Melanie_

It's one thing to suggest a change in culture in Aboriginal communities, but we have to recognize the limitations the government of Canada imposes on making those changes. We have a system that created and continues to necessitate dependency, and a mainstream population that scorns Aboriginals for living in that system. Then, when Aboriginal women go missing or are murdered, the government and the mainstream population avoid taking responsibility for the social conditions that cause so much dysfunction in the first place.

I think the idea of having an inquiry is not so much about solving the cases still on the books. It's more about identifying the systemic issues that lead to so many of these women going missing or being murdered in the first place, and the general public sentiment that they shouldn't expect anything better, anyway. Aboriginal women are routinely marginalized, and as long as their disappearances are seen as no big deal, just what they can expect for being female and Aboriginal, we won't see any real progress on ending this issue. I do agree with Argus that there are often very limited options for oppressed and marginalized women living in poverty, and that they are seen as disposable - by the larger society, by those close to them and also often by themselves. An inquiry would help to change that.

The best line of the episode was Grand Maester Pycelle calling Joffrey the "sweetest boy the gods ever put on this good earth." The looks on everyone's faces were priceless.

Kimmy, if George RR Martin eats one too many cheeseburgers and has the heart attack we are all dreading, you can definitely take the franchise over.

The point is that Kenneth is making a very broad generalization about women who choose abortion. He (and I do want to emphasize... HE) has just said that women who choose to terminate a pregnancy are irresponsible and can't be trusted to make their own decisions. He has just marginalized every woman who is faced with this decision, and trivialized her choice as if it were insignificant to her. He perpetuates the myth that women see abortion as routine, just another method of birth control, rather than recognizing that this decision is incredibly personal.

I've read the books, I knew what was coming (and I know who bites the dust next), but the Red Wedding was still crazy to watch on the show. Generally when you've read a book and then watch the tv show or movie there is a lot of disappointment, but so far I've been amazed at how faithful they"ve been to the books, and how well they've met the expectations of the faithful. Winter is coming.

So, your argument is that people who make poor choices should raise the next generation? (Note, I am NOT agreeing with your sweeping generalization about women who choose abortion, just trying to follow your logic.)

I'm happy that the discussion is happening, at least on the grassroots level - I don't see a debate happening in parliament any time soon. The challenge as I see it isn't about religion, but about what constitutes a "rational" decision to commit suicide. Is it only about physical pain, or does mental anguish also qualify as a valid reason for assisted suicide? If someone truly believes that there is no hope left in life, and that their day to day life is too emotionally painful to endure, would they also be given the option of assisted suicide? Who decides? Does the doctor have to agree with the reasoning of the patient, or would there be opportunities to intervene with counselling, treatments, medications...? And would that intervention be ethical?

My father in law's dementia has gotten to the point that who he was has been lost; for this reason I bought the book "For Alice", but I wasn't sure I would be able to read it. It tells the story of a woman being diagnosed with early onset Alzheimer's disease, and how she copes with the knowledge of what will come. It is a quick read, but really good.

The assisted suicide discussion has been a hot topic in Winnipeg lately, since Susan Griffiths went public with her story. She was diagnosed with a nasty degenerative disease that was not treatable, and has travelled to Switzerland to be able to die on her own terms, in an assisted suicide clinic. I understand her stance on this, and would want to have the opportunity to choose for myself as well. But, I've heard some very compelling statements made from the other side of the debate. At what point does someone feel guilted into making the choice, because they are a "burden"? A group concerned with the rights of people with disabilities pointed out that we have suicide prevention groups for everyone else, but this could create a suicide activist group for vulnerable people. And who decides what pain is worthy of suicide? I worry about people who are in the midst of a mental health crisis, who often see suicide as the only way to end their pain. On the other hand, perhaps if Reteah Parsons had sought out someone to assist her suicide she could have been given the help she needed to carry on. The government isn't willing to open the topic up for discussion, but I think there will be more and more people like Susan Griffiths who push the topic into the spotlight. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/story/2013/04/08/mb-assisted-suicide-griffiths-susan-europe-letters-mps.html

Thanks! I guess its just not a hot topic forum right now.

I'm only seeing one topic, "Progressive", in the Moral and Ethical Issues forum. I know I've been away for a long time, but I don't think everyone has given up on Morals and Ethics! Is it just me, or is there a problem with the forum? Do I need to do something to fix it?

I can just see the destruction of Alderaan, revisited to the tune of "Its A Small World After All"

http://www.cbc.ca/ne...t-waswasnt.html It seems there may be some confusion about whether or not Rona Ambrose actually is getting this award...

Thread drift is probably a good thing in this case.

Even 40 years later, this resonates deeply. I hope you were able to find peace with your aunt and uncle.

I'm not opposed to this in principle, but have some reservations about how it might be done in practice. What kind of parameters are people willing to allow - would someone have to provide clear and sound reasons for ending their life? Would there be an age limit (i.e., over 18? 21?) and who would have a say in the decision? I say this because I've seen too many adolescents who think life is intolerable; it scares me to think that they might be assisted to end lives that are full of promise, simply because of teenage drama. What would a law look like, that allowed assisted suicide?

There is such a pervasive issue with racism in the Prairie provinces; just walk down the streets of Winnipeg, Brandon, Saskatoon, Regina, Edmonton or Calgary (or any smaller centre in between) and you are likely to hear racist comments directed towards First Nations people. Here's a to a clip of a video exporing issues of racism in Regina; the entire video is 1 hour in length, but really worth watching if you can find it.

But what makes that normal? Normal is a very subjective concept. Whatever you are accustomed to is "normal" in your view, but could be abnormal to someone else.

Define normal.

You are really good at undermining any cause you claim to support. Fess up, you are secretly a right wing fanatic, and your online persona is your way of discrediting the left.

Somewhere today I said welcome to the forum, Jiblethead. I take it back.

Argus, you made my morning. I have to agree...why on earth would we have women in the workplace, if they aren't young and attractive enough to appeal to their male coworkers? Once they've reached their "best before" date, they obviously have nothing left to offer, and should probably be hidden away in the "fat old lady with a moustache" department, to make room for the hot young things with bazoongas.