myata

Well, no, let me disagree here. Harper did change the long standing policy of this country. So what exactly is the meaning of the change? Does it indicate a change in the status quo - then reopening the debate - then all the questions associated with it (why; what; which)? Or if it does not indicate anything, when what is it supposed to indicate? Can't have it both ways, even if you're all teflon.

Why advising that to Harper (announce grants; but not pay)? He knows probably best in this country how to speak from both ends of his mouth. Take this very issue.

And so the intrigue continues: - why (reopen the debate)? - what (problem would it solve)? - which (part of control over your body you yourself would be willing to forgo for the sake of sheer ideology)? Please don't keep us waiting much longer, it's getting unbearable!

Well, to my honest surprise, I'm not getting much traction here with this simple question (that was asked no less than twice previously): - You are asking others to submit control over their bodies, so which part of control over your own body are you willing to let go of for the sake of somebody's ideology, greater good or any other worthy reason? Which leaves me quite puzzled why it happened to be this way given that some of us are (were?) so eager to "reopen discussion". Logically, I can see two possibilities, #1 (As a result of this productive discussion or otherwise) the posters no longer support state enforced limits on abortion; or #2 By refusing to specify the limits of control over their bodies they would be willing to submit for the sake of ideology, greater good of society, etc, those same posters subscribe to hypocritical, idelogical and irrational drive to establish control over individual's fundamental freedoms such as ability to control one's own body. Again without some sort of further input, we can't determine with certainty which of the two possibilites it would be. Though from my position in this discussion, this state of affairs is sufficient as: - If it's the first case, we're in agreement and have no further argument; - And in the case #2, no productive rational discussion is possible, as in any case where a group of individuals is attempting to force their irrational ideas or beliefs on the rest of the society. Sure your ideology may require everybody to get naked, bodypaint in pink and green and walk around in circles upside down no less than seventeen times a day. You sure have the right to believe that, or anything else, but also please understand that it has very little to do with the rest of us here, who are trying to live in relative peace respecting each other's private individual choices even if we wouldn't always agree with them. But, this situation still leaves me somewhat confused as to that unusual behaviour, why sit mum now and keep everybody puzzled about what that silence could mean, when only a few moments earlier we were so eager to "reopen the discussion"?

Nah. We kill a cow to eat it. And we kill that seal simply because it's there, and then we're trying to figure out what to do with it ("vitamin A"; "fur"; stupid "aphrodisiak"; etc). Of course I already commented on tranditional hunt with which I have no problem.

Yes right. Because we just can't ourselves live within constraints of those laws and will go and scoop it all to every one last bit, driven by the dire need to "survive" (and stuff our pockets with paper in the process), the only hope that remains is now for the seals, fish and holy mother Earth.

No, parties came to be for a reason, the reason being superior control over party's message and efficiency in its execution. Perhaps we could attempt correcting the extremes of over control, but being a competitive process it'll be a hard proposition, giving that party with superior cohesion of message and policy would have natural advantage among voters. In Ottawa we have a city council of 10 or so, that is capable of making decisions about 50% of time (my estimate). Now imagine 300. Multiparty parliament where no one single party can hold a majority becomes critical in keeping the governing party under check, where individual MPs no longer could. No matter how much we desire it, fully independent local MP is a thing of the past. We can look for solutions that work now, or spend our time in wailing about how great things used to be in the glorious past.

That's right. Two hundred years back you'd vote for the government, or against it. And we haven't moved much since, as a vote cast outside of the main duo is a throw away. What back then there wasn't any other choice per se, whilst now it's just that there's no other meaningful choice is of course a pure technicality. I agree, we don't have to copy or imitate. We have identified the problem, severe limitation of political choices, and how we deal with it is entirely up to us. I understand the feelings about local attachement, but I'm not sure how much of it, in the meaningful sense we still have even now. We can have a local MP parachuted by party exec sitting in a local office and voting party line. Or it could be somebody coming direct off the party list into the same office and same voting pattern. Would there be much difference between the two? Not that I see no meaning in the local representation; just what it wouldn't be easy to give meaning two in a developed party system, regardless of representation system.

