Molly

Why? Why galleries and symphonies, that really few Canadians will ever view/hear/experience, and even fewer will be entertained by, and _not_ quilt shows, fiddle festivals, ceramics workshops, etc.? The benefits I've harvested from arts funding are on the line of attending folk festivals, taking (and teaching) art and craft classes, having my kids education enriched by writer and artist -in-residence programs, theatre workshops, music programs... reading books that would not have been published by the big guys, or sold through Chapters... I've never attended a Canadian symphony or ballet, and only rarely lived within reach of any publicly funded gallery. How'bout you?

You have to admit that eliciting a confession that you have no good reason to believe is true- is a doubtful practice. It's crappy evidence.

... less likely to be meaningfully, proportionally punished _when_ they are caught. If you or I was caught after having stolen $100 from each of 15 people, we would face 15 counts of theft. How many counts did Conrad face?

"These are drug addicted women that few if anyone cares about." According to news reports, there are about 300 child prostitutes in the city of Regina. (And God only knows how many in the rest of Canada.) If I had to choose between the morality of prostitution and the morality of being a John, I'd say the prostitute has the better side of innocence. If there were no willing buyers among the 'honest citizens', there would be no 'scum', who, in their desperation, sell.

You know... the council of the Arts site allows one to search who recieves grants, and how much. If you want to know, it's easy to look up. I was surprised to see how little of the money went to individuals, and how much was concentrated in the provinces' largest cities, funding institutions that no one bitches about. The various symphonies , for instance get millions, and the better known galleries recieve hundreds of thousands each... compared to $750 here, and $1000 there for special projects by individual artists. I particularly expected to see a great deal go to festivals, and 'outreach' and market development projects, but where those things appeared on the lists at all, the grants were paltry. The seed money was small compared to the ongoing operations maintenance. I would propose, though, that there is likely well _more_ than a million employed at least part time in the arts. (The majority are self-employed. ) Many, many, many more consume the products and services of those people, at less than their true cost. The presence of an 'Arts community' is very important to the economic success of any individual artist, even without cross subsidization. No one really goes it alone.

It's hard to imagine a party leader more thoroughly discredited than he is. (Dion won _his_ seat, for instance.) McGuinty is hinting that Tory might be unopposed. All that means to me is that McGuinty figures Tory was, hands down, his greatest asset during the last election, and would very much like to keep him around for the next one.

WIP... everything about your perspective makes the assumption that organ donation= public good. A young woman- a health care professional- refuses to sign her donor card, and when pressed, explains that, while she would be willing to donate selected body bits, there is no means by which she could approve or disapprove of said donations on a case-by-case basis after her own death, so her only real option is 'not at all'. She explains that while some transplants are a definite plus, others simply add additional years of illness to a non-contributing life, and that, in her opinion, isn't good for anyone, not even the patient. Her place in the world is to increase wellness, not extend illness. I'm still mulling that one over, but I do see her point. That means that you can't assume to know folks' motivations (or assume that they are frivolous), and also that if something is to be justified in the name of 'greater good', it must be first established that greater good would be served by it.

Interesting point, Keystone- though I'd say Toadbrother answered you well in saying that secularism is not atheism. Let's flip-flop the questions: Should children be at the mercy of life-endangering opinions of their parents? Are Pharmacists under any obligation to accommodate the religious views of their customers? When you join a league, should you be expected to abide by the safety rules that are in place when you join? Etc. Every uncomfortable accommodation abrogates the priorities of someone else. (Not just in terms of religios belief, but in every negotiation.) Religion, frankly, isn't that special. We all have our phobias, and our dislikes, our opinions and priorities. If religion is to have a special place among priorities, it is only because it is earmarked as being absolute, and irrational. There's no reason to suppress religious practice on ones own time, and plenty of reason to accommodate it publicly, but the reason boils down to 'Whatever floats your boat, so long as it is no skin off my nose.' , because we'd all like our quirks accommodated - and nice folks would. So: Yes, children must be protected from their parents life-threatening notions. No, but their potential employers might just fire their butts if they refuse. That's up to the individual leagues, but they might want to revisit their rule books to see if there is a way to maintain safety while not having the unintended effect of disinclusion. Why the heck not? and Encouraged, but not required. Sometimes the work needs to be done when it needs to be done.

