Moonlight Graham

Do you not know the history of the United States? US institutions were designed with the very fact close in mind that the Founding Father had a deep mistrust of government because of the very circumstances that led to the American Revolution. There's no government system ever designed that's immune to tyranny. Only a fool would ever trust their government, police, or military. Here's 2 cases of laughably illegal police assault of civilians in Canada. Some police don't even know the law, or choose not to follow it:

Correct. And you're saying that when a woman becomes pregnant she should be able to take a human life. [note: I'd like to qualify my entire argument by saying this isn't necessarily what I personally believe in terms of abortion, I am just making the case for the argument, a side of the argument which I see as entirely legitimate, but since abortion is such a tricky issue I've never been able to make up my mind which side I'm on.] I never said that. I'm saying women can have sex and enjoy it, but must be willing to accept the risks and the consequences of those risks. What you're telling me is that women should be able to have sex for fun, and then when they get unlucky or make a dumb mistake and become pregnant, they should be able to destroy that human life. This is a very selfish stance. I do for sure. But it isn't 100% effective. Now, what about those women/couples who don't use birth control all the time or at all? Do you think they should be able to get pregnant numerous times and abort the human life numerous times because they're foolish or lazy or want more pleasurable sex (ie: no condom)? Doing all the right things & getting pregnant by being unlucky is one degree, but wouldn't the above example be morally repugnant? Are you in favour of unlimited abortions? (just exploring the argument here) That's not why I'm comparing the 2 activities. I'm comparing them based on known risk. Yes. This is the way it's been for 99.9999% of human history, & is still the case in many low-tech societies, & is the same for all mammals (to my knowledge), but because humans now have the technology to perform relatively safe abortions, then women now have the right to have sex purely for pleasure and destroy a human life when it's inconvenient? Does a fetus/embryo have any rights or not? If not, why not?

Again, coming back to my point that other than cases of rape, the woman is consenting to the risk of becoming pregnant by having sex. Women have tools to control fertility 99% of the time, if they use them. If she doesn't use them, uses them improperly, or it fails as it's well-known it can, she still made the choice to have sex. The creation of the baby inside her was 100% in her control. She had 100% control to prevent it. She chose the risk, she lost the odds. So whose rights trump whose? The baby (who had ZERO choice in being created) having the right to life, or not being killed, or the mother having the right not to be severely inconvenienced for a year or whatever (in the case of adoption) even though she chose the risk of becoming pregnant in the first place. You're giving the mother an awful lot of choices & all the rights while giving the baby zero choices and zero rights. You're giving the mother all the rights with zero responsibilities. It's not against her will. She either f'ed up or lost the dice roll, but it was always her choice, by her will, to have sex or not. If I go skydiving because it's pleasurable for me I can be assured a 99% chance or so my chute will open & I will land safely, but I know the risk that I could die. The chute tells me the risks it could get tangled, and if I die I'm still the one who chose to jump out of the plane or not while knowing the risks. If she's responsible for the creation of that life, why not? Why? There's still lots of fun to be had without penile penetration of the vagina. Both partners can still achieve orgasm by the other partner via multiple ways.

Maybe we should put less attention on gun laws and more attention on educating our children and youth about how absolutely stupid guns designed to kill humans are. Western culture is obsessed with gun violence as entertainment. People, mostly males, think guns are cool. I grew up playing with G.I. Joe's and water guns and cap guns. I, like many others, expose myself to movies/tv shows/video games/comics/books & other media that glorifies gun violence and war. This is fun for me and many others. WHY? Why are we brought up in a society, and by parents, who find this acceptable? What's even more odd is what would possess a human being to want to pick up and fire a human killing machine at times when their lives aren't imminently threatened? The firearm is arguably the worst invention in the history of human civilization.

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Section 7, states: "7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice." So you believe that at 9 months a woman should be able to abort? I'm sure there's quite a few stupid people who think condoms and/or birth control can prevent pregnancy 100%. Surprise!

