Who has the right to life?

[White Doors]

So Riverwind.. Catchme et al. In YOUR collective minds THERE is NO difference between these two things:

http://www.michaelclancy.com/

and this:

http://www.backyardnature.net/f/bredmold.htm

Please regale us with your progressive insight into why these are morally equivelant.

I encourage everyone to click on these links to have a visual interpretation for their philosophy so eloquently (or not) displayed here for all to see.

See where radical 'progessive' thought has taken us and wants to take us.

I will let the pictures do that talking for me.

Thanks.

[Riverwind]

Really, we shouldn't be paying for any of it, but that's a whole 'nother issue, for another thread.

Yet in another post you said this:

Anything short of full support compared to any other person, would be an implied directive for eugenics.

Why should the state pay for the care of a disabled child but not pay for the cost of an abortion? If you really care about your 'tax money' then you must acknowledge that the cost of an abortion is a fraction of what it would cost to support a disabled child. If you want to argue that the state should fund/not fund things based on your morals values then please explain what the state should do when is citizens cannot agree on what is moral?

[Riverwind]

Let's see You said this:

So if you want to insist that a fetus is 'biologically alive' then make it clear that you are not insisting that the fetus is a 'human life' and that from a biological perspective there is little difference between a fetus and any other 'biological life'. Without that qualification your claim is nothing more than an opinion about when human life begins.

I DID make that clear. I don;t know how many times I had to say it in order for you to get it..

An now you say this:

Please regale us with your progressive insight into why these are morally equivalent.

You certainly are not making it clear that there is a difference between 'biological life' and 'human life' when you talk about a fetus being alive. What you are doing is inventing a biological definition of 'human life' that starts at conception. Others feel that that brain activity is a much better biological definition of human life. I think that viability outside the womb is the best biological definition of human life. Yet others point out that the sperm and the egg are living long before they actually unite.

We are talking about a moral issue here - not a biological one. In other words, there are no 'biological facts' that can be used to prove that one opinion is the 'correct' opinion. In this situation there is no consensus in society about what moral position is appropriate therefore the only appropriate response is to allow each individual to make their own choices based on their own morals. In practice, this means that there should be no restrictions on abortions and that the motivation of the woman for seeking an abortion is irrelevant.

[jdobbin]

So Riverwind.. Catchme et al. In YOUR collective minds THERE is NO difference between these two things:

http://www.michaelclancy.com/

and this:

http://www.backyardnature.net/f/bredmold.htm

Please regale us with your progressive insight into why these are morally equivelant.

Your first site is one of the most linked sites to anti-abortion movement there are.

The fetal hand grasp thing has been dismissed by many doctors. Not surprisingly, it has not been duplicated ever since and not for lack of trying.

At any rate, you are making a partisan moral issue of it that is not backed by science. At least, I don't see any doctors making the claim your link does.

[Charles Anthony]

You take other people's money to pay for what YOU want.

Canadians pool their money to support things we all want.

Can you give me one example where ALL Canadians can agree to such a funding scheme?

If you want to argue that the state should fund/not fund things based on your morals values then please explain what the state should do when is citizens cannot agree on what is moral?

Simple: the state should get out of it and leave it to a free market -- but freedom is not what we want. We want abundance.

[Catchme]

Really, we shouldn't be paying for any of it, but that's a whole 'nother issue, for another thread.

Yet in another post you said this:

Anything short of full support compared to any other person, would be an implied directive for eugenics.

Why should the state pay for the care of a disabled child but not pay for the cost of an abortion? If you really care about your 'tax money' then you must acknowledge that the cost of an abortion is a fraction of what it would cost to support a disabled child. If you want to argue that the state should fund/not fund things based on your morals values then please explain what the state should do when is citizens cannot agree on what is moral?

This said point would hold true for Charles view point as well. And I also would be interested how those who advocate, like geoffery and charles do, that there be NO tax dollars utilized for anything geared towards the persona, to explain what they feel the state should do when there is no agreement on what is moral?

First of course in considerations should be democracy, and what it is. A majority rule with the rights and freedoms of the minority guaranteed. Thereby ensuring that Freedom of Equality is met.

Though apparently some do not believe in equality. For those that do not, what would you have in its place, we know that Charles wants a feudal system, he is on record saying so, so what would others have in place of a Canadian democracy?

The State has quite obviously done something to address moral discontinuity amongst its citizens. And that is to state and enact into Law, on behalf of the Candians that the state represents, the fact that every Canadian has Freedom of Conscience.

Conscience, of course, is personal morals and beliefs, that are separate and apart from others. And because the state recognizes ALL individuals have differing morals and beliefs, it recognizes that no laws and rights can be based upon 1 set of morals and beliefs. The state must consider them ALL in the manner of a democracy, and within the framework of Rights and Freedoms of equality and in meeting the overall functional needs and requests of the majority of people.

So, I would like to hear what those who do not believe in this Right to Freedom of Conscience, what would you impliment in place of it?

[Charles Anthony]

to explain what they feel the state should do when there is no agreement on what is moral?

Leave it to the free market. Those who want it are free to get it (and pay for it themselves) from those who want to provide it.

