which means you didn't make any decision. Advised, possibly, decided, no. So why does that mean that people should be able to cash in on smoking or eating badly, or expect the taxpayer to pay for their fourth abortion? I don't see what is so disagreeable about my argument. If you cross the street and get run over, that was hardly a mistake and I don't mind my tax money being used for that medical treatment. I'd like to think that I'd get the same if it were me (and it could be). But if you smoke 20 a day and get cancer, too bad, you should have quit or just never started (and don't tell me that in this day and age any smoker is blissfully unaware of the risks - they are stated on every single cigarette packet in very bold text and pictures). Why should you get millions from the tobacco company - to reward your stupidity? And please, find me a teenager who is unaware that sex makes babies. Anyone raised in such a convent-like environment isn't a candidate for lots of casual sex anyway. Or an adult who thinks that junk food is just as healthy as fruit and salad. Why do you think it's called "junk food" in common parlance? If you make your regular diet from something called "junk food", expect problems, just as if you make your regular car purchases from a category entitled "beaters."

All are equal before the law, Blackdog, or should be. Or do you think we should change that, and make inequality before the law our new watchword, according to "pressures or economic circumstances"? Do you think people with higher IQs, or a college degree, should get "less forgiveness from society" than those who didn't? Does the fat high-school dropout get to sue McDonalds, while the fat honours graduate gets his case thrown out? Have you?

How about stopping fat people from suing McDonalds for millions, stopping smokers from suing Rothman, Benson and Hedges, and stop giving irresponsible teens free abortions? Let people make their own mistakes - and then pay for them. It's called "learning." If there's no penalty for making a mistake, there's no incentive not to make that mistake again, and you learn nothing. 46% of abortions are repeat abortions, that figure having tripled since 1974. Are these women learning to be a little more careful and responsible with their sexual habits? Evidently not. We're creating a society of irresponsible, immature idiots.

98%, according to Planned Parenthood, are not for reasons of rape, incest, threat to life or health of the mother or defect and deformity in the fetus. That means that last year, about 107,000 abortions in Canada (assuming the circumstances of Canadian women do not differ much in rape, incest, congenital deformity etc.) were performed for the reason of "none of the above." The cost of an early abortion is $450-600 (in British Columbia, according to Pro-Choice Network). If we assume that all these abortions were early (perhaps 12-15% are not and thus are more expensive), and that they had no complications (some do, which can result in much more costly hospital treatment to correct) that means the cost to the taxpayer was over $56m for these 107,000 abortions. The Guttmacher Institute (run by Planned Parenthood) finds that, when asked to give one or more reasons why they were having an abortion, patients answered in the following ways: 75% said it would interfere with their careers or education. 66% said they could not afford a child. 50% did not want to be a single parent, or were having relationship difficulties.

I think the Liberals have been in power so long that they have come to believe they have some kind of right to be in power. To steal tax money, line pockets and grease palms as they have done requires incredible arrogance and complacency. Witness also their liberal (pun intended) use of the Canadian flag in their campaigns, their accusations that Harper is un-Canadian, and their idea that a true Canadian would vote Liberal. And unless the motto has changed to "peace, order and bad government" that just is not true. Or is a beneficiary of their pork-barrelling. If I were a conspiracy theorist, I would imagine that the reasons why the Liberals are so bent upon expanding government and bureacracy is to create a legion of government employees who owe their jobs to the Liberal party, and thus can be depended upon as Liberal voters.

