Canuckistani

They're presumably listing reasons why repeating women weren't using contraceptives, yet say more repeaters use them. Do you not agree that 40% of abortions performed are on repeaters is a shocking statistic? Do you think that figure can be explained by contraception failure?

If women seeking repeat abortions used contraceptives more than those seeking the first one, what does non-white have to do with using repeat abortions. Are contraceptives less effective with non-whites? Same with separated, divorced, widowed or living common-law. Seems to me there's a contradiction here.

http://www.canadianmedicaljournal.ca/content/172/5/637.full http://www.abortionincanada.ca/welcome.html I support easy access to abortion, with no restrictions within a certain time limt - 20 weeks say, But, we need to do a better job of education to prevent so many repeat abortions.

What about just saying where you agree with somebody you often disagree with? Overall, I'm against the CPC (ie Harper) because in areas of disagreement, I really disagree. But I agree with Harper on reforming immigration - if we're going to bring in people, it should only be if it is clearly of benefit to Canadians. Another one is not just shoveling money at Natives to create more welfare dependency. There are other instances where I agree with Harper, just don't come to mind this early in the morning. I try to conduct myself the same way on a forum. Might argue hammer and tongs about an issue with a person, but if they make what I consider to be a good point, or I agree with their particular argument, I'll say so.

Much easier to change "in fact" What's wrong with codifying reasonable limits instead of letting the CMA dictate them?

Because I'm in favor of reasonable limits to abortion.

See bambino's reply above. He's arguing with me when I was actually replying to Signal Corp - Requiring MP's to vote how the majority of their constituents want makes the MP irrelevant. You might as well just institute direct democracy and have everybody vote on everything.

The CMA has imposed its own limits. I don't think any doctor in Canada does partial birth abortions, or even very late term ones unless medically necessary. I would like to see those limits codified, so we're not the only country in the world w/o an abortion law.

If MP's are required to vote based on what the majority of their constituents want, not much diff than Canadian idol, and the MP really serves no function.

I can't quote them to you, but for the latter, yes for intentionally w/o mother's consent. (not murder tho). I'm not sure what the deal is with say a traffic accident where you are at fault and cause the foetus to die.

If MP's vote what the majority of their constituents want, what's the point of having an MP? With computers it would be easy to just let the constituents vote on every issue. How exactly do the MP's know what the majority of their constituents want? I thought we elected people who would have the time and intelligence to make those decisions for us, based on what they tell us at election time to give us a sense of where they might stand overall. Maybe we should move to a direct democracy model, but the swings in direction of the results would be dizzying.

Devilled eggs. MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM.

If we don't share the wealth created by the people that work, then we will have a huge social problem if we have many people who can't work. Even if we just share in the form of welfare, that will still be a big problem. People need to feel useful. Possibly. As I say, I've been hearing it for 50 years now. But if true, we'd better not be producing so many people, and we'd better find something for all the people who aren't needed to do. The vision was that the extra leisure time would be used for education and culture. Most people aren't all that interested in either. Bread an circuses I guess, but those were provided by the emperors to keep the proles from revolting.

Or necessarily false - we can go round and round on that one. Not the issue - it's not lack of energy, but having something to export. We won't need much energy if we're don't have much economic activity in Canada, like manufacturing. No we don't. But if we don't create a society that shares, that would cause untold misery. And even if the sharing is just welfare, people don't actually have anything useful to do, that's a disaster too. In both cases we would still need to be generating wealth to share with the over surplus of workers. Don't know if our current immigration policy makes much sense under that scenario either.That was the thought in the 50's and 60's. Greater leisure time and wealth for all. I was told in high school that they had to teach me recreation because when I graduated I could expect to only work 20 hours a week. Never happened. Kurt Vonnegut wrote an amusing book about it (Player Piano?) where only the elite get to work. The plebs are well supported financially, but they have nothing to do. When the protagonists car breas down (obviously he's an elite), they swarm all over it wanting to help fix it, to show they are still useful.

They're not talking about global warming, but insolation changing the monsoons, which affected this civilization. Insolation is actually decreasing at them moment, as the article says, yet we see warming.

Canada is also no HK or Singapore. I don't think their solutions would work for us. If oil ran out, our GDP would take a huge hit if we have nothing to replace it. We should be using the wealth generated by oil to build something for the future - I think that's still manufacturing, but I'm open to hearing about alternatives that could employ large numbers of people that doesn't require super high level skills. Obviously we need a mix of everything, but I still see manufacturing as something to be supported. As the report said - use the income from oil/resource exports to build infrastructure and otherwise support manufacturing.

You're saying HK and Singapore live from exporting raw resources? SA does, and people are making dire predictions for SA when that happens. I'm not married to manufacturing. As you said, it's often mind numbing work. I'm saying we'd better find something to do besides export resources. I can't think of what that something would be besides manufacturing, which is why I started the topic I did.

I don't think your argument holds here. Nobody is arguing that we should not be exploiting the resources we have. But, if all we do is ship them out in raw form, and buy back value added products made from them, then sooner or later that will catch up to us. In BC we've had this discussion for ever, especially around wood - that we should be adding more value to it, if we want to continue to enjoy prosperity.

I wouldn't get too confident about that. All govts play footsie with somebody. What we've seen in BC with swings back and forth between the NDP and the Liberals (liberal conservative alliance) is a swing back and forth with each rewarding their base. We're about to swing back to the NDP, and I'll be voting for them, but I don't expect it all to be roses either. The NDP usually loots the treasury to reward their buddies, while the Libs cut taxes (ie reduce the treasury), give sweetheart deals to their base and gouge what they can out of the low income groups. What we need is somebody like Tommy Douglas, who had a heart but also knew the value of a dollar. Heck even Robert Stanfield would do. Don't we have the technology yet to clone those guys?

It's his real name. He legally changed it from Karl Marx Satan III. He felt that it was a drag on his political schemes ambitions.

You seem very confident that the web leads to more open govt. I'm not so sure. I think the govt will get more and more control of it. I understand that the current web close to collapsing from overuse, and something new will have to be put in place. My guess is that govt will make sure to control it this time. Also, the web is so full of bs, who knows what's factual on it. And, it can only disseminate information that is available - ie not what the govt manages to keep secret. You said earlier that you thought Canada had greater liberty than ever. Is that because of the web, in your opinion, or why? (Have you ever read Shockwave Rider by John Brunner?)

I totally agree. For murder, the person should be closely monitored, especially for meds, but also state of mind, for the rest of their lives. That would mean living in a mental health group home, or having to check in with a psych nurse every day. In that case I have no problem releasing them. The biggest bs is the temporary insanity - like that doctor in Montreal who got off from killing his children because he was deemed temporarily insane and has now been released or is about to be. That's a travesty.

Here are some people trying to push for open and accountabel govt. How successful they are is another matter. http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=4773595 I don't think we can have it without an engaged citizenry. And most people have just retreated into cynicism against the govt, any govt, because of the power of big money arrayed against them.

The Libs, yes, since it was what they wrought that got us thru so well. Not "if we were going to have a recession we would have had it by now" Harper.

He would go broke helping all his "good friends" that all of a sudden had their hand out. The funny thing is if he had "earned" that money doing financial scams on Wall St., nobody would expect him to give it away. Of course you would give some money to people really close to you - but how much? When would they ever deem it enough, not think you should have given them more?