[Catchme]

In that case, we already have a free market. Those who want are free to get from those who wish to provide it. There is no moral consideration at all then from Charles Anthony's position.

[jdobbin]

Can you give me one example where ALL Canadians can agree to such a funding scheme?

There isn't one. That's why the system is encompassing rather than one where people can opt out like it was a buffet. Somebody might not like abortion but they do want medical for a heart attack.

Some might want to extract abortion from the pay part of our healthcare system but there is enough popular support to keep it within the framework.

[jdobbin]

Leave it to the free market. Those who want it are free to get it (and pay for it themselves) from those who want to provide it.

Social conservatives don't want to leave it to the free market if this forum is any indication.

[Charles Anthony]

Those who want are free to get from those who wish to provide it.

You conveniently omit the pay for it themselves part. You do not know what a free market happens to be.

[Melanie_]

My thoughts on abortion are the same as my thoughts for our universal health waiting-in-line care and our education system and all of our public services: I do not think we should be forced to pay for them. We should each have the choice to opt out. So, in a discussion of abortion, you can only say it is the women's choice that matters if the women is the only one who pays for her abortion. As it is now, abortions are funded from taxes.

My question wasn't about funding the abortion, but funding the special needs of the child when the mother has had the test, knows her child will be born with Down Syndrome, and chooses to continue the pregnancy. I don't want to speak for you, but my understanding of your position leads me to believe that you would say the parents should pay for any special support needs the child may have. Since you advocate for all services to be privatized, I don't really have an issue with you including these services with the rest, as that would be consistent (although I hope that at least there would be private insurance available to help with the costs in this vision of yours).

I wonder though about the pressure that might come from others who do endorse a public system, but would balk at having their tax dollars going to support the needs of someone whose parents could have chosen to abort, but did not.

[Catchme]

Those who want are free to get from those who wish to provide it.

You conveniently omit the pay for it themselves part. You do not know what a free market happens to be.

Sure I do, I just happen to believe and know, we individuals already pay for those services. As we all pay taxes and taxes pay the free market. Frankly, I would rather not deal with having to deal with paying all those who would be involved in billing medical procedures and tests etc.

[Charles Anthony]

Sure I do, I just happen to believe and know,

The term "free-market" is something you do not understand and you are misusing the term. Find a different word.

I don't want to speak for you, but my understanding of your position leads me to believe that you would say the parents should pay for any special support needs the child may have.

Your understanding of my position is completely accurate.

Since you advocate for all services to be privatized, I don't really have an issue with you including these services with the rest, as that would be consistent (although I hope that at least there would be private insurance available to help with the costs in this vision of yours).

Do you really want to know more about my vision?

Nobody can say what will happen under a free-market. My best guess is that that women who can not pay for their abortions (or any other health care) themselves would receive them for free from abortionists (or any other health care provider) who want to volunteer their services. [There is value to doing pro bono work. However, today, since the government forces things to be free, being privately charitable does not stand-out much at all.] Nevertheless, if I am wrong, I do not care.

You asked about private insurance. My vision does not involve forcing people one way or an other way. I do not endorse stopping people from getting any type of insurance they want. Furthermore, I do not endorse forcing insurance companies to provide every type of insurance imaginable.

I wonder though about the pressure that might come from others who do endorse a public system, but would balk at having their tax dollars going to support the needs of someone whose parents could have chosen to abort, but did not.

It sounds like you would find yourself with the conundrum we face now.

[Catchme]

Nope sorry, it applies, the government does all sorts of conract deals with free enterprise, like purchasing or hiring; military equipment, vehicles, technological services, printing services, construction trade work, all types of different professional services and many other things. Such is the case with purchasing medical services from Drs and other health care professionals and companies.

Our government is clearly utilizing "free market" enterprises all the time. As such, our medical services are already part of the "free market" and we are purchasing them from the "free market".

[geoffrey]

Our government is clearly utilizing "free market" enterprises all the time. As such, our medical services are already part of the "free market" and we are purchasing them from the "free market".

A free market would allow me to choose my provider, the current system does not.

As well, competition requires easy entrance and exit from a market, which our current health care scheme does not provide. I cannot setup a hospital, so the market isn't free, or even remotely competitive.

[Charles Anthony]

A free market would allow me to choose my provider, the current system does not.

Furthermore, a free market would not FORCE you to pay for somebody else's provider. The current system forces you through taxation to pay for other people's services.

Nope sorry, it applies, the government does all sorts of conract deals with free enterprise, like purchasing or hiring;

Yup sorry, it does NOT apply. Look it up. If you are going to use economic terms while presenting a pseudo-economic argument, learn basic economics or at least basic universal definitions.

Part of the definition of a free-market includes that each agent carries their own costs. Look it up. You are connected to the internet, so you have no excuse other than the deliberate intention to deceive.

What you are talking about is the Marxist definition of Kapitalism or modern-day cronyism. Once a business (or a consumer) gets the help of government to strike a deal that would not otherwise be freely made, it is not a free-market. You are misusing the term. Go learn economics.

[Catchme]

Our government is clearly utilizing "free market" enterprises all the time. As such, our medical services are already part of the "free market" and we are purchasing them from the "free market".