I'm not concluding that, I'm suspecting that. With government accounting being what it has been in recent years it would take nothing less than a complete and independent audit to convince me that SGI was in no way being subsidised with tax dollars. I have no proof, but the track record is there. When there's a spate of robberies in the area, the cops generally go knock on the door of the guy with a rap sheet, if you understand me. If SGI is held up as a shining example of an exemplary state-run business, I'm going to have to take that with a grain of salt at least. I thought it was self-evident, excuse me. If you want a good example of state-run economics, see the Soviet Union and it's consistent underperformance as a national economy. But for a better example of a mixed economy, see Sweden and Norway. Sweden has seen absolutely no economic growth for eight years, from their own figures, and Norway has 25% of her population below the poverty line (that's an estimate from an independent economic studies board, because Norway does not publicise information on poverty levels). Compared to more free-market economies, both are failures. Both make extensive use of state-run business. For state-run business in Canada, see Ontario Hydro. Last summer there was a massive blackout and more are forecast this year (it has not gotten really hot yet, thankfully). This was squarely blamed upon the failure of the state-run hydro company to invest in new equipment. That which they have is very old and cannot keep up with peak demands in summer. See also Air Canada, which is not state-run but has been encouraged to inefficiency and ineptitude through countless taxpayer-funded government bailouts.

A right load of old rubbish. It seems to me that the author expects politicians to say of their opponents, "Well, he's alright really. You could do a lot worse than voting for him!" Everybody is playing "distortion tactics" and always has. Go read about Athenian elections in ancient Greece and you'll find plenty of mud-slinging, insults, lies, fabrications and half-truths. The incumbent Cleon in one particular election was described, publicly and in print, by Aristophanes (the famous playwright) as "an inspector of arses [who] helps himself from the public coffers with both hands" and "a villain a thousand times a day." These kinds of insults go on for a whole paragraph, if anyone is interested I will go and find them all (some are quite funny, as you'd expect from the author of "The Frogs" and other classic Greek comedy). Needless to say, the idea that Harper has borrowed a campaign of distortion of truth and personal attacks from the Republicans is as ludicrous as they come. Paul Martin is saying Harper will outlaw abortion and gay marriage, which he has repeatedly denied. At least what Harper is saying is actually the truth, if selective, but the Liberal ads frequently cross the line into outright lying.

I think we all know Enron was corrupt. That's why the company dissolved, and it's why Andrew and Lea Fastow will serve time in jail - 10 years in Andrew's case. However, to take the example of Enron and use it to write off the whole free market would be like taking the example of Stalinism and using it to write off all governments. The exception can prove the rule, but it cannot become the rule. We have to look at the big picture, and that is that state-run enterprises across the world are renowed for inefficiency, waste, high prices, poor products and sub-par services when compared to free-market alternatives.

I think, as August opined, that this illustrates not the problems of the market system but the problems of state interference in economics and the fallacy of regulation. I read through your excerpt and noted the following items: So, the state continues to interfere with price fixing almost across the board. We will see how this impacted events later on. But they could not, because all new power plant construction was vetoed at the political level. So, state interference caused them a "big problem." To summarise all that, what we can see is that deregulation was extremely badly planned and, while the state handed over generation to the free market they insisted upon keeping a lot of control. When things started to go badly wrong, knee-jerk reactions were made that might have worked ten years previously but could not work at the time. I did not say I had proof of creative accounting in SGI, because my argument is this: you say you do not trust corporations, but you trust government. I say you have it backwards. Public corporations must disclose and have to answer to a large body of shareholders and, of course, their customers. Government, especially in Canada, has proven that it cannot be relied upon to disclose accurate figures and budgets and has proven that it frequently indulges in interdepartmental funding transfers, slush funds and all sorts of illicit dealings. Furthermore, you may believe SGI works now, but any state-run business operation is inherently unsustainable. In 10-20 years, perhaps sooner, you will come to realise that when something makes it fall apart. Actually, Eves slammed the door on privatisation virtually as soon as it was opened. Apparently, you expected a private company to repair decades of neglect and damage in a few months and to do this with a multi-billion-dollar debt. How, exactly, should they have done that? Evidence? Economic figures, please, not anecdotal evidence, anti-American bigotry and socialist dogma.

