gc1765

Also from the article: He has already had chemotherapy, and the cancer came back. Who knows whether this time will be any different. You might disagree with the father's decision, but that's not the point here. I don't agree with his decision either, and if I were in that situation I would probably continue the chemo as well. But the question is who has the authority to decide what is best for the boy, especially on an issue as delicate as this where we don't actually know if the boy will survive with the chemo, or even whether surviving is worth going through the pain? I'd say the father is a much better person to make that decision than the state.

I think the answer to that is neither. He made the decision that he did because he wants his son to be able to actually enjoy his final years, not to have to spend his final years in pain:

This seems disturbing to me: linkFine, if you think the boy is not capable of making that decision, then the decision should be that of the family, not of the state. It's not like the father is being completely unreasonable either. I imagine chemotherapy is not an easy thing to go through, especially for an 11-year old boy. What if the chemotherapy doesn't work, isn't it better for the boy to enjoy the time that he has left? More importantly though, shouldn't that be his decision, or at least the decision of his family? Thoughts?

Does that mean you think Obama was unfairly criticized for being "connected" to Reverend Wright?

Both Hillary and Obama have significantly higher numbers than McCain. Like I said, Americans are more ready for Obama than they are for McCain.

America is ready for a black president...seems they are more ready for a black President than they are for McCain as President...Question is, are you ready?

It would be nice to have more parties represented, as well as more independents. Of course, that would mean endless minority governments, in which case I think you'd have to reform our whole system.

You mean like criticizing someone for being from Haiti, or for being from Quebec? Still can't believe you haven't figured it out...

I'll give you another clue...

I don't think he did anything wrong here either. It reminds me of the reverend Wright fiasco, where instead of attacking a politican, you attack who the politician knows. Still, I'm surprised that he doesn't seem to be saying anything about it.... He should just come out and say that he didn't know anything. Most people would believe him, and hopefully that would be the end of it.

Looks like Dion has been reading my posts... link

If there's one good thing that I can say about Leafless' posts, it is their humour. See if you can spot the irony here...

What Dion *should* do is cut income/business taxes by the same amount, so the average person won't actually be paying any more money than what they were before. Not sure if that is his plan or not.

One does not choose who supports them, or their middle name...nor does it have any actual impact on how they will govern. The fact that you have to resort to criticizing someone for their name just goes to show that you don't actually have any valid criticisms....That, and it shows that you're a troll.

Too bad the person I am debating with is ignoring the poll from late 2007 which says that 60% of Afghans have a favourable opinion of Canadian troops, compared to 19% who have an unfavourable opinion.

It's also illegal to damage someone else's property. Are you going to try to argue that property has the same status as a human being? It is clear that this bill is NOT limiting consensual abortions, and specifically says so....so give me a call when someone proposes a bill that does.

The link you provided didn't have the actual poll (a bit ironic for someone who criticized me for not providing source), but after a bit of searching I found the actual poll, which can be found here in case anyone is interested. After reading the rest of the poll, it seems most Afghans don't even know that foreign countries are providing reconstruction assistance: link Only 2% of Afghans know that the U.S. is providing reconstruction assistance, and yet the U.S. is still viewed very highly by afghans (64% think they are helping). Ok, fair enough. So what do you propose that we do? Should we withdraw troops immediately, as 14% of Afghans want us to do? Should we withdraw after one year, as 11% of Afghans want? Should we remain 2 or more years, as 12% of Afghans want? Should we stay for 3-5 years, as 15% of Afghans want? Or should our troops stay for as long as it takes to defeat the Taliban, as 43% of Afghans want? Tell me, what should we do? I didn't want to get into a debate about semantics, but this is too funny that I couldn't resist. Notice how your source uses the term "vast majority" to describe the 52% who think we should leave before the job is done. If Afghans were making unreasonable demans, for example asking for a million dollars each, then I would agree with you. However, I don't think that wanting a stable and secure country is unreasonable to ask from us, do you? Some other highlights of the poll: Opinion of Canadian troops in Kandahar: Very positive 26%, somewhat positive 34%, somewhat negative 14%, very negative 5%, don't know 21%. http://research.environics.net/imagelibrary/10182007/12.gif http://research.environics.net/imagelibrary/10182007/1.gif http://research.environics.net/imagelibrary/10182007/8.gif http://research.environics.net/imagelibrary/10182007/21.gif

Anyways, enough about semantics...do you at least agree that a "majority" want us to stay? And if so, should we respect the wishes of that majority?

You're saying that we already have laws protecting from harm against a fetus? So how does this bill change anything?

Anyways, enough about semantics...do you at least agree that a "majority" want us to stay? And if so, should we respect the wishes of that majority?

65% compared to the 8% who want an immediate withdrawl. That is almost ten times as many people, so yes I'd call that a "vast majority". If you don't like the date of the poll, try doing a search as I suggested. I doubt it will change much.

A quick search came up with this: link . I'm sure there's probably many more polls if you want to do a search.

The difference of course is that the vast majority of afghans WANT us in their country, as does their democratically elected government. The afghans have decided for themselves that us staying there is what is best for the country. I don't blame them either. If I had the choice between an oppressive domestic government, and a much less oppressive foreign government, I'd choose the foreign government, wouldn't you??

What if the majority of Afghans WANT democracy, but the minority with the machine guns won't let them have it. And what if Canadians with machine guns might, just maybe, prevent the afghans with machine guns from oppressing the rest of Afghanistan. Shouldn't we at least TRY to help those Afghans?

Karzai wants to, and has, talked to the Taliban. If we want Afghanistan to be a democracy, shouldn't we respect the wishes of their democratically elected government?