Well, one more time, and there's no avoiding asking this until we get a definite answer to this critical question: - You are asking others to submit control over their bodies, so which part of control over your own body are you willing to let go of for the sake of somebody's ideology, greater good or any other worthy reason? Please don't deviate from answering this simple and direct question. Otherwise we'll have no choice but to assume that sheer control over lives of others for its own (power and control's) sake is the one and whole rationale for this exercise.

Yes it does, Argus, it answered it very clearly when it didn't impose a law on you to donate your kidney (bone marrow, blood, etc) every time somebody in dire condition needs it. And indeed being uncomfortable about other's choices is a normal state of affairs in this complex and diverse society. Requiring others to be forced into standards that I declare to be the only right ones is much different thing though, a clear symptom of ideology driven, socially conservative way of thinking. Well, why don't we do it a logical way, leading by example as opposed to useless preaching? You asking for people to abandon control over their bodies, so what part of control over your own body are you willing to let go of, for the greater good?

I have to admit that I'm sort of of two minds on this. On one hand, should purely emotional responses translate into national policies, certainly no, they should not. In that sense I agree with the crowd here. Either there's something wrong with the way these seals are slaughtered, and then the policy should be applied consistently to anywhere animals are slaughtered without emotion driven jerks. Or if it compares on par with other ways of "harvesting" animals (can't stop being amazed at our creativity in avoiding unpleasanties), then the best would be to shut up and enjoy whatever ethically questionnable national treat we go for, without pointing fingers at others. On the other hand though, and yes there's the other side to it to, a bunch of grown up guys jumping off helicopters to hack some helpless pups does not strike me (and I'm just trying to be honest here) as a very meaningful excercise. Sure it's absolutely legal and ethically no more offensive than killing a baby pig or sucking out a mussel, alive. But should it be made a matter of national pride, I don't think so. First, for a very practical reason, we may lose more, maybe lot more on lost tourism (yes it translates to jobs also), than we'll ever make off those useless seals. If those guys have to go there and earn their bread that way, so be it there're all kind of jobs out there, who am I to judge but don't ask me to cheer either. I'd be the first to support incentives to reeducate, start business etc. I mean outside of traditional native way of life - and here I'm fully on side, it shouldn't be interfered with in our "civilized" ways that so often make so little sense and lead to disastrous results - who eats seal meat?!! Who needs "vitamin A" pills or woodoo pelts? For all I can see it looks like people just saw a bunch of those animals that happened to exist there, for free and without any profit to anybody, and thought of correcting that mistake. It sounds as dead a business proposition as can be, and sure it shouldn't be unfairly discriminated against, and sure you should be able to earn your bread that way if you need to, but I've no desire to jump on bandwagon making it an issue of national patriocy, chewing on raw seal meat or gobbling vitamin A pills while tying up with pelts any more than I'd expect sealer guys to go bulk shopping for stuff the place I work for makes. Let's use some common sense people.

Yep by all signs we are (all) heading firmly and steadily toward the oceans without any fish, seals or no seals. Guess it'll put an end to all issues, naturally. And depending on the effort, may even come in our lifetime.

