Machjo

If they plan or accidentally start a pregnancy, he is a willing participant. If he is coerced or assaulted, he isn't. That's the difference. In other words, he never chose to put himself in the position of getting a woman pregnant who might then want to abort. Given he never wanted to have sex in the first place, let alone get her pregnant and so have no say in either of those two matters, should we now refuse him a voice in yet the third matter of abortion?

But what if he wants the child but she doesn't? Why does the perpetrator and not the victim get to choose? I understand a woman's right to do what she wants with her body normally. But here we're talking if her getting pregnant while sexually assaulting h and so without his consent. With that, should the victim not be able to reclaim his right to the foetus that is his child with the mother forfeiting all rights to that foetus for having taken it without the father's consent?

Can you elaborate? Should the victim not enjoy any rights?

My question was the opposite: should the victim be allowed to legally declare the foetus a human life from conception?

Studies have shown that not only most sellers but most buyers too have often suffered abuse (whther physical, emotional, or sexual) as children. Rape is common along with unprotected sex in the insustry. How do you explain such stats?

I guess that would depend. Obviously even a criminal ought to enjoy certain rights and being proved guilty of a crime does not give anyone the right to then abuse that criminal. One just balance might be the following between the rights of the perpetrator and those of the victim might be the following: The male victim can declare the foetus a human life starting at conception on the condition that he accepts legal custody over it except in specific circumstances, but can sue the mother for child support. One specific circumstance might be if he himself is too young. In that case, he might still have the right to declare the foetus a human life at conception, his parents or the state can take custody until he is old enough, and then he gets first right to custody once he reaches maturity. My idea could be flawed, but it's a start. Maybe yo have a better idea?

Should a woman sexually coerce or assault a man and impregnate herself in the process, should he be allowed, if he can prove on a balance of probabilities that she did sexually coerce or assault him, to declare the foetus a human life as of conseption so as to prevent the perpetrator from aborting or threatening to abort unless it's medically necessary? When we think about it, the victim has already been victimized through sexual assault, and again by the knowledge that the perpetrator is now carrying his child. Should the perpetrator be allowed to victimize him yet again by aborting? One might argue the right to one's body, but does not one forfeit certain rights when he commits a criminal offence? Your thoughts?

But you're free to emigrate to the Netherlands if you want. I'm sure Amsterdam would be your cup of tea where sex trafficking makes up around 5% of the GDP.

A society is supposed to have laws to protect the vulnerable. I don't profess Islam. I was born and raised in Canada. I trace my roots back to New France long before Canada even existed as a country. So no, I don't have to go to Saudi Arabia and no I don't have to belive in anarchism.

Seoaration of Church and state would conflict with the Canadian Charter if Rights and Freedoms and the BNA Act, but it could teach separation of Church and state exceot for the fact that the head of state must nevessarily adhere to the Anglican Faith and that the Constitition defends the seoarate school sysyem. It would be ironic if the values of the test conflicted with the laws and the Constitution.

So we're going to keep those damn foreigners out but legalize dope and prostitution and gambling and abortion at will, etc. Heck, I share more in common with Muslims than with my fellow Canadians if that's the case.

A basic understanding of human nature suggests that that would not happen. Think about it. Why would a person want to sleep in a homeless shelter in Canada in winter alone, far away from family, and not knowing the local language when he could go back to Calcutta where his job prospects would be better? Common sense.

The US definitely beats Canada weatherwise. Im not sure though that the US would reciprocate if Canada adopted an open border policy for US citizens. I suppose it might reciprocate at least in part, maybe extend allowable stays, make it easier to get a visa maybe? If it reciprocates, so much the better. I was just saying that even if didn't, it would still benefit the Canadian ecomomy.

Canada should adopt an open border policy with the US. It would benefit Canada's economy even if the US does not reciprocate. If the US does not reciprocate, businesses in the US would have access to only the US labour market while those in Canada would have full acccess to both the US and Canadian labour markets. This would mean that expecially businesses that require highly specialized tradespeople and professionals would prefer setting up shop in Canada since they could then hire the best talent from both Canada and the US and so probably face fewer shortages of specialized labour than if they set up shop in the US. Sure some Americans will take Canadian jobs, but they'll also pay taxes in Canada and spend in Canada too and so create as many jobs as they take and contribute to Canadian government revenue to boot.

