Catchme

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...&articleId=2125 It's not about pipelines eh? http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...50804/20060807/ http://www.policyalternatives.ca/MonitorIs...cfm?pa=DDC3F905 And the following is more than accurate: .So our role there was NOT Peace Keeping eh? http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...1058438133705_3 http://www.answers.com/topic/international...ssistance-force And why were they not deployed outside Kabul? We were NOT participating in offensive operations. This did NOT change until 2005

No actually I did not say that small men got advantages, I am saying that small men can lift as much as large men, yet they are accepted by you while women, who also cannot lift as much as large men are not. I am sayin gthat by WCB laws ALL people have maximums they are legally allowed to lift. Women based upon physical stucture are only allowed to lift x amount, as are men based upon their body structure and weight. The RCMP is not just about "life saving"! In fact, that would be a minority function in their duties. Women get arrested, and they get processed by women, thereby x amount of women are always needed, as men are not "qualified" to fit that needed criteria by the RCMP. Recruiting minorites, to police in their own enclaves, is Community Policing criteria, men who do not fit the criteria needed for community policing spots are not qualified to hold that position plain and simple. And BTW who is saying minorities are NOT qualified to become RCMP, but do anyway? I looked over the RCMP website and I saw nothing to evidence this postualtion of yours. Nor is there evidence to prove that the RCMP is watered down because of minorities joining their ranks. It appears that you have a personal axe to grind in this regard is that the case?

No, that is not correct, now you are mixing 2 polls, the 84% comes from the current poll you have now abandoned. The 52% comes from another poll in 2001, and you are presenting it incorrectly, and you left out several other polls that again show you are incorrect in premise and interpretation. Here are the polls where your poll comes from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_C...a#Opinion_polls Here is the other thread. http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....=6&t=690&st=315

NO, because abortion access is ALREADY 3 months. Again slowly, IT ALREADY IS 3 MONTHS. And as I have said repeatedly, seeing as it is already 3 months, anti-choicers, would not agree they ALREADY DO NOT agree. No, it is a contradiction, you stated anti-choice would join with pro-choice in order to change abortion access to 3 months, right after saying that anti-choicers DO NOT agree with any abortion access at all. NO, actually it doesn't have the most liberal abortions laws in the world at all. Another erroneous statement. For example, the USA allows abortion access past the first 3 months, the Canada medical community does not. And No the majority would NOT be in favour of limiting it to the first 3 months. Respectfully, you have insisted a majority would limit it to 3 months when it has been pointed out, over and over, it is already at 3 months. There is no mushy middle in Canada, it matters not what the rest of the world says.By your own polls prove this. 69% of Canadians are firmly Pro-choice, and 17% believe in abortion access for certain reasons, while 14% say no absolutely no abortions for no reason. Never asked about good, I asked about harm. And personally that you think eugenics is ok, surprises me. I certainly don't. So what are saying is abortion does NO harm to society. You can't mix up the other things you mentioned with freedom of Choice, separate subjects completely. Abortion is NOT a question of morals. Nor a question to what extent a government should do to protect human life. Again there is no legal and medical life present to protect at 3 months. I see you edited your post and added this above, so I have edited mine to reflect your addition, which is a poll you also posted elsewhere that I showed was erroneous. Again what said is incorrect, your own poll that was just weeks ago, that you have abondoned now in favour of a 6 year old poll depicts how incorrect. This latest poll old poll you produced, as you thought it supported your position, I presume though it doesn't, was surrounded by other polls that asked clearer more direct questions and they have completely different results than the one you are trying to sell. Why did you not post them? I will rectify that oversight of yours below: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_C...a#Opinion_polls That is the correct link to the polls, canadian blues other links to wikipedia for some reason do not take you to where the polls actually are. As you can see, from the sheer number of polls, that you failled to produce, though you must have seen them, show that your premise is incorrect, as the polls show Canadians ARE pro-choice in a very high majority. There is NO mushy middle. There is nothing closed minded about stating beliefs DO NOT have a right to trump Human Rights. Plus, the state of open minded or closed minded is not what we are discussing, it is Human rights we are discussing. Please in the future restrict your commentary to the topic not me, thank you.