"Then there is no way you will ever believe that such an action is possible because whenever it occurs you will always dismiss it as a mental health issue, or the act of a seriously unbalanced person." Not at all. I have read of cases in the US that would fall precisely into the category you describe.... but the same cases simply could not occur here, at this time. If a combination of things changed here, perhaps they could, but as things sit at present, if is virtually impossible. The case you cited represents a seriously unhealthy mother, who was smashingly unsuccessful in any case. "You must also believe that we do not need laws against peadophia either in Canada, since no normal person would commit peadophilia." Again, not at all. In Canada it is possible to commit pedophilic acts, and it does indeed happen often, but it is virtually impossible for a healthy mother to access late term abortion of a healthy fetus, and if it occurs at all, it is extremely, extremely rare. As to other countries regulations causing hardship... the most recent anecdotal situation I've run across (a couple of days ago) concerned a musician performing in Germany, having insufficient funds at her immediate disposal to be able to dash somewhere less restrictive (or get home if fired, which would happen if she took a few days off), running afoul of clinic holidays, making the overview requirement nearly impossible to meet.. looking for advice and help so as to get an early abortion somehow, instead of ending up having it many weeks later, once she could get back to the states. I know it's not immediately on point, nor a particularly awful circumstance, but what should have been quick and easy, and not afoul of anyones rules, was adding up to a major problem that was going to cost her a small fortune, her job and/or throw her into the middle of exactly this ethical time-limit dilemma. No one thought Germany's regulations would be onerous, problematic or much of an impediment, but they were. Folks actually think of them as being quite accommodating.

Renegade... with regard to the case you cited: I know mental health issues played a role because her actions say so. Her's was not the act of someone with all their marbles in the ring. She was either seriously mentally deficient, or or seriously unbalanced. As such, it does not meet your criteria of 'normal, healthy pregnancy'. (Her actions say she would have qualified for a hospital abortion even in the days of panels of doctors, and 'life and health' justifications.) So, no. You have not shown us that 'it happens in Canada'. WIP... do you have any evidence that gender selection plays a role in late-term abortions? If not, then it's a bit of a red herring, don't you think? I agree that it's a hateful reason for abortion, but unless we are going to delve into folks reasons in stages earlier than 20 weeks, it's moot. Sooo... I chased around to try to find some stats and reasons. I stopped at two sources, since they were politically polar opposites. One says that in 2004, 5 abortions were performed in Canada at 33 weeks+; 12 @ 29-32 weeks; 18 @25-28 weeks--- that's a total of 35 third trimester abortions-- and 366 more @21-24 weeks. No reasons provided. The other proposed reasons, but was less specific with the numbers, saying that in 2003, 320 abortions occurred post 20-weeks, 'almost all' of which occurred between 20 and 22 weeks, 'a small number for compelling social reasons- eg., teenagers who were indenial of their pregnancy, women in abusive relationships, etc.- but most were done for serious maternal health reasons or fetal anomalies. It goes on to say ' The number of abortions done after 24 weeks in Canada is very small, although we don't have exact figures. Without exception, all are done in cases of lethal fetal abnormality, where the fetus cannot survive after birth.' As opposed as these two sources are, they do agree on this: That the number performed after 20 weeks is very small, and after 24 weeks, miniscule. I would go so far as to say that the number range they agree on is far smaller than I would expect the number of lethal fetal anomalies to be. So Renegade, Drea has it precisely right... I'm willing to pay a price in failing to punish the (incredibly rare, if existing at all) guilty in order to avoid routinely punishing the already beleaguered innocent. If not wanting to write law that is guaranteed to cause grotesquely more hardship than it could concieveable prevent is unreasonable, then you have a different definition of the word than I do. I know it has not crossed your mind (it doesn't normally occur to people) but I can see the primary effect of a time limit (then jump through chilling hoops) law being to force traumatized women to carry dead and dying fetuses to normal delivery. I know you don't think so, because you are operating from the premise that law performs perfectly, and only touches that at which it is directly aimed, but in the real world, it's a little more like a runaway lawn-mower than a surgeons scalpel.

By the way, where have you shown that such a situation has happenned in the past? Are you speaking of the young woman with the pellet gun? ('cause if that's the one, I don't think it's an effective case to cite. Mental health issues alone would stand in her defense, and law certainly wouldn't have prevented it.)