I find it hilariously ironic that a thread titled "Liberals most intolerant online" was started by one of the most "anti-left" posters on the board, and then the OP's post defended passionately throughout these pages by a raving "anti-leftist".

Ok, I agree. This is the main argument. There's also the dilemma that comes in about doctors having the right or not to perform abortions. But what you stated is the main dilemma. As you eluded, whose rights triumph? The right of the baby/fetus/embryo to live, or the right of the mother to control her own body? I think much of it depends on where people draw the one on when an organism growing inside a mother's womb becomes a human being (or even a proto-human) who is entitled to rights, such as the right to life. Some say the line begins at conception, some say third trimester. My point is that beyond this dilemma, those wanting choice over their bodies DO have it in one vital respect (unless its rape). There are no accidental pregnancies, only unwanted ones, beyond some wildly rare occasions. Women & men have sex knowing the risks, and ignorance of these risks is no defense. There is a probability of getting pregnant when having sex. Is it moral to kill a growing baby when you knew the risks in the first place? Do people have the right to have sex for pleasure and end a life when the roll of the dice doesn't end up on their side? Have humans of the past 50 years or so, due to medical breakthroughs, been taking sex as seriously as they should? Was Uncle Ben right when he said "with great power comes great responsibility?" Is the new spider-man film at good?

I'm guessing he didn't conceal it. Don't need to sneak in an assault rifle and shotgun when you're carrying assault rifle and shotgun LOL. I disagree. Mental health issues are still underfunded and even neglected in our society. In Canada it's still neglected in our healthcare system.

Maybe, I really don't know. It's a controversial issue for a reason. I flip back and worth on it. But I don't think the argument that the baby is hijacking the mother's body or whatnot is a convincing argument.

And the DND scandals just seem to continue!...http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/07/20/nl-sar-helicopter-labrador-fishing-720.html Best part:

Conventional wisdom in the 1980's maybe. Conventional wisdom is often wrong...and it's often the wealthy/powerful who define it for their purposes, whether consciously or unconsciously. Free trade can help a country, but it can also hinder a country, especially a developing one where more powerful countries & economic actors can more easily access the country & its resources/labour/goverment/overall economy and exploit it to the advantage of themselves & to the detriment of the less powerful country/actors. My main argument (i'm going to adjust and clarify it right now) is not that free trade/economic liberalization is bad, or that the developmental state model is always good and better than the neoliberal model. My point, as has been proven throughout history time and again over the last 60+ years of the development project (see: modernization theory, neoliberalism, etc.), is that no single economic theory/model can be successfully prescribed to every country with success. Every country should be looked at in its own context, since every country has a different history, culture, politics, resources etc. The best economic plan to create growth in any specific country should be determined by what will work best for that specific country given its specific context. It's pretty good. I don't really know many others that attempt to quantify human development. It's also flawed though in its simplicity, since it only factors in life expectancy, GDP, and education. It ignores things like gender equality, government, human rights etc. Here's some to start off: - Debate between: Moore, Mike. "Ten Years of the WTO: A Success Story of Global Governance." International Politics and Society (IPG), 2 (2005), 12-20 and: Bullard, Nicola and Chanyapate, Chanida. "Ten Years of the WTO: Subordinating Development to Free Trade." International Politics and Society (IPG), 2 (2005), 21-34. Whom above do you find most convincing? - For criticism on neoliberalism/economic liberalization: Öni, Ziya and Şenses, Fikret. "Rethinking the Emerging Post-Washington Consensus." Development and Change, XXXVI, 2 (March 2005), 263-290. (if you can't access it for free i can send it to you by email, just PM me)

I think it does. I believe in pro-choice. If you choose to let a penis into your vagaina, that's your choice. Use the pill with male and female condoms covered in spermicide while using the pull-out method and you'll be good to go LOL.

The biblical argument breaks down when one realizes that the Bible isn't the word of God, but the word of man, written & edited & rewritten & re-edited & translated by humans. In the case of the New Testament, largely written by people who never even met Jesus or lived during his time.

Why would a fetus/embyro automatically have no rights? When does a fetus begin to have rights? 3rd trimester? Only at birth? If so, why?

