gc1765

Ah so you are agreeing that if I had gangrene and had to have my arm amputated that the doctor who performed the surgery could be charged with a crime???

My understanding of the law is that if you harm someone else's arm, that is illegal...but if you harm someone else's fetus, that is not illegal. Maybe I'm wrong, but if that is correct then it doesn't make much sense does it?

Can you elaborate a bit more?

My arm is not a living thing, but if someone came by and broke my arm, you can be damn sure that they deserve to be punished for it. Of course, if I choose to break my own arm that is my own business. I don't see why a fetus shouldn't be given the same "rights" as my right arm.

"Phony"? What makes you think that natural remedies are phony? (that being said, I'm not sure where the "banning 70% of natural health products" figure came from...)

Why is it wrong for the fetus to have rights so long as the rights of the mother trump the rights of the fetus? As for the slippery slope argument, I've never understood that kind of argument. I never understood it when right-wingers thought that same-sex marriage would lead to beastiality, and I don't understand it now. If and when any legislation restricting abortions is introduced, I will strongly oppose it. However, I don't see how this particular piece of legislation will make it any more likely for that to happen, or for it to pass. I don't think Canadians would stand for it.

As a firm pro-choice supporter, even I support this. I am pro choice, so if a woman chooses to get an abortion I have no problem with that, but if she doesn't choose to end the pregnancy, that is a different story.

Sure it saves lives in some cases...but wasting fossil fuels (for example, driving to the store instead of walking) does not save lives and if anything it does the opposite.

Again, I'm not talking about CO2, I'm talking about all of the carcinogens that are released along with CO2 when fossil fuels are burned. I don't think anyone would argue that is not a problem.

No, I negated not doing anything just because the problem will go away in a hundred years. By that logic, we shouldn't worry about fixing healthcare, or reducing taxes, or reducing crime until 2100...

What, I'm not allowed to be concerned for future generations AND the current generation?

Apology accepted. (for the record, I respect people who can own up to their mistakes...which goes to show that I was right about you - you are one of the better posters here )

Considering we'll both probably be dead by 2100, I'm not sure how that helps us... The difference is that the extra cost will go to government coffers, which could be used to offset the higher energy costs for those who can not afford it.

I never thought biofuels were a good idea, and I doubt they even reduce carbon dioxide. How about reducing energy use altogether? Take the bus to work, carpool...walk, run or ride a bike (which would solve many health problems as well), live closer to work, buy a smaller car, turn out the lights, get rid of escalators and moving sidewalks (which again might help solve health problems), etc.... I also don't believe that just because no source of energy is "perfect" means that there is no better source of energy than fossil fuels.

A lot of other environmental problems are related to CO2 by the fact that both are emitted when fossil fules are burned. As I mentioned before, carbon dioxide is not the only product of combustion - there are many other carcinogens as well. If we can focus on cutting down on burning fossil fuels, we will not only reduce CO2 emissions, but also reduce other problems as well. The best part is we don't even need to spend money on it, just shift taxation from income/business to consumption of fossil fuels.

Yonkers you say? I don't suppose they happened to learn Algonquian or Iroquoian?? I must say I'm a bit surprised by you, jbg...you're usually one of the more sensible posters on this forum.

I don't think anyone has ever tried to smear Chuck Cadman...

I guess that depends on whether you agreed to pay $1000. If you agreed to pay $1000, then I don't think you can call that stealing.

Of course, if such a system had been in place a few hundred years ago, you probably wouldn't be here right now...so perhaps you should count your blessings?

Because that would be unpatriotic...

From those who could afford it, yes. Right now transit is subsidized, which in a way is like a carbon tax (giving to one group is essentially the same as taking from another group...except that the people who walk, ride their bike, carpool etc. are still paying more even though they are not polluting). Rural dwellers receive enough subsidies from the government, see this thread . Of course, if rural dwellers can't afford transportation, then they could receive subsidies as well. Of course. Anyone who can't afford to buy food should have it subsidized. This is why we have foodbanks. And since buses also require fuel, transit riders would be paying for them as well. Since taking the bus takes less fuel, they will be paying less than those who drive - which makes sense because buses not only require less roads but they also give off less pollution.

The government would pay for it, and then collect the money back through a gas tax.

Transit riders would still pay for roads indirectly, since the costs would be passed onto the consumer. This is of course assuming that a person can easily afford public transit, but since public transit is mostly used by the poor then my earlier arguments would apply.

So what do you suggest? Who do you think should be paying for traffic lights and street lamps?

Yep, and I'm happy to pay for it through increased costs...especially since I will have more money in my pocket from paying less income tax.