jefferiah

Citation from some source that says you don't wear a tin foil hat? Lol...what a cheap tactic JDobbin. Citation from some source that says I do?

I dont know if thats true Drea, you are speaking for other women. Though I understand what you mean.

No hat on. Liberals are commies.

Legalized Prostitution-----What a wonderful way for the Liberal Party to become glorified pimps?

Who says Ken Dryden was right anyway? Public daycare will serve to create the need for public daycare. No doubt about it. They will even promote it as being better for the kid. "We must institutionalize them 2 year olds before its too late."

Basically the advisory council opts to distribute Gov funding to groups which share their own agenda and proposed methods of solving women's issues---the socialist path. Other women are not true feminists by their standard.

I would say this is probably true. But, let's try this (and we have probably all been remiss at asking you this): as a feminist, what is it that you want? I'm not interested in quotas or artificial representation in a field. I want gender to become irrelevent in the workplace - that is, a person doing any job is a person, and their gender isn't a consideration. That extends not just to hiring practices, but also to day to day interactions with coworkers, customers/clients, supervisors, etc. Sexist comments like those mentioned earlier in the thread shouldn't be happening in either direction. Each occupation has its own forms of challenges and risks, and should be paid accordingly. Equal pay for equal work means that an unbiased assessment determines the level of responsibility, training, and specialization a job requires. Jobs can then be compared to other jobs that are equivelent on those terms, and paid accordingly. I believe this Melanie. I understand that probably the great majority of women do feel this way. But the Advisory Council on The Status Women which distributes gov funding to feminist groups across the country believes in enforcing gender parity, even in parliament, through an affirmative action quota. They are selective in the women's groups that they fund as well. They only distribute funding to groups which are pro-abortion and pro-affirmative action. There are other feminist groups out there. The advisory council is not elected by a referendum of women.

Now look here is my initial post. You will note that I start of by saying there are lots of masons and they are not bad people. You will note that I said I would not want to be involved as because I "feel" that the core teachings undermine all religions. You will note that I say I would not want to be involved with them. You will note that I stated my reasons why I personally feel they are heretical and that they are there for anyone to mull over. I am not banning the Masons. You will also note that I don't say anything about the Illuminati or Trilateral Commission or the Bilderbergers. You will note that the first mention of these things come from people who were in argument with me. You will note that Scriblett denies mentioning the Trilateral Commission on page 5 when he mentioned them in a post on Page 4.

I'm not going to concern myself with unofficial web sites that say this or that or the other thing......I just think it's hilarious that you can so easily pronounce something heretical.....as if you hold the divine knowledge of what is orthodox? The Roman Catholic Church used to say that Anabaptist's were heretical...Some Baptists and other protestants say that the RC church is the Antichrist..... bah...anyone who claims absolute knowledge is humbug, and you can take that to the Illuminati controlled world bank....... Once again M. Dancer you fail to leave Illuminati out of it, when it is not even the issue at hand. You seem to have a problem with this. Why is that? I understand that my definition of heretical may not be the same as yours (as if I have the divine knowledge of what is orthodox---you are right in saying this I dont). But nonetheless in the school I am from and many people belong to that school, I would say this qualifies as heretical. There may be other people of my school. And certainly I think there is. What is the problem here? I am not preventing anyone from joining your club.

now blackdog would you say that giving birth in a barn and giving birth in a hospital are not factors in the HEALTH of a child?

Now if we open the door and say that medicare must fund all abortions (the majority of which are not recommended by a doctor) then you open the floodgates for a million other people to claim subsidization under the medicare system for things that are not medically necessary.

My question above was: areteh costs of funding abortions greater than or less than the cost of the inevitable increase in unwanted pregnancies carried to term?----Black Dog Here you are straying from the issue. You are looking toward the "ends". The argument I am making is if health care is there to take care of health, then abortions which are based purely on self-determination do not fall under its jurisdiction, do they? It is not the medicare system's jurisdiction to even get into the costs of something that is not even necessarily a medical problem.

The scrap of tissue is part of the woman's body. Cutting off your own finger is your choice - cutting off someone else's finger is aggravated assault. I agree... but something tells me most people would believe that killing of a fetus goes beyond a broken bone. Well, whatever that something is, telling you that, is wrong. We even have a current poll showing that you would be 69% wrong in fact. There is NO killing of anything going on, most people understand that. In fact 69% do. There is NO life to kill until a breath is taken. Prior to that, it is cell division occurring in a woman's body. Cell division, that has potential to be life once the first breath is taken out side of the host body. Plus you said borken bone, riverwind said cut off finger, minimized compare exaggerations for emotional effect does not equal facts and law. They never seem to poll me, how about you Geoffrey? Anyone else?

Who is taking away your rights Catch Me? Abortion is legal.

People don't get abortions for the hell of it either. Nonetheless Black Dog there is no way of determining that is there. Whether any surgery is medically necessary be it heart surgery, abortion, or wart removal a doctor makes this decision. And then it will be funded by the government. There is nothing unfair in saying that it should be the same for abortions as everything else. Some people say there is a slippery slope in Health Care that must allow this, but I think the fact that the need for surgery is determined by a medical practitioner makes a very clear barrier. I think it is reasonable to say that subsidization of all abortions would be just the thing to create a dangerous slippery slope.