I've addressed rights issues in the other thread on the topic and I'd perfer if we keep our discussion to the one thread to avoid confusion and just littering the board with our debate on the topic (I don't know if you've realised, but we do both come to the same conclusion). geoffery, I was making those comments to canadian blue, not you. I would have preferred to keep it all on one thread, however, if you follow the track of the thread, it was not I who started the discussion on other threads too, I am merely addressing them as they come. As it seems some want to manage the message they want to get across and give it up on one thread and take it to another if thyey do not like the way the flow is going elsewhere. And I know it's a pain. And no, we did not come to the same conclusions. I am morally and ethically, on board for woman's Rights without reservation.

I feel like I'm about to get trapped by that question, but I'll answer it anyhow.The harm in respect to the absolute denial of liberty to the unborn child. Like I said, my example assumes that both outlooks are correct (since niether is disprovable, life at conception or life at birth) and then the utilitiarian argument would play out between them, showing that pro-choice is the lesser of two evils. Hence why I'm grudingly pro-choice, not that I think abortion is less than homocide, but because banning it would create even more death, injury and issues. I think the child is alive at conception only because I can't prove otherwise, I think 'beyond all doubt' is a reasonable standard to hold when your dealing with life (or not). Now I expect a whole bunch of rhetoric on how the law supports abortion so the case is closed... but I think that's irrelevant. I accept the law's position and I think it provides an optimal, though morally bankrupt, outcome. But anyways, I think that an absolute pro-life outlook is dangerous and far more immoral as the babies end up dead, the mothers end up dead, diseased or seriously injured and society pays a far greater cost. Banning abortion won't reduce abortions IMO. So there is no point in just driving a potentially dangerous activity underground. Thank you geoffery, and I was not trying to trap you at all, I really wanted to know what "harm" you think you see. I would be prepared to discuss and think about any rational facts about harm. You laid out your thought processes very clearly and I thank you again. It is nice to see that you are opened minded enough to see that Rights cannot be trumped by religious belief. And that is an acceptable position. But truthfully you have NOT listed any harm to society that abortions do that you stated they did previously. And, I must state yet again, that a unborn fetus has NO liberty as it is NOT alive by medical and legal definition that is based upon proof. So is saying that you have no proof, perhaps only because you have not looked for proof, or because you are not willing to accept the proof? At any rate, thank you again, for your honesty and your ability to see Rights, are for those who are actually living and as being primary.

I see you did not address any of the Rights issues. That is telling. Then you made a red herring comment about I must really be "hating" feminists who came before me because they did not believe in abortions. What feminists were in the past has NO bearing on today's, other than they were the foundation where equality rights have sprung and are appreciated and honoured as such. Moreover, you have provided NO proof that they didn't, you stated that they didn't. 2 different things, and in fact it is a blanket red herring even. Feminists today do not agree on everything that is people for ya! However, freedom of Choice and Rights are things we do agree on. I see you completely abandoned your recent poll of Canadians and went with an old one. Do you believe it may support your premise better? Respectfully, it doesn't. It shows that flat out 84% of Canadians are pro-choice and 14% are absolutely anti-choice. So, now we can see that 17% of the 31% from your other poll do believe in abortions for certain reasons. This leaves ONLY 14% of Canadians that are anti-Choice under alll circumstances. Other countries and what they do, are NOT part of any discussion regarding Canadian Laws and rights.

The Liberals are guilty of many things when it comes to starving the military for people and equipment but this willful re-writing of history indicating that Chretien didn't participate in Iraq was because the military was incapable of going is just not supported by any evidence. You are quite correct jdobbin, they are re-writing history with those claims, just as O'Connor did with his saying we were in Afghanistan for "retribution".

