Charles Anthony

Explain. I am tired of people repeating this but nobody ever honestly explain it. I could equally say that if you DO vote, you forfeit your right to have any say in what your rulers do because you sold out. This is true as well. Often you should vote for 'none of the above' for none of them are worthy of the position. If less than half the voting population votes (due to lets say no one is good choice) then we should tell those guys to get lost and start over. Get better people in power. But that can get dragged on and our government can come to a screaching halt.Hey! Now there is a democratic reform that I would support! Bad idea. Nobody should be forced to do anything except for maybe leaving eachother alone. I doubt you could get a public school teacher to truly discuss freedom. You overlook the fact that when you vote, you are doing two things: 1) you are saying "This is what I want." but also, 2) you are saying "This is what I want imposed on everybody else." regardless of whether they agree with you or not.

I know the feeling... but mine is a very different imaginary world. What do you suggest as an alternative?A melting pot, where all would be Canadians first, and then pay homage to their ancestral past.Uhmm..... personally, I could not care less what people's patriotic allegiance happens to be. I care more about what people do and how they treat each other. Somehow, I get the feeling that we do not have to go very far to find some of those people. Those "many" people do not include me. I do not care about anybody's culture. Canadians can wave any flag they want. I was born here and, other than paying my taxes, I "show little inclination to adapt to Canada" too. Where do I fit into all of this multi-culturalism??? Imagine yourself in an international airport and surrounded by a continuous crowd of different people each primarily minding their own business as they each try to their destination. Now, why in the world would anybody at this airport not be civil??? Why in the world would any of them give a damn about anybody else's nationality or patriotic allegiance other than for the sake of trivial curiosity??? Now, I ask: why can we not be equally civil when we come home to Canada?

Hypothetically, if a Canadian archbishop became Pope, would we argue differently? Uh..... what was the question......? What do you fear? The power is in your hands already: do not vote for any Catholic members of Parliament. Problem solved. I suggest you vote for people who believe that after you die, you can get away with all of the crimes you committed. All you have to do is cover your tracks or never get caught by anybody in your lifetime. People with those beliefs are the ones you want controlling your country and enforcing policy through the barrel of a gun. Maybe God believes we should be devout anarchists. Anarchists dismiss citizenship altogether -- among other laughable statist concepts. That is a loaded question! Considering that nobody is equal, the cost to society would be null. I am comfortable with the Pope boldly telling foreign politicians what to do and how to govern -- even over non-Catholic populations. First, it is no surprise. Second, politicians will be dictated by the Almighty Dollar anyway. Third, the Vatican does not have an army (for all my fellow smart-alecks: no, the Swiss guards do not count) and they do not invade foreign countries by force. Ultimately, any influence the Pope has will be through free-will. Hell, if I had the opportunity to speak internationally, not only would I tell everybody in the whole world what to do, I would also tell them how to think. I would probably speak in a very condescending manner and throw out a few heartless insults to my opponents too.

Did you not say it it was unreasonable that the parents are deemed to accept responsibilty by virtue of their participation in the sexual act?Yes. In my opinion, having sex (with or without consent) is not saying: "I want to be a parent." at all. Yes. I think they are different by virtue of the animal instinct to have sex. Without understanding or knowledge of how sex leads to reproduction, I think it is a safe bet to say that two (relatively normal) people (or animals) will eventually have sex upon maturity. Whether by design or not, the animal kingdom is wired that way. I believe that the pleasure of sex is unique compared to any other animal's experience and it makes sense to have such pleasure associated with perpetuating the species. I realize that it could be the result of random mutations long ago although, personally, I prefer a super-natural explanation. As policy, it only makes sense to NOT attribute consent to the pregnancy. I will not stop the new mother from doing whatever she wants. However, anything short of carrying the pregnancy to term, would lead me to not trust that women. I would not let that woman babysit my children. Correct. As policy, I would not stop her from doing whatever she wants. Morally, I would expect her to share her body with her unborn -- if she wants my respect, that is (like as if she cares). Think of it this way: if a woman aborts her kid without the consent of the father, she should not expect the father's adoration. She should not be surprised if he thinks of her differently. As policy, simply no. Morally, no again. Both instances are slavery. Morally, I am only making an exception for the mother-unborn relationship different because of the physicologic connection. I make more demands on the pregnant women. As policy, I agree. However, morally, their choices over their body influence the choices I make in dealing with them. I see women who had abortions [i understand that people can change, but with all else being equal] in a different light: I would not let them babysit my children. That is my right too. Although I agree with you that "this sad sick world" can have their abortion, I disagree with your opinion on "the beauty of modern government" completely. Your example actually demonstrates the opposite to me and illustrates why I believe democracy is wrong: regardless of what the majority thinks, nobody should have the power to compel anybody to do anything -- self-defense excluded. Therefore, even though I believe abortion is abominable, I firmly believe people should be free to be abominable. The constitution seems like a check and balance. However, if (in the unlikely event of) a vast majority of Canadians change their minds and oppose abortion, a policy change could be made to outlaw it. There is nothing inherent in our democracy that defends human rights.