In a case like that, the clear role of government is to step in as an ombudsman and consumer watchdog. Government has no business in business, and to say otherwise is statism, pure and simple. You're saying I'm wrong? Alright, then tell me the names of the Californian power plants built in the last 10 years. I can tell you that Californian demand has increased 13% in that time. What you are saying is a ridiculous socialist conspiracy theory - that Californian power companies deliberately created a power crisis so they could increase their prices. I challenge you to provide one single piece of evidence that can support it. If you believe that, you'll believe anything. We all know that government has been extremely dishonest about that sort of thing in the past - interdepartmental borrowing, slush funds, misappropriation of funds, creative accounting etc. Isn't Paul Martin losing an election on this very issue? Sponsorship scandal, EI surplus, the hundreds of millions missing from the Federal budget, money that vanished in deals with companies (Hewlett-Packard) and so on. The Canadian government runs budgets like Enron, year upon year. I don't think their figures can be trusted. You claim that their accounting is sound, well, history is not on your side. Apparently! Why is the percentage of people below the poverty line in Canada at 16% and rising, whereas in the U.S. it's at less than 12% and falling? Why is Canada's growth lower? Why is Canada's real income lower? Why does Canada rank lower on the index of economic freedom? I'd call massive rate hikes, long and very geographically extensive blackouts and the promise of more blackouts to come a failure (Ontario).

It doesn't seem that way from where I am sitting. Canada is one of the most heavily taxed countries in the world and a substantial portion of the electorate still picks the Liberals and the NDP, who don't make tax cuts a big part of their agenda. "Too much" taxpayer money has been spent since Trudeau got into power. I don't see a revolution coming. Public corporations (those with publicly available shares) are required to disclose financial information. They also have a board of directors elected by the shareholders and that board can hire and fire senior management at any time as it sees fit. They also have to answer to consumers who can stop buying their products at any time. That's a lot more accountable than state-run enterprise. I live in Ontario. I wish that Ontario hydro had been privatised a long time ago so I didn't have to pay for the mess that state-run business created. Because environmental activism in California prevented any new power plant construction in the last ten years. Demand increases, supply is unchanged, and what usually happens to prices in that situation? California is a great example of how state involvement in the economy just screws things up. Because Saskatchewan and federal tax money pays the cost down. I live in Ontario and I contribute to the low car insurance costs of Saskatchewans. Is that fair? Says history. The stunning failure of state-run business and socialist/mixed economies throughout the 20th Century should have clued you in on that score.

This is chiefly because they are struggling beneath billions in debt, generated by years of operating without a need for fiscal responsibility or cost/overhead minimisation. An infinite supply of taxpayer cash gives no incentive to reduce overheads, invest in new technology or even spend wisely - witness Hydro One's payments of hundreds of thousands for "consultants" whose work often amounted to a single e-mail. My family lives in the UK and they buy their power from private companies (PowerGen, Scottish Power, British Gas etc) and they all pay a lot less for power than I do. That is what private enterprise provides, better products for lower prices. Look at Eastern European cars if you don't believe me. The only way that state-run businesses can offer lower prices than the free market is with subsidy, which comes from tax dollars. It's a simple case of pay me now or pay me later. If your price appears on a monthly bill or on your T4, you still paid it. The difference is that state-run business guarantees you'll get a lot less for your dollar.

In some European countries and, I believe, states of the US, you can install your own power-generation equipment such as solar panels. When you are producing more power than you need (e.g. all day, when you are out at work but the sun shines brightly on your solar panels), that power is pumped into the grid and the power company buys it off you at the market rate, appearing as a credit on your bill. That's a good incentive.

