Charles Anthony

It does exclude those things, absoutely. None of those involve conflict between individual rights, especially the most basic of all individual rights: agency over one's own physical self. Once a fetus is no longer biologically dependant on the mother's body, then a different set of criteria apply.What criteria would that be? Are you suggesting that the newborn child then has rights? or that the parent has a responsibility to the newborn child?

The softwood lumber dispute is outside of NAFTA. Nevertheless, you are asking for a favor to be returned in the form of commerce which is the same as asking to be paid.

Can you please be more explicit?Are you talking about consecutive or concurrent sentences?

I can understand the pragmatic ones. They are distinct arguments. As you note the non-universality of positions, we should dispense with the left-right-liberal-conservative ridiculotomy. I understand. It makes more sense to deal with the issue as you suggest since it avoids a lot of arbitrariness. Your criteria does not exclude infanticide, euthanasia or murder. How do you deal with them? Myself, I am at a loss.

That doesn't really address the problems that caused the phenomen to happen, though.We could send kids home if they bring weapons to school. That would take us in the direction of addressing the causes. There are group homes for troubled youth usually from broken homes. They are not sent to jail -- you know that.

You would? (shrug) Whatever. I'm not familiar enough with your writing to have much of an opinion about that, but I have been reading August's messages for a long time and have come to expect a higher standard from him.I understand your points. First, if you label it a bandwagon, fine, I will jump on it because I think his use of the term "innocent" is not haphazard and I think it forces the reader into looking at his premise -- if the reader is open-minded enough to look. Often with abortion, discussions run passed eachother without any person actually looking at the other. Second, I understand and agree with staying away from the personal side or assumption side in an online forum. People change opinions and assumed-opinions can be complete mistakes. Actually, he makes me cringe too! Were you ever an innocent child?Depends who you ask, I suppose.You can get as dumb as you want, Chuck (and trust me, with this last question you're getting pretty dumb) but you're not going to goad me into an argument about the morality of abortion. No. You oppose the use of the term "innocent" and I am calling you on it. You are refusing to justify your opposition. So, if calling somebody on their argument is dismissed as "dumb", hell, throw me on that bandwagon too. My point is that innocence is real and it does apply. If killing a murder is justified because we deem him to be guilty, than pragmatically a fetus is probably the most objectively innocent being in the equation. Under what criteria do you assign rights to a child?Whatever that criteria happens to be, why can not be applied to a non-aborted-but-still-umbilically-attached child? Explain that pragmatism. From what we have so far, it sounds like it could also promote infanticide, euthanasia and murder.

I think that is a paramount question. We have to answer it otherwise our policy for 10 year olds will eventually be out-dated and we have to go back to square one. I think this is the best suggestion. It covers all of the bases and eliminates the need for a cut-off age. Beyond clothing and shelter, most kids just want attention. If parents do not give it and the child gets it in nefarious ways, the parent will have to "pay" attention in a different way.

Just to be nit-picky: it was Hamas that kidnapped those soldiers. The distinction may likely be lost from our perspective now but they are two different bodies.

The spin continues. You should have completed your sentence. "- according to Gene Long, spokesman for the conference, said in an interview yesterday." as opposed to quoting the President of Liberia directly.

There are some members whose posts always make me laugh and cry simultaneously. Sometimes I agree with them and sometimes I disagree. However, I always enjoy their writing style. I wonder if the forum features could be customized to create a separate user's list. I would call it a "Funny List" and it would flag specific users in a similar way in which the "Ignored Users" feature does. However, it would allow starting off the forum with some comic relief by looking at the most recent Funny entries.

I can not resist: When would you assign innocence and why?If the question is when does a fetus become a child thenNo. That is not the question.Here is a hint: the question is immediately followed by a question mark. CAVEAT: You walked into that one.

I will jump on that bandwagon! I would. I think it is foolhardy and irresponsible to kill such people when there is the opportunity to study them. Studying them could focus on prevention because at one point both of them were innocent children. Were you ever an innocent child? In the context of discussing killing life, I do not think he should feel dirty. When would you assign innocence and why? No. The issue is whether you are killing them.

That was not the suggestion. Your question even demonstrates that you understand that the "Islamo-fascists" are not fighting against American freedom. Your question suggests that the "Islamo-fascists" are fighting against American foreign policy. The rest of your questions are just more smoke-screening.

You think? Not everybody agrees with that outlook. Some people think that your labels are a smoke screen. http://www.fff.org/comment/com0608c.asp

DoneWait a minute. Let me get this straight: you complained to the CBC about the CBC? What do you expect them to say? I think you are right about that!

Accepted. Therefore, they should do well to go THERE and hold their waning-career-publicity-stunt --- I mean, conference.

What?? You mean we can not give them the believedtobesomehowrelatedtoAlQuaeda label?

I do not know who I am quoting here: How did the the U.S. compel Diefenbaker? I can not find convincing evidence that it was compulsion as opposed to just a business deal. It looks like Canadians were screwed over by their own government.

The Catholic Church?If that is the only one you know then you proved my point and made your own point redundant.

Who better than a social conservative to press the message then.Do you know anybody who does NOT know that they should be using condoms???? Correct. However in all other instances, it only takes very simple or cheap precautions to prevent it today. We know how to prevent AIDS today. The science is past all of the prevention now. Heavens! That is the best justification I have ever heard for taxation! Isolation??? Why would you isolate people with AIDS?? That is ridiculous. You have no understanding at all about how AIDS is spread. A condom would be much cheaper. Find out how AIDS is spread.

No, but I'd tell his kids to be careful even if they are not promiscuous. They can still have a relationship with someone who has had a previous relationship and caught the virus.Sorry to burst your bubble but that would make them promiscuous. You are letting your own concept of promiscuity confuse yourself with your own argument. No. I know a lot of people who are promiscuous. Guess what? They use condoms. Guess why? They are not stupid. [i will also add that they are not coerced, either.] The bottom line is that as a public policy, who are you going to tell to use condoms? only promiscuous people.

You can not. Would you tell Harper to use a condom to prevent getting AIDS? No, so long as he is not promiscuous. Consider a guy who gets AIDS from his wife who got a blood transfusion from a guy who shared a needle with somebody else on the JerrySpringerShow who had illicit sex with two friends and told two friends and so on and so on and etc. Telling the first guy that he should have worn a condom to prevent catching AIDS makes no sense.

Now, I see the distinction that you are making. What if Harper does not believe in promiscuity? How can you expect him to convincingly talk about condoms?

You must be joking? That is like telling a smoker that they should quit or to never sit on public toilet seats. We do not need to be told that anymore.

It is only because of volume. The bigger the population that is trading together, the more difficult it is to barter. Thus, we develop a currency. A small population would likely stick with barter. Imagine being a vegetarian and you want to trade with the blacksmith but the blacksmith does not want your vegetables only meat. You go to the butcher but he just wants firewood (he does not want your vegetables and he does not want any metal products from the blacksmith). It becomes easier for everybody to trade a currency (gold, paper, salt, oil, whatever) that everybody recognizes. Also, people save for tomorrow. The fact that we can not save EVERYTHING far in the future creates different types of investment finance markets.