I oppose big government. In my opinion, I think both Canada and the U.S.A. are each ridiculously big countries. I would rather see a dissolution and the creation of smaller governmental jusridictions. We can all share whatever currency we want or waste our money exchanging thousands of different currencies, I do not care. Ultimately, with smaller governments and less Big Brother force or control, all of the jurisdictions will trade stable currencies and stupid ones will be ignored. This is what some South American countries do: use the American dollar instead of their own. One other issue of contention that I have centers around the concept of commercial protectionism. I believe that there are "corporate types" currently thriving on government-granted protectionism AT THE EXPENSE OF CONSUMERS. In a North American Union, their ability to rip-off consumers would be massively decreased. I believe some opposition to the North American Union is purely out of corporate self-interest.Some people are afraid of "illegal immigrants" innundating the continental work-force and lowering the standard of living yadda yadda yadda. I believe and understand those mechanics but I do not oppose them. I think it is fair to let Mexicans flood the Canadian labor market and vice versa. I do not have an allegiance to fellow Canadian jobs any more than to fellow Mexican jobs (or anybody in between). Therefore, I would rather have no borders in that regard. Well, assuming that you are being serious...that you take all this seriously...I would just say do the same thing we are doing.I am serious and I ask the question because I do not believe that you nor I have any ability to make a difference.This is the deal: a small government ruling over a small jurisdiction can not bully its neighboring country. Hence, if every single state and province was an individual country, RELATIVE TO WHAT WE HAVE NOW each jurisdiction will be forced to accept comprehensive free trade. It would be more difficult to have protectionist policies at the expense of the consumer. In the North American continent, the result would be migrant Mexicans attaining a higher standard of living while sedentary Northeners dropping to a lower standard of living. Ergo, many small countries with many borders leads to more economic freedom than otherwise by virtue of the fact that no jurisdiction could impose anything on any other. More borders means less coersion and thus, more freedom.

This Australian Electoral Commission sounds like a group of public servants paid to shuffle papers from one side of their desk to the other and back again and back again and back again until they run out of paper. I wonder if they would accept "I did not want to waste tax-payer's money." as a valid reason for not voting. I can not think of greater proof of a failing democracy than having to force people to vote. Is it not bad enough that people have to pay for elections through their taxes??? We do not force people to use public health care. We do not force people to call the police and report missing property. Why would we care to force people to vote? Are we threatened? Are we ashamed to admit that not everybody cares about democracy? I guess it makes it difficult to invade foreign countries under the chimeric excuse of "Bringing democracy to the world!" or some other illusion. It also makes it difficult to claim that our past wars were honorably fought to defend our democracy. I suggest compulsary voting is bad because it violates the free-will of 40% of the Canadian population: non-voters.

The first thing that came to my mind was that your "they" referred to the Afghans.

No problem. As long as you trot out the collection boxes for the myriad of socialist boondoogles.Sounds fair. I would be the first to support that trade. However, in my book, the war industry is just an other public-servant make-work boondoggle.

Me too. I am completely fed up of being told to shut up and support our troups. Somehow, I find it vey difficult to accept "We are saving the world! We are bringing world peace! We are fighting insurgents!" and other such vacuous "mission" statements. I refuse to believe that nations go to war for any reason greater than the almighty dollar. I agree. Unfortunately, every Canadian is required to pay for it through their taxes and without choice. I think it would be more appropriate to pass a collection basket around and let the war-mongers fund this "mission" themselves.

Really?? How so? What we have in Canada is a multitude of Canadians spinning toy steering wheels -- the kind that you attach to children car seats to give them the illusion that they are driving. Are you so confident that those issues can not be re-opened in the same way?

Guys, stop being rude.

The Saudi Arabian officials may not be practicing true Islam with such a policy. I do not know. I have a devout Muslim friend who left Saudi Arabia 20 years ago because he believed he was among hypocrites. To deal with crowd control, I would it would be more honorable to see them charge an exorbitant admission fee. I wonder how the Toronto Star would respond to that.