That's a more complcated question than it looks like. I don't think it would be right. (Competing interests and all.) But legality is a different issue. If a circumstance does not exist, then writing law to cover it, particularly when it is such such an extraordinarily high-risk law, is an idiots game, and I just won't go there. That's the theory part. The practical and very personal part goes like this: Even if it does happen, but is rare, I'm absolutely not willing to pay the price in harrassment to innocent folks who are already in an unimagineably horrible situation, that would be the cost of putting something like that on the books. I don't expect others to share that perspective because they don't share my experiences-- but if they did, they would.

Just because I am willing to admit that speaking of such a balance has merit doesn't mean that I would endorse balance of competing interests as a basis for writing up new law to limit access to abortion. I categorically do not. I categorically do not believe that any such law is either necessary nor even vaguely desireable at this time. I do, however, believe it behooves us well to talk about the sticky bits-- the things for which we all have to explore the right and wrong, the responsibility vs. rights, the questions of who decides, because the day will come when some court ruling, or some technological advance will force us to be ready with our souls well-searched.

"So could the definition of 'consent' for rape. So why hasn't that been 'redefined with every little shift of the political wind'?" It has been! Drastically and often!

Legally, yes, but in any practical sense, not even close. It is the practical human understanding that competing interests exist that makes it difficult to the point of near impossibility. Sometimes, folks do the right thing, even without laws saying that they must, or facing the threat of jail .

(Balance of competing interests has some merit, which is largely why we have the practical situation that we currently have, but implied consent does not, and frankly, must not.)

The fact that 'irrevocable implied consent' could be defined means it could then be redefined with every tiny shift of the political wind- making it a tissue-paper fortress at it's very best. At worst, if used as any kind of basis, it is an open invitation to the Mr. Canadas (and Stockwell Days) of the world to begin the re-defining. It's not a defense against the anti-choice/anti-women/anti-human rights crowd, but rather a plush welcome mat at the wide-open barn door.

ROTFLMAO You keep saying that anything over 120 is moot. On what grounds? (And while we are at it, while high IQ is a poor indicator of success, low IQ does tends to indicate limits fairly accurately.)

LOL Obviously it's a poor measure if a paltry 125 can get you the prime ministership! What's your point? I have to ask who's sponsoring those ads and why. If it's the Conservatives attempting to impress folks with his brilliance, it ain't working.

I'm willing to say that a woman can rightfully deny the use of her body at any time, but Renegade, you are right that issues gets stickier when the fetus is viable elsewhere. The practical fact is, when we are talking late term abortions , odds are the point might not be just 'not my body', but rather 'this thing must not be allowed to live'. As such, we are wandering into euthanasia country, and the Robert Latimer situation. I'm still willing to keep state hands off of that, but would have a lot more difficulty justifying it.

I wasn't going to wade into the merits of implied consent, but since it has become the discussion.... As I had noted before, on this continuum, irrevocable 'implied consent' was used as the argument in favor of outlawing contraception (much less abortion). It was also used to 'establish' the impossibility of the rape of a wife by a husband. (You made the mistake of marrying him, and therefore irrevocably consented to any sick thing he wants to do to you at any time.) It has been used to free rapists. (You wore attractive clothing; walked down that street; are not a virgin...all the rest of those 'blame the victim excuses.) It _can_ be used to justify almost any foulness that we want to visit on people: You skipped school when you were 16, and therefore consented to lifelong poverty; You wandered into a dangerous neighbourhood and therefore consented to being mugged; you drove down a street on New Years Eve, and therefore consented to being killed by a drunk driver; You skiied, and thus consented to paraplegia...... 'Implied consent' is a mediocre excuse to do whatever the hell we feel like doing. It isn't a _reason_ for anything.

Top 6 or 7% is exactly what makes it seem so low. That would make him the second smartest kid in a median classroom. Since we can fairly safely assume that very dim people don't generally talk politics for entertainment, that would make him maybe... average.... possible even below average among the folks who regularly blather here. I would have expected at least mid 130s just to have climbed the political ladder to higher echelons.

Well, duh. My spatials must be off. I was aiming for something other than the programmed response.

I've lately been running into a Google ad that presents a picture of Stephen Harper with the caption saying that his IQ is 125, and an invitation to take a test to see if you are as smart as he is. I don't know who is sponsoring it or why, or how valid its assertion. It strikes me that 125, while a bit higher than average, is shockingly run-of-the-mill, lower than I would have expected, and by quite a bit. I'm curious about whether it hits others the same way.