I find it interesting that one point Catch Me uses over and over is that people who have belief in "myths and fairy tales" as she refers to them have no right to trump another's rights. I think we have all done alot to argue this point, by pointing out to her that abortion is legal and is already subsidized in situations where necessity requires it. And I think we have all done so without recourse to quoting myths and fairy tales. I don't see to many examples of quotes from the Bible or the Talmud or Koran, etc, on here. However The Pro Choice Action Network (funded through the Advisory Council on The Status of Women) has this to say on their website: "It was Eve, not Adam, who desired knowledge and so picked the fruit from the “tree of knowledge of good and evil". She appreciated the beauty of the tree, saw that its fruit looked delicious, and wanted the wisdom she believed the tree would give her (Genesis 3:6). It was Eve's courage and initiative—her reaching out for beauty, truth, and independence—that gave human beings the powers of knowledge and free will. It was Eve that turned us into rational, moralizing human beings, instead of the obedient and mindlessly happy peons that God created. Ironically, our capacity to disobey was there from the start, but this is only further proof that Eve should not be blamed, but instead admired, because she overcome passivity to exercise her God-given ability." Not only do these groups resort to myths as they see them, they take old ones and twist em to suit them.

Once again Catch Me i point out that medicare covers necessary medical procedures. A doctor determines if a surgery is needed, and then medicare will fund it. You cant self-determine to have a surgery without a doctors recommendation that this is beneficial for you. So dont play games with this. The charter already says that when pregnancy constitutes an adverse medical condition as determined by a doctor, that it shall, like any other medical condition be treated with public funding. Public funding does not pay for surgeries people want without medical advice. People have the right to nip and tuck to improve their looks, but just because it is a surgery does not mean it should be contained under the health care system. Aknowlegde this argument, and stop screaming on and on about people trying to trump your rights. Abortion is legal.

This is why we call it Health Care!!!!! When a doctor decides something is needed in order to keep you healthy, we have Health Care to take care of it for us.

Shouldn't be paying for either. Yeah, that's what we need....some politician to decide which which medical procedures are morally acceptable or not... Shouldnt they at least be medical concerns M. Dancer. You could call a boob job a valid surgery or a medical procedure. People can argue the morality of it, but it is legal----nonetheless are they covered by medicare. You have to stop equating heart surgery with an abortion in a case with no medical concern. People dont go for heart surgery for the hell of it. You cant go into a hospital and say "yeah Doc I want some surgery." There is no slippery slope argument about it. On the one hand you have surgeries for medical conditions where a doctor determines surgery is needed or recommended. On the other hand you have abortion which is self-determined in most cases. The charter already allows for public funding if the pregnancy constitutes a health condition-----it is only in these cases that you can make a comparison to a smoker or a fatty. Abortion is legal, so Catch Me can stop harping about her right to self determine as if she is so oppressed by society.

I never said anything about a conspiracy. So leave that out of it.

When you add these things together with the other 'shadowy' groups (like the Bildeburgers, CIA, Trilateral Commission, OTO, and any others you might think of), it's so very easy to create - THE CONSPIRACY!!!"---Scriblett You did mention trilateral commission and bilderbergers. The reason i point this out is that you were arguing against something i was not even saying. Either that site really is a Magazine by Freemasons for Freemasons or it is a sham. And if it is not a sham the doctrine contained in the literature is heretical.

Do you think that gender parity should be enforced in parliament? The publically funded Advisory Council on the Status of Women has proposed this idea. This is the largest feminist organization in Canada, and they are responsible for funding all the other feminist groups in Canada (consequently they usually choose to fund women's groups who are not conservative more "liberally"). Look you can assure me that no woman would ever want this and that this kind of thinking does not exist in the feminist movement. I dont think all women are aware of this. I dont think there is a woman out there who doesnt believe women should be equal, but that does not mean that The Advisory Council represents their views. In fact I dont think they would subsist without generous government funding. I dont think they are taking in very much from grassroots campaigning.

And I still disagree with what you are saying about the slippery slope argument about health care. I am saying that when abortion actually constitutes health care it is a different matter. When health care is distributed Melanie there is usually a reason for it determined by a doctor. You cannot just go into a hospital and say "one Chemotherapy please!" They distribute this "health care" because there is a "health" concern determined by a doctor. Not all abortion is deemed necessary by a doctor. There is no slippery slope there---or else you have to say that if all abortion must be funded even when unneccessary we must also allow hypochondriacs free surgery for cancer when they decide on their own merit that it is necessary.

No I will not join, Sir. I want nothing to do with them. I am not asserting any conspiracy theory either. YOu know you keep mentioning the CFR and Trilateral Commission and Bilderbergers when I never even brought these things up. And I think I have made it very very clear that I dont think the majority of masons are bad people, I just think the philosophy at the core is heretical---and would fall under the category of strange teaching which people are warned about in the Bible. There are many churches both Catholic and Protestant which express their concern about this, and they have done their research. Look Scriblett be honest and direct. The website I gave was an online Magazine For Freemasons by Freemasons. If this magazine is a sham, who is making it and why? You are the one who will be forced to theorize conspiracy.

Thanks for your understanding Melanie and willingness to see my side without lashing out at me. Also, I must point out that I said not all feminists are like this in that original post of mine with the quotes. Now you say feminism today is not about this or not about that. But nonetheless there are some questionable things. The government of Canada has funded the Advisory Council for the Status of Women for years now. They are in charge of distributing funding to other feminist groups. Have you ever checked out some of their websites? The groups which they fund, I mean. I do not think most women think this way. But some of these people are crazy, and also your assurance that feminists would never do anything wrong or have an unfair idea does little to console me in respect to Catch Me's formulation that it is mysogyny to argue with a feminist. If I am to give up my right to dissent because you assure me that no feminist would ever have an idea worth arguing with I leave myself in a pretty shitty position.