First, I am not talking about policy. I am not talking about imposing my way upon anybody. The thread discusses "Your Religious Views on Abortion" and I am now stating them in instances where it is impossible to be objective with respect to conflict of rights. I am talking about opinion and how I judge people. To put it in context: if I observed you walking down the street naked but for a flower-pot on your head, I would suspect you as being mentally ill and I would judge you. I would not trust you to baby-sit my children. Nevertheless, I would not deny you the right to portray yourself in anyway you choose. Here is a different example: if I tripped and could not get up on my own and you were standing beside refusing to help me up, I would judge you as a bad person. However, I would not impose a requirement on your part to help me. I hope that clarifies the value of my opinions. Now, for more of my religious opinions (like anybody really cares...) .... Should. Otherwise, they must suffer the wrath of my scorn. I will shake my head at them and say: "Tsk! Tsk!" I know. Morally, I view the mother's actions in that way. A mother who does not make the same sacrifice as her mother made long ago, is a bad person in my opinion. Again, I will shake my head and say: "Those damn kids! Listening to all of the Rock And/Or Roll music! What is this world coming to???" in the same way as people condemned Elvis Presley, The King. Three people: me, myself and I. Do not worry: neither of them will impose their will upon you nor will they expect you to pay for their personal sense of morality. The thrust of my round-about arguments is to force people to examine the absolutes and recognize that every side of the debate must accept an arbitrary decision. Thus, both sides (pro-abortion and anti-abortion) can be said to have a subjective opinion one way or the other. It is not fair to just label one side as religious.

There are problems with this: 1) it really does not clarify any difference between right and wrong. It puts abortion or infanticide on par with other violence. 2) I think we have turned away and refused to accept any concept of morality. In effect, we are discussing "legality" instead. I have no doubt you are right. Exactly. I think that is the salient feature that puts reproductive rights aside from all other concepts of morality. As an aside, I wonder how we could follow the same line of reasoning by examining the opposite concept of rights: the right to reproduce. Some people believe everybody has that right. Despite the glossing over, I would attribute more validity to the act of "moving out" as a defining point because it reflects consent. However, not all children move out. Some children are kicked out which makes it more difficult to determine who is responsible. Excellent dilemma! I must preface my response with the fact that I do not impose personal preference and make it state policy. In general, I believe both parents accept the obligations of parenthood as soon as they find out of the pregnancy. I eliminate as much subjectivity as possible. That is the only threshold that makes sense to me in terms of morality. It transcends all cultures and financial situations. [However, their consent is analogous to when they "accept the obligations of" dealing with a broken leg. They can not ignore it. They must physically do something for their own sake and their choices in life are limited compared to before the broken leg.] Morally, I view the relationship (more precisely, the competeing rights) between every mother and unborn child as if it were two separate people stranded on a desert island with limited resources. In my eyes, anything short of cooperating and sharing within the available means is wrong. In fact, I would hope that the mother makes a little more of a sacrifice for her creation. Now comes the difficult part: what does the obligation of parenthood entail??? I do not have an answer. The same question was posed before and I believe that it creates a stalemate in attributing human rights or responsibilities. I believe all objectivity ends and it is impossible to convincingly define a threshold age for everybody. For this reason, I think it makes sense to step back and consider the possibility of us having a purpose in life to which we can not appeal to reason. What that purpose may be, I can not prove but maybe it exists. The concept of reproduction may be at the center of it. I liken it to how we take gravity (or magnetism or electricity) for granted: we do not understand much about these physical phenomena but our entire world seems to magically depend upon them. I expand the implications of parental responsibility to include the actions of a child too. A person can not create a monster every 9 months and let it loose on the world without baring some level of responsibility. When a child commits a crime, I first look at the parents who created a criminal. Blaming school or television or video games or street gangs does not cut for me. By further extension, it creates an inherent dilemma: how old is old enough to be fully responsible for ones own actions??? I think a 5 year old is too young but certainly a 50 year old is probably old enough -- but maybe not.