In some respects, I could describe myself as a conservative-leaning universalit. I am socially conservative but strongly support freedom of religion for all religions and totally open borders. What kills social social conservatiism in Canada is that it usually goes hand in hand with ethnic nationalism.

Or I'm in favour fo at least far more open borders than now.

The hypocricy is what turns many conservatives away from the Conservative Party. Believe it or not, many conservatives have joined the right wing of the Green Party and the Liberal Party. Among those who do join the CPC, I'm sure many do so while plugging their noses. Yes, I do oppose gay marriage and abortion. I have no shame in saying that. But to then slander Muslims by saying they all want to kill gays is not okay. In fact, many Muslims would oppose killing gays. As strange as it might sound, I have voted Liberal, NDP, Green, yet never Conservative Federally. Provincially, PC, Libertarian, and Green. And this in spite of my views on gay marriage and abortion. The reason for this is that the moment we must turn to hate speech and identity politics to win, we've already lost. I'm also for totally open borders by the way.

And Argus, honestly, even I would probably not pass Leitch's Canadian-values test.

Firstly, not all immigrants from 'Muslim nations' profess Islam. Secondly, not all immigrants come from 'Muslim nations. Thirdly, don't you see the possiblity for abuse of a 'Canadian-values' test? Imagine all of the questions any party can throw in once it forms the government after an election. Worse yet, a new governmentcould keep the same questions but change the correct answer.

Americans are also most guilty from working in Canada without authorization to do so. Surprise, surprise. That said, I do think the law ought to be changed to allow it, but only for ethical business. No sex work for example.

We should add that some people are probably more prone to opiod addiction than others. For example, why a healthy-minded patient might not develop an addiction from one simple prescription, a person soffering from post-traumatic stress or transgenerational post-traumatic stress could be far more prone to it. And just think of how many people in society can suffer post-traumatic stress. Professionally alone, post-traumatic stress can affect soldiers, police officers, paramedics, fire fighters, and others. Many indigenous survivors of the Indian residential school system can suffer it too, along with sexual-assault victims, parents to whose a child, those who have gone through a really bad divorce, refugees coming from a war zone, and many others. Plus any of their children can suffer transgenerational traumatic stress too. In Canada, we often attribute trans-generational traumatic stress to the children of the survivors of the Indian residential school system, but in reality the child of any person who suffers PTSD can develop trans-generational PTSD, so that includes the children of soldiers, police officers, paramedics, fire fighters, and many others. For these reasons, before a physician prescribes an opiod, he has to consider not only the physical ailment but also the history of the patient. If there is any reason to believe that the person may suffer any form of PTSD, then he should prescribe with extra caution.

We need to protect the presumption of innocence too. It is very difficult to prove the distinction between honest overprescription of a drug and drug trafficking. That's where simply requiring two physician's signatures for some drugs can avoid at least some problems at the front end and solve more problems than it causes.

That's already the case. When a person arrives at the border, if he's turned away, the government does not pay for the man's seat. The airlines swallow the cost. All that would happen in this case is instead of being sent back right away, he'd try to find work for a few days, fail to do so, and then be sent back. Whether we send him back on the same day or later, what's the difference in cost to the airline? Nada. But at least we gave him his chance. Plus, in the first scenario, he might try again. In the second scenario, afterbeing given a chance and failing to find work, he now knows that for him, it's not worth it, so less likely to try again.

Or if we insist on some kind of control, then it must be for a valid reason. For example, anyone should be allowed to work or do business in Canada without a visa. The idea behind this is that we're not talking about supporting him, but rather allowing him to support himself. If he's not a burden on anyone else and is working, then who am I to deny him his opportunity. An extra taxpayer and consumer. All around good for the economy. And if he does well and wants to become a permanent resident or citizen later, that's another step, but to just work and do business, what is the legitimate argument against it?

The second pysician might have to re-assess the patient for a second opinion. He he agrees with the first one, then he'll sign off on it. As it stands now, it would seem we're prescribing opiods like candy. Honestly, I'd rather suffer a little pain until I'm healed than possibly suffer opiod addiction for life. I'm not an opioid addict, and I'd never want to become one either. From what I've read, withdrawal from opium is no walk in the park.