I picked that case for example because it was fairly typical of what I read. I have also read accounts of women being shoved out of abortion clinics still bleeding profusely, abortion doctors who refused to call ambulances for their patients undergoing obvious complications because it would compromise their standing as a reputable business and so forth. I don't have more documented examples at the moment. I can suggest some links for further reading: Center for Bio-Ethical Reform Action Life Ottawa Roe v. Wade.org If you are really interested in further examples I will find some, I have a lot of material on the subject. It will take a while, however. If that has been the case since the studies I read, very well. The fact remains that for a great variety of reasons abortion remains a risky procedure. As I suggested, ask your wife for one of her women's magazines and flip through until you see an advert for it. I saw one that talked about the comfort of doing it in your own home, and how quick and easy it was. It didn't warn the prospective customer that they will pass copious amounts of blood and possibly recognisable body parts. The word "abortifacent" was not even mentioned. Nor did it mention the deaths associated with the drug (obviously, they're trying to sell these things). You talked about the "ill effects" of unwanted children. If you did not mean child abuse or poverty, what did you mean by "ill effects?" Explain why you believe that. Not this right-winger. I would support any sex-ed agenda that will promote responsible sex, discourage the idea that promiscuity, one-night-stands etc. are laudable, promote knowledge of birth control methods and above all else, personal responsibility. I'd also love to see some programmes that can really help young mothers and make pregnancy and birth a viable option. For example, I'd like to see more workplaces and educational facilities offering daycares and creches, and the promotion of community support networks such as babysitting circles and peer-provided post-natal support groups. Sadly, because abortion has been pushed as the responsible choice for so long, very few people will consider anything that would make the life of a young and/or single mother easier. The stock answer these days seems to be, "she should have had an abortion." See here for instructions!

That may be true, just as Planned Parenthood misleads expectant mothers into believing that their unborn look like "chopped liver", that they do not feel pain and so forth. It was not what I witnessed in my work, but it is a very hotly contested issue and many people do feel very passionately about it. "Screaming" takes place on both sides. As I already explained, the statistics for abortion deaths are highly inaccurate and the real figures are probably between 10 and 30 times the publicised ones. Please review my earlier posts. Then it's one heck of a coincidence. It also depends upon the trimester in which the abortion is carried out. I'd hazard a guess that people would be substantially more careful if abortion were illegal. As it is, abortion is viewed and marketed as birth control, and if you doubt that, pick up a women's magazine and see how they are advertising RU-486. Not to mention that the hidden message in your statement is, "better dead than unwanted." Furthermore, 91% of abused children were wanted (Edward Lenoski, Heartbeat v3 #4). Child abuse increased more than 500% in the first ten years following legalisation of abortion (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Report; National Study on Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting, The American Humane Association, 1981 & 1991; 1977 Analysis of Child Abuse and Neglect Research, U.S. Dept. of H.E.W., 1978). Ten years after that, it was 1400% higher. These studies also refute the idea that it is merely reporting of child abuse that has increased. If your argument is related to poverty, and in all fairness to you that is not certain, I'd find the argument "better dead than poor" surprising coming from a socialist such as yourself.