Actually, the poll shows nothing of the sort. The poll shows that after finding out what the Kyoto deal involves, 77% of Canadians believe yadda yadda yadda. It shows nothing about whether they knew anything about Kyoto beforehand. -- only after they are explained the Kyoto deal. Why bother? No, quite the contrary. It is foolish to assume that Canadians are fully informed. The poll shows that an extra 1000 polled people are now educated about what the Kyoto thing happens to be -- and only because they were called up by a pollster and listened to the preamble. One other problem with interpreting these poll results is that it is slightly convoluted. Is it reasonable for somebody to be able to understand how "cutting emissions from the burning of fossil fuels like coal, oil and gas to 6 percent below 1990 levels, over the next 10 years" affects them? Myself, I do not know. How could I expect anybody else to know? By extension, their opinion is just as valuable as asking "Do you care about the environment enough to change your behavior in any way, shape or form?" as a poll question. Environmentalism should not be dismissed. Whether it is Kyoto (or any other strategy for that matter) deal, I think it behooves us to know more about it. Alternatively, it could be easier for us to put blind trust in our masters and let them make the decisions.... Of course. Whether it is greenhouse gases or water vapor or carbon dioxide, I have no idea. Until there is a market for the environment, there will never be effective conservation. Can we trust states to prop up and honor such markets?

I do not even know a single Canadian who even knows what the Kyoto plan actually involves! Hands up anybody out there who knows anything about the Kyoto deal????

Then, explain what options are available to the following women: 1) raped (forced into sex without consent) 2) poor (nobody wants to adopt her poor child) There is nothing in your distinction between infanticide and abortion that offers either of the above women a choice. That is very unreasonable. There are women who are forced into sex without consent. Furthermore, not everybody is fully informed about birth control. I know it is a bad excuse but it is true. I would still see abortion as an abomination but it would not make sense to say they "consented to carry the child to term" in either case. In the event that abortion is physically not available, your condition of rights effectively enslaves the woman to her unwanted child. Until what age? In "our society" that works fine. What would you do if you were poor and nobody wanted to adopt your poor child?

Hold on. Your concept of rights now depends on available services. Try to imagine a pregnant woman who does not have the services of an abortionist on hand. Is she obligated to provide necessary sustenance? ???? What can she do? Nothing but give birth. Does she have control over her body. No. Does she consent to parental responsibility? No.

The world certainly needs more language police.

My knowledge of military hardware is limited. All that I know is guns do not kill people; people kill people. Back to friendly fire.... I suppose my analogy was somewhat facetious,Actually, no. I did not take your analogy as being facetious. I wonder why we do.

We support a dysfunctional federal government because most rest-of-Canadians do not have the courage nor strength to stand on their own. They prefer the sense of security of hiding behind authority. It is difficult to understand because we keep talking about things that do not exist: treating the provinces as if they were 13 different people. There is no political consensus among Quebeckers as there is none among the rest-of-Canadians with respect to politics and self-determination. It is only natural that discussions of politics and self-determination are impassible exercises at chasing eachother's tails. It makes equal sense to have 13 individuals each with multiple personality disorder sit at a table and discuss what "Quebec" wants. Biggger government invariably leads to more individuals not getting what they want.

Huh?Left alone when I was about 4 years old, I probably would have died. Do you mean that infanticide should be legal? No, I do not think it should be "legal" because I do not accept our legal system as it is. However, discussing the merits of our "legal system" does not further the argument nor do I think it is your point. More pointedlly, with respect to comparing abortion with infanticide, I think people who kill their children should not be surprised to be treated in the same way by their peers if discovered. That is all I can do. Personally, I think they are both disgusting however, Susan Smith may think otherwise if she takes a practical approach. Excellent example! It boils down to: the pilot is guilty of whatever his peers think. With respect to "murder" or "war" or "abortion" or "infanticide" or any other form of killing, I believe it is disingenuous to identify the pro and con sides as relgious vs. non-religious. We all have "religious" views no matter what arbitrary side we take. Some "religions" are defined with ancient books and tradition while others are more pliable. Their validity with respect to reason or logic or objectivity are all the same. I can live with that. Morality is like Easter. The dates change. It's a moveable feast (les fêtes mobiles.)That is a silly analogy. You are just making fun of Christians.

I think you are right.

This dumb poll reminds me of the model T Ford. They said you could pick any color for your new car as long as it was black.

How about Narcotics Anonymous? Oh! Sorry! Private initiative does not count. No government handouts nor public-servants job-creation salaries for the make-work do-gooders there! Unless you're a libertarian who doesn't believe in taxes or government at all, that's not an argument worth making.Actually, quite the contrary. Unless you believe money grows on trees, it is a perfect argument even for people who do believe in stealing people's money. Here is the argument: ALL GOVERNMENTS HAVE LIMITS ON HOW MUCH THEY CAN SPEND. Simple. Not all provinces can pay for every single health-care service. Currently choices are made as to what is covered and what is not. It is not a libertarian nor a statist issue. It is reality. I disagree. The illegality restricts supply and thus, makes it more a lucrative and dangerous business. Taking it a step further, these "safe injection sites" are defacto making drugs legal within their building.