Abortion end's all potential human life which was concieved through contraception. The pro-life movement is against abortion, the death penalty, and euthanasia, all of which are considered to be detrimental to human life. As well according to the poll I posted it seem's that the majority of people would probably favour limiting abortion to the first trimester. Your 1st sentence there does not make sense, it was conceived through contraception????? Then YOU say the pro life movement is against abortion, the death penalty and euthanasia, because they are considered to be detrimental to human life. First, abortion has nothing to do with being detrimental to life, as there is NO life, there is only the potential to be. Second, I know plenty of so called pro-lifers who are absolutely FOR the death penalty. That is an erroneous statement. Third, in you last point you have pre-contradicted yourself and your position, with your previous commentary. You say that according to the poll, it seems to you, the majority of of people would probably favour limiting abortion to 3 months. That is NOT possible. You stated yourself, right before that, the pro-life are against ALL abortions. Not only that the medical determinents for access to abortion, are already at 3 months you keep overlooking this for some reason. As pro-lifers, by your own admission, are against them at any level, this means they are against the 3 month limit to access too. Which they are! From this you can, or should be able to, see the anti-choice/pro-lifers cannot be combined with the 23 % who are in favour of current access to abortions. It just isn't possible. Then you have the 10% who want access expanded to 6 months, most certainly the pro-life 31% are not in support of that either. Then finally you have the 30% who want abortion access expanded to first breath taken and pro lifers are even more not in support of that either. So just exactly what poll demograhic could/did you combine together to support your premise? The pro-lifers are narrow mindly anti-Choice all the way through. They cannot be combined with any other numbers polled, as all other numbers in the poll are firmly pro-choice. Your premise and conclusion of the majority wishing to limit to access to remain the same, are in error. 40% want access expanded either to 6 months or first breath 23% want acces to stay the same at first trimester 6% think it is none of there business 31% want to deny others their Rights completly. There is NO mushy middle here, it is pointless trying to create one. The fact is: 69% of Canadians fully support women's rights to: self determine, have freedom of conscience, have freedom of acces to universal health care and freedom to privacy. Also, I noticed you did not address what harm abortions do? Apparently, there is NO identifable harm to society that they do. Though I will await the person's, who I asked it of, response.

Canadian blue you said they followed proceedure, this meeans shooting to kill even after warning shots is NOT proceedure. Or were you wrong?

How am I closed minded geoffery? Have we been discussing this, not just here but on several threads, geoffery? The subject is not being made tabooo, Geoffery, in fact what is being said is that it cannot be discussed. Two different things geoffery. Once you start entertaining the notion; that peoples personal beliefs should trump other peoples Rights, or even entertain the notion that there should be formal discussion on the notion, that some peoples beliefs should trump others peoples Rights, then you leave ALL peoples Rights being able to be discussed for trumping by other peoples personal beliefs. You see that is how it works in a democracy and equality rights geoffery. It is Rights geoffery, one cannot discuss the taking of one selects groups Rights away based upon beliefs, with out discussing ALL Rights being taken away based upon others beliefs. It is that slippery slope geoffery! It is a shame that some people take the RIGHTS of others so fllppantly because of their unsupported personal belief structures. I for one take our Rights and freedoms very seriously, and understand how important they are to society. Just where would we be without them?

Geoffery, respectfully, and truly inquiringly, could you tell what harm that you perceive abortions cause? Right from the smallest detail to the most significant to you. Thank you, in advance.

This is patently false. Canadian Forces supported offensive operations starting in 2001 (Operation Apollo) via UN Security Council Resolution 1368. Thanks for that info, I knew it to be false but didn't want to search for it. Ah, Scribblet apparently you only read the patently false part, as the very next breath bush-cheney says is: "Canadian Forces supported offensive operations" Notice that UN Resolution 1368 desiginated Canadians as "supporting" offensive operations. Exactly, what I said they were doing. They were the support only, they were NOT the offensive operation. So, we must presume then, that bush-cheney was saying my comment that Candians did not send our military there for retribution was patently false.

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.