The figures I quote intend to show you that the death rate from legal abortions is high, certainly higher than most other surgical procedures because abortion clinics are not held to the same standards of cleanliness, post-op care and professionalism as hospitals. The death rate before was higher, probably because the same people were performing them but without a public image to uphold and a business to run, but legal abortion has absolutely not ridden us of the abortion death. "As early as eight to ten weeks after conception, and definitely by thirteen-and-a-half weeks, the unborn experiences organic pain... she responds to pain at all levels of her nervous system in an integrated response which cannot be termed a mere reflex. She can now experience pain." -- Robert P. N. Shearin, Surgeon (The Abortion Providers, 1989) Albert Liley, a pioneer fetologist of the University of Auckland, opines that by the 56th day after conception (8 weeks) the spinal reflexes are sufficiently developed to feel pain. (Willke, Abortion Questions) I used to be a volunteer at one of these counselling centres. The overwhelming focus of the work is with financial aid. We spent the great majority of our time and resources finding accomodation, baby clothes and equipment (cribs, strollers etc), pre-natal groups and support groups and so on. These centres do not push women towards a child she does not want but instead make it easier for her to have a child should she not wish an abortion. They are most useful for women who want their children but whose families or significant others are putting pressure on them to abort. However, it's a question of whether you would like 11,152 abortions (1970, 3% of live births) or 110,331 abortions (1998, 32.2% of live births) per year. Unnecessary surgical procedures are hardly safeguards of health and safety. Less than 1 in 10,000 pregnancies result in the death of the mother (American Medical Association Encyclopedia of Medicine). The official figures for abortion are lower, however, research into the inaccuracy of abortion death figures (as I showed above) indicates that deaths by abortion are several times higher, per thousand, than deaths from pregnancy and live birth. Furthermore, a single abortion raises the chance of a subsequent ectopic pregnancy by 100% and two or more raise it by 300% (American Journal of Public Health, March 1982). Ectopic pregnancy causes 12% of all deaths caused by pregnancy complications (Family Planning Perspectives, March/April 1983). 30% of all abortion recipients will contract Pelvic Inflammatory Disease, a serious illness causing sterility (American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, November 1984). Women who have had an abortion are twice as likely to contract breast cancer as those who have not (British Journal: Cancer, 1981) The chance of an abortion recipient having a subsequent miscarriage is ten times that of a woman who never had one (Journal of the American Medical Association, June 1980; American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, March 1981 and May 1983). Tubal infertility (permanent steriliy) is 30% more common amongst abortion recipients (Fertility and Sterility, March 1985). Premature, underweight and deformed babies are more common in prior abortion recipients (Madore, Effects of Induced Abortion; Linn, Outcome of Subsequent Pregnancies. The infant mortality rate amongst those whose mother had received prior abortions is between two and four times that of infants whose mothers had not (British Medical Journal, 1976). I can go on like this all day. Suffice it to say that abortion is absolutely not a healthy and safe option for either the mother or her subsequent children or, of course, the aborted child herself. So you put a monetary cost on human life? How much is a life worth, then? Another myth. The abortion rate has increase 15 times since it was legalised, and a survey cited by David C. Reardon in Aborted Women: Silent No More (1987) showed that 72% of abortion recipients would not have aborted had it been illegal.

Planned Parenthood's Guttmacher Institute finds that less than 1% of abortions are performed because the parents have been informed by their doctor that the child has congenital disease or defect. These "defects" also include very minor and easily treatable problems such as cleft palate and club foot.

The back-street abortion is largely a myth and a scare tactic. 15 years before abortion was legalised in the USA, 85% of abortions were done by "reputable physicians in good standing in their local medical associations" (Alfred Kinsey as cited by John Willke, Abortion Questions and Answers, 1988). In 1960, Planned Parenthood estimated that 90% of illegal abortions were performed by physicians (Mary Calderone, Illegal Abortion as a Public Health Problem, 1960). Reports of illegal-abortion-related deaths were falsely publicised at about 5,000-10,000 per year. Bernard Nathanson, the former head of NARAL who invented this figure, confessed that it was "totally false" in his own words. In reality, about 250 women each year died from illegal abortions (Bernard Nathanson, Aborting America, 1979). Between the legalisation of abortion and 1985, about 300 women are believed to have died as result of legal abortions (Dawn Stover, Cause of Death: Legal Abortion, 1991). The actual figure is probably higher because abortion clinics are notorious for not reporting the death statistics accurately, and public health officials no longer seek out abortion death cases. For example, the Chicago Sun-Times found 12 cases in the Chicago area in 1978 where the woman had died as a direct result of an abortion procedure, but the case had been reported as an unrelated death. The acuteness of this problem is accentuated when you see that the US Center for Vital Statistics reported that total abortion deaths in the entire country for that year only counted 21.

Can you back this up with a source? In 1988, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that Section 287 of the Criminal Code offended Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This made all abortion for any reason legal in Canada simply because it is no longer mentioned in the Criminal Code, much like typing or whistling. A bill to re-introduce legal oversight of abortion was struck down by the Senate in 1991. If you want a source, try here. The case and bills in question can also be found in Parliamentary and legal archives.

Then why would you offer a source that is not only wrong, but contradicts the very point you want to make? You have done a better job discrediting yourself than I ever could. Why don't you go and think about what the actual points you want to make are, get them clear in your head, find some evidence, and then there would be a point in continuing.