OK, following persistent requests the best we have to narrow the rationale to open this discussion comes to these two matters: 1. The others do something of the kind; and 2. Theoretical possibility of moral consternation if there's no law that defines exactly how it should be treated. Generally I think it's perfectly fine to consult with the others; the question is why? Really, if somebody digs an irrigation canal fifty miles long and builds an photocell awning over their house, should I consider doing the same? Well it depends on where I am, i.e what my problems are. If I live next door to my neighbor in a desert, may very well be so. But what if I'm in a cottage in the woods near lakeshore? And so, are we looking here for solutions to a real, practical problem? Or seeking the problem for application of an intrusive, pseudo moralistic ideology with a view to limit basic and fundamental rights of individual? I'm afraid we have little information about it from the OP. And now, to the second point. Granted, there's always this question of practical justification for such activity, i.e. how keen the problem actually is? Has it ever happened and what was the consequences to justify necessity for an all-out new legislation? Again, OP isn't very informative on the matter. But again, regardless of practicalities, the core fundamental issue has to be addressed. And we'll address it in a rational way consistent with the way our society operates. Let's imagine that indeed some five, no even six month healthy "twins" are about to be aborted for no other reason than mother's wish (note that I haven't studied the subject enough to make an assumption that it's actually possible short of serious surgery operation). If mother's decision were to be granted, the fetuses would be terminated; if mother is made to bear to term, it would mean, for her, at least three months of severe physical and mental distress, not to mention possibility of serious complications. Stated in these terms, the question becomes that of weighing one individual's distress against another's life, or in this case, possibility of another's life. And sad as such choices are, our society answers it very clearly: nobody can force individual to experience serious physical distress even to save another's life. Consider another example: somebody is dying of a serious illness and is in urgent need of transplant. Somebody else has a match. Can they be required by law to go through a one time distress of losing some of their tissue, to save another's life? The answer is very clear and we all know it. This of course in no way to imply that there is any kind of equality between a living individual and an unborn fetus. For once, a fetus cannot even survive outside of mother's body. But even when a living individual is involved, our laws do not allow to force anybody to go through serious distress to save it. So why would some call for it to applied in the case where, for all rational reason, no living person is involved? I could only think of one reason: all the experence has shown us that it's always easier to begin establishing control over a part of population, better still, less prominent and weaker part. Say "I want to control all of you folks" and you'll be laught out loud. But say "we need to control those senseless women "murdering" their unborn children"; or "insiduous marriages to wrong body types" and you may yet get some traction somewhere. If it's a question of a fundamental right, essential right of individual, there's no way an arbitrary line could be drawn somewhere in between. The right of an individual to control their own body is absolute, it either exists or not, and the court recognised as much. The only direction in which this debate could move now is to diminish i.e. take away this fundamental right.

Yes and it means that before humans landed in NA there was no fish here - because those nasty seals would have decimated it uncontrolled and unregulated. No, wasn't it the other way around? Go figure (all the execuses for short-sightedness, uncontrollable greed and dismal failure to adapt to changing environment).

I think the underlying reason for EU ban was concerns about humanity of seal hunt. You could make a valuable contribution to the matter by giving it another impartial, objective look. Personally I haven't studied it and cannot make educated choice about who's right in this argument. But from purely practical perspective, I'm wondering if in the long run business from tourism would outweigh maybe by far lost sales of those woodoo pelts.

That's another good one. So, is it OK to kill "a person" if it came to be certain way? You'll hear that idea from quite different people. But somehow I think that it's only about "gestation period" and "coersion" as a first step to getting us to full and unconditional prohibition. Becase in the big picture of how these folks think, gentle and partial restrictions and limitations don't really solve anything, and only serve as the first stepping stone on the path where?.... to a society where the state and/or a powerful group could control what individuals do with their own bodies; what they wear; who they marry; what they read; and so on. They had that power deep in the night of civilized times and they want us all to go back there.

??? If somebody can't serve me somewhere for some reason, we would need a law to prohibit it for everybody? What a bizzare logic, maybe in the land of the free things work that way. That's right, because there's no rational reason to think that it ("fetus") can be a person. It exhibits no characteristics of one, including the fact that it cannot exist on its own.

If you want a law restricting abortion in this country, it's fine to say no need to beat around the bush. You only need to explain one thing: Why? What problem is it going to address and who is in the need of it? Unless it's not about a problem, but about some individuals seeking ways to control private choices i.e. private lives of other individuals? Funny how we want to control women in what they would do with their own bodies, then next day go half world away to liberate them from wearing "burka". But of course, there can be no logic in desire to control and dominate another, or it usually comes down to trivial "because I'm right and I can".

No, that's a mistake you're making on assumption that there's a notion as "good for us", "Canada needs", etc. Yet there's no such thing. There's free and open choice of responsible individuals; or there's restricted and manipulated surrogate of such choice. Freedom is not there for some common good, it's a principle. The principle of nature that favours change, adaptation and independent choices as a superiour way to survival, both individual and as species. Yes certainly PR is not a perfect system and I already explained that perfect system simply does not exist. It however is one step forward in allowing people to realize their political choices in the spectrum that represents broad selection of political ideas and directions in the society, while our still keeps us in the binary world that existed two hundred years back.

