Who has the right to life?

[Wilber]

The situation in Campbell River has nothing to do with the College, it is the Federal bureaucracy that is the problem making these people go through a complete process that they have already been through once before but didn't quite complete.

There are issues concerning accrediting immigrant doctors and nurses, not the least of which is language. More emphasis should be made on getting these people into the system as quickly as possible.

We need some innovative ideas. Quebec and BC have been the two most progressive Provinces when it comes to making changes yet Health Care spending in BC has risen astronomically over the past 6 years without conditions improving and if it continues at the present rate would consume over 70% of the present provincial budget within 10 years. The economy would have to grow at a astronomical rate to accommodate this. Just throwing more money at the problem with out major changes is not an option that can save the system.

[Figleaf]

I agree, BC chick, but my concern is about aborting based on genetic testing. Will we see the elimination of Down Syndrome in our society? Should we see this as a good thing?

Provided it's acheived ethically, how could it not be a good thing?

[Figleaf]

You're correct, self determination, for whatever the reason is no one else's business but the woman's. Privacy and self-determination rights make it no one else's business.

Ugh, here we go again. A woman can do anything because she's a woman.

Does that include making consistantly irrational arguments devoid of any explaination of your logic?

Does whiskey always bring out the non sequiturs with you, Geofreey? Or is it vodka this time?

[Figleaf]

It is not only logic, it is Rights that are a fact based in law. And there is no argument involved at all.

Wrong again. Don;t you get tired of being wrong all the time? There is currently NO abortion laws in Canada. None. Ergo there are no 'rights' based in law.

The absence of any statutes is not an absense of all law.

[Catchme]

The situation in Campbell River has nothing to do with the College, it is the Federal bureaucracy that is the problem making these people go through a complete process that they have already been through once before but didn't quite complete.

There are issues concerning accrediting immigrant doctors and nurses, not the least of which is language. More emphasis should be made on getting these people into the system as quickly as possible.

We need some innovative ideas. Quebec and BC have been the two most progressive Provinces when it comes to making changes yet Health Care spending in BC has risen astronomically over the past 6 years without conditions improving and if it continues at the present rate would consume over 70% of the present provincial budget within 10 years. The economy would have to grow at a astronomical rate to accommodate this. Just throwing more money at the problem with out major changes is not an option that can save the system.

The federal bureaucracy is the College of Physicians and Surgeons, they set the standards that the government uses and enforces.

With nurses it is a different reason.

Having said that, I totally agree with you. More emphasis needs to be placed on getting them into the system as quickly as possible, and this was mentioned in the Harper meeting regarding health care. The CPC then walked away from the first meeting, and have nothing since. Much the same as the Liberals did.

BC's health care costs are artificially inflated to other provincial norms. This is because of the large segment of seniors who move to BC from other provinces to live when retired. BC is actually incurring the costs for seniors health who have lived their lives and paid taxes in other provinces.

A few years back, there was some discussion about BC lobbying the federal government for a certain % of other provinces health care transfer payments for those citizens from other provinces that had emmigration to BC. The figures that were to be used were based upon census data. Can't rember now, how much they had figured yearly the additional seniors were costing the BC Medical system.

Of course then, the argument was made that BC now enjoyed the pensions and money those seniors would spend, so why should the other provinces pay. So, then, they were trying to figure out what the new citizens of BC were spending, as apposed to health care costs incurred for them being here.

Health boards were saying, incoming seniors were not only incurring health care costs more than they paid, but they were prompting wait lists for long term BC residents. And then the Continuing Care got in on it, stating they wanted Long Term care monies from other provinces, as the seniors from other provinces were making it impossible for BC seniors who had lived here their whole lives to get beds and BC tax payers were incurring the costs of these out of province seniors.

Finally, I think the whole thing became to huge of a project with to much dissention and it was dropped.

Actually, long term projections show decrease in Health care spending, of course this is after the boomers have gone.

There are complex issues at play, that would not be fixed by privatization. In fact, it would most likely be the opposite as the same problems would still remain.

As I mentioned before, nurse practitioners would be a huge plus to the system. It would decrease monies paid to Drs, and free money up for hospital expansions. Of course, the Drs are lobbying against this, who knows why though, as their patient lists are full and many are not accepting new ones.

There is also the need for greater focus on preventative health care, and actually I applaud the very recent changes made to the Canada Food Guide, it was a step in the correct direction. As well as the ban on transfats. The Heart and Stroke foundation's enhanced preventative programs and advocacy will also be of huge benefit to the health care system.

However, there are not going to be any quick solutions, unless the federal government steps in and insists that Canadian Physicians and Surgeons change their out dated policies. And/or provides funding for out of country health care personal fast tracking.

[Wilber]

Actually, long term projections show decrease in Health care spending, of course this is after the boomers have gone.

I am one of the first of the boomers and both my parents are pushing 90. It could be over forty years before the boomers are gone. I don't think we can count on that.

[Catchme]

Actually, long term projections show decrease in Health care spending, of course this is after the boomers have gone.