Of course, they should be judged as being wrong if they shot him/another 3 times in the chest, by your own admission, they would not have been following "proceedures" had they done that. That would've have signified they were at the very least being "hot shots" or reacting to fear, either one should not be governing the day over there. The fact that they did neither, says much positive about how some Canadian military are conducting themselves while there, which says much about their character.

It's not that simple, as the pro-life side believes that a fetus is a human life, and that life starts at conception. So it's not being close minded, it is about listening to the otherside of the debate and realizing they have valid concern's as well. Of course, it is as simple as that, beliefs, based upon personal philosophy, do not trump Rights. They have no valid concerns, validity denotes something that is based upon scientific fact and legal definition. Anti-Choice has concerns based upon their own mythology as opposed to facts. No one has to listen to someone else's beliefs, particularily when that someone else wants their unsubstantiated beliefs to trump several of those they insist must listen Rights. How about those who have beliefs that are not based upon fact listen to those who knowledge and facts backing them up? How about those who think their unfounded beliefs should trump Rights, listen, and respect, the Rights of others?

Bouquets go out from me, to a Canadian Unit in Afghanistan, for doing the correct thing instead of just killing fiirst and asking questions later: Good Job!

Unless that person believes the right to life trumps other right's as well. Especially if the belief is that life starts at conception. Life according to our Canadian Law is when the first breath is taken and not before. Right to Life is founded upon that medical and scientific principal. Why should a religion get to change laws that are based upon facts, to what their beliefs are, that have NO basis in fact? It shouldn't and it doesn't. Right of Religion does not have the power of veto over ALL other Rights. Right to Conscience exists prior to Right of Religion. Religion is a belief and you have a Right to believe whatever you want religious wise. But you have no Right to force others to adhere to your religious beliefs, that is an infringement of Liberty Rghts. You see, it is this way: Religious beliefs have no Rights, people just have the Right to have them, whatever they are. If one religion gets to impose their beliefs, ALL religions would get to impose their beliefs, such is the Right's of Equality. That is why religious Right only means the right to believe how you want and not be persecuted for them. So, now you can see why religious beliefs cannot trump ACTUAL Rights

Not really, for I have actually known a couple of 'welfare moms'. I won't say that they actually connived to have more children, but they sure as hell did nothing to prevent it, either. They also knew exactly what the 'pay scales' were for every child you have to support was worth, oddly enough.One of them, a young mother (I would guess 17-18) in my area, was offered a part-time job, and her response was: "I can't work, Welfare won't let me". I almost spat out my coffee. An extreme case of 'looking at the same coin from different sides'. Uh, what does alleged stories of welfare moms having multiple children from x amount of fathers have to do with abortion besides nothing? The benefit pay scales come in pamphlets at income benefits offices nothing to odd about that. I would bet that there are a good many circumstances, if not all the time, where a 17 year old mom on income assistance would be told she was not allowed to have a job by the ministry. First of all that 17 year old is a minor itself in a position of responsibility over another minor, most likely an infant. They, in essence and fact, are both wards of the court. The court would deem the first and primary responsibility of the 17 year old was learn how to be a parent, how to look after a household and be a parent. A part-time min wage job would not be in the best interests of the 17 year old or the infant child. Moreover, the costs incurred for a sitter, by the very same ministry would most likely equal that of the pay the 17 old received. There would be NO gains for; the 17 year, or the child, or society, by the 17 year old taking a min wage part-time job. Things really should be examined for veracity before one lets one's personal biases factor into perceptions thereby disproportionately skewing them to a negative contextual value. Now again, young women having children has nothing to do in discussing abortion, other thantoken mention of pro-choice having occurred.

Well, there we go, so much for those who say they are in "the know" makes one wonder, alright.