I'm so predictable with my left leanings I vote conservative most of the time???

Not a good year for the DND. MacKay and Toews need to go, PLEASE. At least shuffle them.

I'm left on most things, right on others. For instance, I'm not a fan of Canada's multiculturalism agenda, and I'm for stronger Canadian nationalism (ie: more Canadian history taught in schools), typical right-wing beliefs. I've also voted for the CPC/PC/Alliance more times in the last 10 years than any other "leftist" party candidates combined (NDP/Liberal/Bloc etc.) in provincial and federal elections. So ya, your stereotyping is ridiculous.

Never argued that protectionist policies are better overall, but that they tend to be better for developing countries. It's worked for them and the opposite hasn't for many others, therefore its better for most, though not all, developing countries. Some developing countries, like India, have done well with fairly liberalized economies. It depends on each country's particular context and the exact way they implement policies. As I said, between rich countries, liberalized trade seems to spur growth for the most part. Also, calling it "freeloading" is a bit ridiculous. I can make the the opposite argument, where Western countries would never have the economic strength they have today and over the last few centuries had they not exploited, or "freeloaded", off developing countries and their resources/labour. Do we "freeload" off Chinese labour today?

"The left" derangement syndrome.

No, I'm saying that in the era of neoliberalization and a major push for free trade in the developing world (the 1980's and 90's), GDP growth for developing countries overall decreased from previous decades. I can't make a causal link, there are other factors, but free trade doesn't seem to have helped developing countries overall from those numbers. Show me some data. Why would you assume such? Those are what you would measure overall development, but we're not talking about overall development. This thread is discussing talking trade & economic growth aka economic development. GDP per capita (PPP if possible) is the best measure of economic growth I can think of. I'd be interested in see what numbers/evidence you're referring to. Also, I never said this. I said nothing of human development, just economic development aka economic growth. I'm also not saying that trade liberalization will, with certainty, hinder economic development. I'm saying that from everything I've read, strong economic liberalization has hindered most (though not all) of the poorest countries more than it has helped them. I'll also argue that the WTO, an institution whose aim in great part is for more free trade, has been for the most part bad news for developing countries. I have recent academic journal articles to back that up if you want them. I'm out of time right now I can respond to these later.

Where's your proof? Show me some peer-reviewed evidence.

Or send in UN/multi-nation crew of inspectors.

The Khadr situation is a major injustice to him. He was 15 at the time of capture, so deserved/deserves some special regard in that case. He would/should be considered a child solider if he is indeed guilty of the crimes accused, though that is in dispute because who knows what tactics could have been involved in getting him to agree to a plea deal. The trial, a military trial in Gitmo, is IMO not very legitimate anyways. The odds of him having a fair trial are stacked against him in that situation. Having a 15 y/o kid stuck in Gitmo for that long is a disgrace no Canadian should ever go through, even if guilty of war crimes. I expect Khadr to sue the Canadian government upon his return and he has every right to. Unfortunately that compensation would come out of everyone's pockets and not just the politicians involved. Latest on Khadr, with Vic Toews stalling on making a decision on his return: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/khadrs-lawyers-urge-decision-on-return-to-canada/article4417108/

The US government has little credibility on these matters. I'll believe it when I see it. As if anyone can take seriously what the US Secretary of Defense and the Director of the CIA has to say about anyone's chemical weapons/WMD's LOL.

From three sentences I've said to you, you've stereotyped me into whatever hated "leftist" paint-by-numbers portrait is in your mind, completely distorting &/or fabricating many of my viewpoints just because you assume I have them. Thank you for exposing the racism and bigotry of the...whatever you are. Not saying there isn't discrimination against men, but these are poor examples. There are fewer male teachers and nurses and social workers etc. because men choose not to enter those professions. Ask a principal and they will tell you a male elementary school teacher would often have a slight advantage in being hired over a female (all things equal) because they lack male teachers and are in demand. Nice try. Do homosexuals in the US have equal rights to marrying the person they're romantically in love with compared to heterosexuals? No. I win.