I am one of the first of the boomers and both my parents are pushing 90. It could be over forty years before the boomers are gone. I don't think we can count on that.

Me either, hence my winkie.

[Canadian Blue]

The problem with abortion, is that if it is made illegal then what would happen. The rich would still be able to get abortions, but people without the money would turn to backstreet abortionists and the coat hanger. I think a better way of curbing the amount of abortion's is through social program's, and closing the gap between rich and poor, so that most people could afford to raise children and still get an education if they wish to do so.

[geoffrey]

Does whiskey always bring out the non sequiturs with you, Geofreey? Or is it vodka this time?

In the context of previous debates between Catchme and myself, that comment was hardly a non sequitur.

The personal attacks aren't really needed though.

[Catchme]

It is not only logic, it is Rights that are a fact based in law. And there is no argument involved at all.

Wrong again. Don;t you get tired of being wrong all the time? There is currently NO abortion laws in Canada. None. Ergo there are no 'rights' based in law.

The absence of any statutes is not an absense of all law.

You are absolutely correct Figleaf. It is too bad some do not investigate what they are speaking about.

There are no abortion laws in Canada, because the SCC ruled that the conditions in creating an abortion law would breach humans rights in Canada.

The fundamental Rights of; women's equality, of self-determination/ action and freedom of conscience would be breached if abortion laws were created. And no law can be created that breaches Rights.

[Figleaf]

Does whiskey always bring out the non sequiturs with you, Geofreey? Or is it vodka this time?

In the context of previous debates between Catchme and myself, that comment was hardly a non sequitur.

The personal attacks aren't really needed though.

What personal attacks?

[geoffrey]

The fundamental Rights of; women's equality, of self-determination/ action and freedom of conscience would be breached if abortion laws were created. And no law can be created that breaches Rights.

Sure it can, when society is harmed by it. Quebec has an act that 'preserves the French language' that has been found to violate the Charter, and it's in force through the notwithstanding clause.

I have little beef with restricting personal rights if it means public security or prevention of harm to others, it's done all the time. Remember that your rights only extend so far as until they negatively impact others.

Barring a 17 year old from a bar is a breach of equality rights, but it's determined to be a reasonable action. Barring a man from the women's bathroom is a breach of equality rights, but again, determined to be in the public's interest.

Rights are an inherently very arbitrary thing and saying that a right exists on a document somewhere as a defense to an argument is completely unreasonable.

Does whiskey always bring out the non sequiturs with you, Geofreey? Or is it vodka this time?

What personal attacks?

[Wilber]

Remember that your rights only extend so far as until they negatively impact others.

Just ask smokers.

[White Doors]

It is not only logic, it is Rights that are a fact based in law. And there is no argument involved at all.

Wrong again. Don;t you get tired of being wrong all the time? There is currently NO abortion laws in Canada. None. Ergo there are no 'rights' based in law.

The absence of any statutes is not an absense of all law.

wha?

There is no law period.

stop putlling shit out of your arse and calling it a diamond.

[Catchme]

It is not only logic, it is Rights that are a fact based in law. And there is no argument involved at all.

Wrong again. Don;t you get tired of being wrong all the time? There is currently NO abortion laws in Canada. None. Ergo there are no 'rights' based in law.

The absence of any statutes is not an absense of all law.

wha?

There is no law period.

stop putlling shit out of your arse and calling it a diamond.

Yes, you are correct there are no abortions laws in Canada, and correctly so. As was explained to you over and over. The SCC stated that abortion laws could NOT be created, because they would be contrary to Rights and Freedoms in Canada. Ergo, there can never be abortion laws in Canada. Our Rights and Freedoms supercede all else.

[White Doors]

BS. They said that the abortion law that they argued about did not pass the litmus test of the charter. NO WHERE did they say that ANY law on abortion would be against it and you know it.

Dont; you get tired of lying after a while?

[Figleaf]

Does whiskey always bring out the non sequiturs with you, Geofreey? Or is it vodka this time?

What personal attacks?

What personal attacks?

[Catchme]

BS. They said that the abortion law that they argued about did not pass the litmus test of the charter. NO WHERE did they say that ANY law on abortion would be against it and you know it.

Dont; you get tired of lying after a while?

You just supported exactly what I said, when you said "the abortion law that they argued about did not pass the litmus test of the charter". And there it ended, because NO abortions laws would pass the litmus test of the Charter of Rights. This is because of the Charter reasons the SCC had used to state rejection of the one put forth.

I do grow tired of your false accusations, when apparently you, yourself know exactly what the SCC said. Really what is going on is that you believe your personal beliefs should over rule others Charter rights and nothing more.

[Figleaf]

It is not only logic, it is Rights that are a fact based in law. And there is no argument involved at all.

Wrong again. Don;t you get tired of being wrong all the time? There is currently NO abortion laws in Canada. None. Ergo there are no 'rights' based in law.

The absence of any statutes is not an absense of all law.

wha?

There is no law period.

stop putlling shit out of your arse and calling it a diamond.

Stop believing ignorance is a badge of entitlement.

