scribblet

They allready have a Pink Triangle school which started in the mid 90s for Grades 9 & 10, I understand it is now up to Gr. 12. I wonder why they need another one. http://triangleprogram.ca/

I think we all know that, the point is to bring in some legislation that might keep the more rabid anti abortionists at bay.

I don't know, and neither do you because the stats are only reported for abortions done in a hospital, clinics are not part of the statistics gathering. I believe they perform about half of abortions.

The U.S. puts it at 23 weeks, U.K. limits to 24 weeks, a baby was born at 21 weeks and survived. While 21 weeks is pretty miraculous to say the least, it does give us an indication to the point where we should be saying no. IMO it should be 21 weeks, except for the health of the mother. http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2007/feb/21/health.lifeandhealth (I read about her turning 3 then can't find anything more) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1380282/Earliest-surviving-premature-baby-goes-home-parents.html I used to be absolutely no questions in favour of abortion at any time, since then I've modified that to limiting late term. Maybe if we did limit it to 21 weeks, it would give something to the pro-life groups, but not really hurt anyone.

IMO most people who express an opinion know that late term abortions are quite rare in Canada, maybe 1%. The Canadian Medical Association defines abortion as “the active termination of a pregnancy before fetal viability”. They do recognize that late term abortions may be performed “under exceptional circumstances.” Unless you’ve been living in some nether world for the past 20 years, you’ll know that Canada is the only country in the Western world to offer no legal regulation on abortive practices whatsoever. Canada is the only country in the Western world to offer no legal regulation on abortion, including Scandinavian countries which the Canadian left appear to greatly admire.

I said that allready, but when is it 'viable' at what point do we say it's a live birth.

No it has not been settled, and the majority of Canadians actually do believe there should be a limit to late term abortions.

True, they just haven't been following that 'hidden agenda' at all... gotta look for another one. Actually I thought less than half were social conservatives, I'd say maybe 35 - 40%, if that. At least there maybe 50% but most of them know enough to be pragmatic about it, there are just some issues that will never fly in Canada. Just read this, maybe it needs another thread ? Considering the views about Ambrose and her vote and position, how should she vote on this one http://www.markwarawa.com/media_/mark_in_the_news/mp-mark-warawa-introduces-motion-to-condemn-discrimination-against-females-via-sex-selective-pregnancy-termination

Just read that. It kinda suggests that Canadians are ready to blindly follow a name with no thought to the consequences. Will be interesting to see if other polls support this one.

I just heard that the Board is taking down the link - and rightly so.

Exactly - she has a right to choose how to vote, and to vote in favour of protecting the unborn female. In fact, I give her an A for having the guts to do so. Maybe we should have a Minister of Abortions. You know, there are many people who do not believe it's a woman's 'right' to kill an unborn baby, I doubt the issue will ever be settled, there will always be different opinions.

What does her portfolio say about when life begins or about championing the rights of say, female babies? I'm being a devil's advocate here, I am pro-choice but believe there should be limits on late term abortions, even though they are rarely performed in Canada. I can see the other side and their belief that the baby in the womb is a life, I differ in that IMO life begins when the baby is viable outside the mother's womb. In the U.S. it is defined at 23 weeks, which is good for me, the U.K. sets the limit at 24 weeks, at which point it is not an abortion, it is a live birth.

Why, she has a democratic right to vote her conscience, how can people rant about a lack of democracy then complain when it is exercised. Maybe those who are against examining the issue of when life begins (not abortion) are afraid of what a scientific study might tell them. Maybe life begins much earlier then they would like to admit.

Okay, so that's the link for sure, the same one they where talking about on the radio this morning. Still, I'm not sure that the content on there should be referenced or linked to on the Toronto Board website.

Sex with vegetables now, what next.. they really have gone too far. Does anyone have the actual link, I'd like to read what they are actually saying, but I bet it's gone, I couldn't find it. http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2012/09/26/20236301.html

Sacrebleu - vot is a Phoquing Frenchman

Guess three some is okay these days http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/09/26/threesomes-on-toronto-school-board-posters-not-polygamous-spokesman/

Well, if Trudeau wins the leadership it could be a bonus for the CPC, cos he'll likely take some of the NDP votes from Quebec. Could ruin the NDP's chance to win.

203 - 91 wonder who abstained or maybe they where sick. That's it until the next one pops up

Late term abortions are rarely performed in Canada, but they are legal, and 60% believe there should be limits. I think this article speaks well to the issue, in particular the part about pro-lifers accepting some limits only. IMO it's the unwillingness of the pro-lifers to accept a compromise, or to give women any choice about their own healthcare that stops any debate or compromise. . Once they have a partial ban, they won't stop until they take away all choice. ( some nutjobs even want to ban some methods of birth control) http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/07/20/mike-schouten-why-canada-should-ban-late-term-abortions/ IMO the limit should be at the point the child can live outside the womb, which is about 24 weeks, and going down. At that point maybe it would be homicide to abort.

Agreed, it's a non issue. Many org. sell their member lists and data. Or they sign on line petitions

I did for a while then it got repetitious, same old same old.. Just saw that and thought I'd ask. So there you go. Still nothing new or proof of anything.

Actually, it's my understanding that any major changes to pensions has to go through a special committee, the gov't can't change them on their own. In fact there was a committee formed, but it's not the financial committee I'm thinking of, it maybe the standing committee of Finance. http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/conservative-caucus-takes-the-wheel-on-sensitive-topic-of-mp-pensions-170241226.html

I'd like some more concrete info. The link doesn't really explain it, although I don't understand the corporate transfers and capital transfers, they are not actual cash subsidies but seem to be just a method of bookkeeping, or just a deferring of taxes to a later time ? The breakdown 1994 and 2006, is interesting, provincial governments gave more money to business than any other level of government. This isn't 'corruption' it's a gov't at various levels, doing what it believes is best to stimulate the economy. IMO transfers to the arts and various self interest groups are in the same category, we shouldn't be handing out welfare payments to them should we ! That includes welfare payments at the municipal and provincial level for something like - say - the pride parade. One time seed money for these self interest groups is okay, but that's all. If you object to 'corporate welfare' then you have to object to all the other handouts, handouts to NAC for instance, can't complain about one and not the other.

oh, okay, but what does being a Christian have to do with anything ?