I find it ironic that your opinion matters because you pay taxes, and yet soldiers opinions are disregarded for no reason...And while your only contribution to this mission is a small protion of your tax bill, every soldier also puts his life on the line every day and still his opions are disregarded or brushed off as government heresay....i'm saying if you had the balls to agree with the government to send us over here in the first place then you should show some conviction to see the mission thru... Taliban numbers are not increasing, infact they are decreasing, the area that operation madusa covered is almost devoid of taliban how to you explain that, infact recently a Canadian media team went back into the area with out a miliatry escort, and reported those facts...how do you explain that. No, sorry, I do not believe Canadian soldier's opinions trump that of Afghans living there and experiencing what is going on and that is reason enough to disregard. Then when O'Connor starts spewing crap like we are there for retribution, you know it's all wrong. Canadians DID NOT send out military there for retribution. Our military until 2003 was there for technical support, the Liberals ramped it up toappease the USA, and now Harper has gone well beyond the mandate that some Canadians agreed to send them there with. You cannot say the majority of Canadians agreed to the current actions of our military it simply isn't true. Nor, was I one who even agreed for a minute, with any deployment supporting the insanity of the USA, my stance has NOT changed. Why would I need balls to agree with sending our military to Afghanistan? There is NO way we should have been anywhere near that mess end of story! Interesting NEWS today on this front and so much for those saying there needs to combat there! Moreover they STATE outright there has been Taliban resurgence, in contrary to the denials and professed "knowing" by some here : http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/new...0701230007.html It's certainly too bad the Canadian military did not HOLD FIRM on what they were doing there in the first place, and instead let themselves be swayed and sucked into by US military thinking, and commenced to conduct themselves accordingly. Perhaps things would've have been much better for Afghans if they had remained on the mandate that Canadians had atually approved of! Now, the USA has found they're wrong. and think they to commence what was known in the first place in order to succeed! Is it too late is the question? The other question is, are they only saying this so they can pull combat battalions out of Afghanistan?

That's good news? NO, I would prefer an minority Liberal government over a CPC one.

Ipso Reid Libs 37% Cons 33% NDP 13% In Ontario Libs 46% Cons 32% NDP 15% BC Libs 37% Cons 32% NDP 18% Quebec Bloc 38% Libs 28% Cons 18% And they keep right on dropping each and every week. Good news ..... Next week's polls after O'Connors, reprehensible words, the x 5 secret oil expansion, and MacKay's words in Israel will drop em down even more. At this rate the Liberals will have a majority status soon.

You've stated you oppose legal proscription on abortion: so what good is denouncing something as immoral if there's no means to enforce that? After all, there are many behaviours that are widely considered immoral (adultery, for one) that society cannot halt. Also: given that the ultimate arbiter of morality is the individual, then how do you propose to reach some kind of moral consensus? How does the man carry all the responsibility, they never have, so how exactly does he think they do now? Of course, there is no reaching of moral consensus, as those who are anti-CHOICE, want their individual perceptions of morality to trump all others. Well at least, 69% understand full well ALL have Rights to; Freedrom of Conscience, Freedom of Liberaty/Self-determination, Universal access of health care and Freedom of Security/Privacy.

RCMP You can take that pathetic small man argument and stick it up your ass. Geoffery has you hooped on this one. If this isn't affirmative action I don't know what is. Having looked over the site you linked, I presume you are meaning the lower amounts of push/pull ups and longer running times for females. That proves absolutely nothing. Men's muscle and bone structure allows them to lift more and do more physically in quicker times. Nothing new there. You appear to be saying women should not be considered along with men because they can only lift 75% of their body weight or take 2 mins linger to run 5km. That is a very illogical position. There used to be height requirement by the RCMP, that was removed, so by the same token you are saying tall men, because they can lift and do more, should be chosen over short statured men? Community policing is a very important aspect of policing, what this means is they recruit RCMP or police officers for the types of community policing they need. I.e. First Nations in First Nations communities, Asians in Asian communities, etc. This is very smart and correct policy application. There are also needs of women policing personal for the very same reasons and because of women officers being required to handle female's breaching justice/law. If they do not need white male police officers, then they simply don't. It has nothing to do with employment equity per se.