In the absence of a abortion statute, there nevertheless remains the constitutional rights on which the prior statute was struck down. Catchme already explained this, of course, but you don't seem to have noticed.

[White Doors]

Oh my...

That ONE law was struck down. Not ALL laws.

To say that ALL future one's would be, for example a law forbidding partial birth abortions is disingenious at best.

I tire of your collective partisan rhetoric.

[Catchme]

Oh my...

That ONE law was struck down. Not ALL laws.

To say that ALL future one's would be, for example a law forbidding partial birth abortions is disingenious at best.

I tire of your collective partisan rhetoric.

What do you not get about the fact that any abortion laws presented would not meet the Charter litmus test?

There are NO partial birth abortions taking place in Canada. Again throwing up a red herring.

Partisian rhetoric? What partiansh rhetoric please do provide proof of partisianship.

The only partisian rhetoric that I see, is the continual insistance that some's personal beliefs should over rule other's very real Charter Rights and Freedoms.

[guyser]

(1)I have little beef with restricting personal rights if it means public security or prevention of harm to others, it's done all the time. Remember that your rights only extend so far as until they negatively impact others.

(2)Barring a 17 year old from a bar is a breach of equality rights, but it's determined to be a reasonable action. Barring a man from the women's bathroom is a breach of equality rights, but again, determined to be in the public's interest.

(3)Rights are an inherently very arbitrary thing and saying that a right exists on a document somewhere as a defense to an argument is completely unreasonable.

(1) you do not have a beef with restricting rights? Wow, give yours up then , because I sure as hell wont allow it to happen to mine.

(2) so a 17 yr old has a right to go into a bar..?...a man into a womans bathroom..?.... I think you are woefully confused about "rights" These are not rights in any stretch of the imagination.

(3) Arbitrary....are you kidding me? They are ingrained sir. And yes it is a perfectly reasonable defence . I have a right to many things, and can use the simple fact that it is "my right" to pursue what I want to pursue.

[White Doors]

The only partisian rhetoric that I see, is the continual insistance that some's personal beliefs should over rule other's very real Charter Rights and Freedoms.

Yes, I wonder how you can sleep with yourself.

[geoffrey]

(1) you do not have a beef with restricting rights? Wow, give yours up then , because I sure as hell wont allow it to happen to mine.

Your rights are restricted everyday. Your not allowed to carry a gun onto a plane, for example. Do you get worked up over that restriction? Or do you determine that to be a reasonable infringement upon your personal liberty? See, that's what I'm saying. There is always a balance to be drawn between absolutely liberty and what is socially desirable.

(2) so a 17 yr old has a right to go into a bar..?...a man into a womans bathroom..?.... I think you are woefully confused about "rights" These are not rights in any stretch of the imagination.

They are not rights because it makes more sense to limit them. Everything is really initially permissable until the law rules against it (or legislation is passed preventing it). These are not rights only because we've decided as a society that more harm comes out of people having such rights than benefits to those individuals.

(3) Arbitrary....are you kidding me? They are ingrained sir. And yes it is a perfectly reasonable defence . I have a right to many things, and can use the simple fact that it is "my right" to pursue what I want to pursue.

Depends if that right is determined ethically and morally or by a peice of paper. Many peices of paper have been found, over time, to be promoting the wrong type of rights. If you and I were living in Lousiana 200 years ago, we'd have the right to own a slave. That doesn't mean it was ever moral to do so. So yes, most rights are arbitrarily decided upon.

[guyser]

Your rights are restricted everyday. Your not allowed to carry a gun onto a plane, for example. Do you get worked up over that restriction? Or do you determine that to be a reasonable infringement upon your personal liberty? See, that's what I'm saying. There is always a balance to be drawn between absolutely liberty and what is socially desirable.

(2) so a 17 yr old has a right to go into a bar..?...a man into a womans bathroom..?.... I think you are woefully confused about "rights" These are not rights in any stretch of the imagination.

They are not rights because it makes more sense to limit them. Everything is really initially permissable until the law rules against it (or legislation is passed preventing it). These are not rights only because we've decided as a society that more harm comes out of people having such rights than benefits to those individuals.

(3) Arbitrary....are you kidding me? They are ingrained sir. And yes it is a perfectly reasonable defence . I have a right to many things, and can use the simple fact that it is "my right" to pursue what I want to pursue.

Depends if that right is determined ethically and morally or by a peice of paper. Many peices of paper have been found, over time, to be promoting the wrong type of rights. If you and I were living in Lousiana 200 years ago, we'd have the right to own a slave. That doesn't mean it was ever moral to do so. So yes, most rights are arbitrarily decided upon.

I have this feeling you and I are coming from polar opposites.

My "rights" are restricted because I cant carry a gun on a plane? What "right " do I have to carry on a plane? None, so I cannot lose a right that NEVER existed in the first place.

And if we lived in the south during slavery , I would have had that "right" to own a slave, both the moral AND the legal right.

You seem to be coming from the "moral relativism" stage than the "rights" stage. One does not beget the other.

The Charter spells it out. And it saysd nothing about carrying on a plane or going into womans washrooms.