No but that's the problem with these folks, isn't it? They aren't going to tell you where they are coming from - it's mild suggestions and insinuations: abortions aren't right for Africa; but no, we aren't going to reopen the issue here, no!; look somebody else controls it; no god forbid to think I'm suggesting us doing the same too. Unless of course we listen to what they are saying at one of their rallies, and that is in as plain words as can be, state enforced prohibiion of all abortion. "Africa" and "gestation period" and "coercion" only come into picture as a gentle, gradual way of getting us there. "Coercion" btw is the interesting one; so coercion to not have an abortion, i.e go through unwanted pregnancy with possibility of mental and physical harm, is somehow better than coercion to have it? I thought that all "coercion" is wrong and in equal way. But maybe not with some folks; take child abuse for example; things look - and are treated differently, depending on who's doing the act. So why not, let's have that discussion here and now, rather than 15-20 years later? Why not saying it out clear? We want to prohibit abortion, i.e to impose state control over what free individuals could do with their own bodies because: ... No, I don't think it's for "no reason". The reason is the same old one: power and control over another human being.

Exactly; looks like my communications are going to improve here, thanks for contribution )). More precisely, to remove those "structures" that artificially and unnecessarily limit our political choices to the extent that they are very near becoming pointless and non-existent in any meaningful sense. Without necessarily conceding the point about "unworkable" and "chaotic" as there're any number of democracies in which some form of proportional representation have worked for decades - we all know that freedom and independence isn't all rosies. It can be messy business, it certainly means being more aware and making more choices. It really comes down to that same old realization that important decisions are made by the people, or for them, and there's not really any other, third way (to be carefree, ignorant about country's politics and still make meaningful contribution to it). What you do is what you get. Some choose freedom, whatever troubles and drawbacks it comes with; and some choose quiet, predictable and uneventful life. Can't have it both ways, as far I can see it. It isn't like that; not what we need to change for the sake of being like "them". But it's still possible that eventually we'll realize the same truth (as explained earlier) that would inspire us to add more meaningful choices in our system, though if need be in a different way than it's done in other countries. Till that happens I see no point in participating in that dumbed down political game, if I can't make real choice, I'm not going to pretend that I do. And the sooner we realize that eating what we're served isn't the only option in this free world and Universe, the sooner we'll have positive change here (and I seriously doubt we'll have it much sooner than that).

If you only gave yourself a minute to read the entire statement in the context of the thread, you would instantly realize that the statement related to "all the freedom there's..." in political choices. That is correct and I stand by it 100%, simply because there's no third way, as we have all learned growing up from babies into responsible and mature adults: you either make your choices and take responsibility for them; or they, choices are made, adjusted, massaged, and so on, etc yada for you. It's one or the other. Finding excuses and/or rationalizations does not change that fact one bit. And so, many democracies have matured enough to give the society freedom of choice and abide by it to the best extent possible; and some still limit that choice, even to a serious extent, and even, in the more and more likely eventuality, to the extent where it'll have little meaning, if any.

Wow. This gets you right into the hall of fame (of empty devoid of intelligence rhethorics), right ahead of the earlier achievement by TB here (you managed it in less words; although I'm not sure whether it should go the other way around; I mean should expressing zero thought in more words count as a greater achievement, due to higher - potentially -mental stress?). Anyways, congrats, well deserved! Is that preponderous deliberation meant to translate as "people cannot be trusted to make their own choices in the political system (of that sound prosperous society)"? No, of course putting another checkbox in the election box, and recording and implementing that choice in practice would completely undermine, no totally explode the foundations of a "balanced" society. Wait, could them peons still be trusted to listen to songs other than approved for the good of "balanced" society? Watch more than two TV channels? Buy more than two brands of cars? All very serious questions for you folks to ponder carefully, enjoy!

Oh, so no comments on the essense of the issue? How, i.e. in what way does our endless duopoly serve society's need for political choice and variety? Or maybe this particular society does not need either, because you eat what you're served or you are branded "infantile"? Great argumentative power, btw, I'm really really impressed! Like as if in music you could only pick one of the two, Beethoven, or Billy Joel. If not Beethoven, it mush be Billy. Or vice versa. Great (democratic) choice. Sure you'll have all those buttons, with other names, but you click on them and nothing happens. Click forever and nothing will ever happen, still. Only Beethoven and B.J. work. Eat what you're served, or you're out of luck. Ridiculous, isn't it? Do grow up!

I personally prefer choices that I make to those that are made for me. And if I can't make my own choices, there's one thing I can still do, quit playing into somebody else's game.