A free market would allow me to choose my provider, the current system does not.

As well, competition requires easy entrance and exit from a market, which our current health care scheme does not provide. I cannot setup a hospital, so the market isn't free, or even remotely competitive.

What do you mean a "freemarket" would allow you to choose your provider? That is so not true. Not only are you free to choose your health care provider/Dr in Canada you can see several Drs, who are considered private contractors BTW, for as many opinions as you want.

Again the government has free market dealings with independant businesses every minute of everyday in Canada, and this is no different. Again, Drs are considered independant contractors. They are NOT state employees. Most medical tests are done by MDS Metro, across Canada, another private "free market" enterprise.

Moreover, HMO's in the USA dictate what provider you use and even what type of treatment/tests/medicine that you can access. It would be no different if they came to Canada. Other than for Canadians, of course, who would be able to access less services for more money output.

Why should hospitals be competitive? They are there to provide services not shoddy services because of undercutting costs. Why do you think there are so many legal actions launched against hospitals Drs and HMO's in the USA? Money is more important than people.

Sure you can start a hospital, just as the Catholics have done. But you must administer it according to Canadian universal access to medicare laws, and set up billing to the government, as opposed to billing a 100's of HMO's respresenting 33 million Canadians.

Again government conducts itself in the "free market" all the time. This is no different other than it is more responsible to Canadians as opposed to unrestricted profits.

Those who advocate individual pay really do have to realize it is already individual pay and at must cheaper costs than what HMO's can offer. Remember American seniors coming here for drugs?

[White Doors]

I've been in Alberta for 10.5 years now and despite my trying, have never been able to get a family Dr.

I would easily pay $1000 a year just to have one, but no - I have to go without because of our socialogial hangups.

Hooray MEdicare!!!!

[Wilber]

It's estimated that over 100,000 people in BC can't find a family doctor. I don't know what the solution is but we sure as hell need more GPs.

I think hospitals being competitive is not a bad idea, competition means service as well as cost. They would also have to find out what their services actually cost to provide. There is no reason they couldn't compete under the public system, at least in metropolitan areas where there is more than one hospital. Their funding would depend on how well they can attract patients. I believe they have started doing this in the UK with good results so far.

[geoffrey]

I've been in Alberta for 10.5 years now and despite my trying, have never been able to get a family Dr.

I would easily pay $1000 a year just to have one, but no - I have to go without because of our socialogial hangups.

Hooray MEdicare!!!!

If your in Calgary, I think there is some openings with a few new Physicans at Health Plus in the deep South. Call quick, it's in the phone book.

[Catchme]

Excuse me your shortage of Drs in AB is your provinces responsibility it has nothing to do with the national Medicare act. If you have a Drs shortage address it with your province. Your supposedly swimming in ooil money why are they not training more Drs? Again hospitals are the provinces responsibility why are they not funding them thought you had mega bucks there?

Just imagine what kind of health care system you would have if your province actually sold the oil for what it is worth instead of giving the oils companies a record 86 billion dollar profit, off of the backs of Albertans and their health care system, in the last quarter?

Again the same holds true for the BC Liberals.

It is all about training Drs, or utilizing them in a different way. Again nurse praticioners is a good move to do.

If the system was was changed so that we all pay individually to several different service providers, instead of paying the government to pay them for us, there would still be the same shortage of Drs unless of course one had thousands and a house to mortage to pay off the Dr's hostage fees.

[Wilber]

It is all about training Drs, or utilizing them in a different way. Again nurse praticioners is a good move to do

Yup, all those things but it's also about keeping doctors. Training them for countries which put fewer obstacles in their way is not a solution. Our family doctor had a rant in the local paper yesterday. Even he says funding is not the problem, its the screwed up bureaucratic system that runs the system. Among other things the authority is too fragmented resulting in too little accountability and a whole bunch of frustration for those who work in it.

There was a feature on the news the other day. One of the two OBGYN's in Campbell River immigrated from SA a few years back. For personal reasons they had to return to SA for an extended period then they returned to Canada and reapplied. While he went right back into practice the Federal bureaucrats have told them they have to start all over and in the meantime the rest of his family can't work in Canada. Australia has made him an offer with no strings attached and while he doesn't want to go, thinks he might accept for his family's sake. The town is now up in arms because there is a good chance they are going to lose 50% of their obstetricians because of bureaucratic bone heads. This is very much a sellers market when it comes to labour and we have to stop shooting ourselves in the foot at every level.

[guyser]

Excuse me your shortage of Drs in AB is your provinces responsibility it has nothing to do with the national Medicare act. If you have a Drs shortage address it with your province. Your supposedly swimming in ooil money why are they not training more Drs? Again hospitals are the provinces responsibility why are they not funding them thought you had mega bucks there?

No kidding. There was/is a shortage of Docs in Huntsville, and what happens? The town gets the people together resulting in....Deerhurst Resort (very chi chi) offers a condo for free , a car dealer puts in a car to use + there were other offers.

It worked. Now with Alberta having all that oil and no one wanting to extend a monetary carrot to entice them , too bad for Alberta.

The again, the Docs overseer is likely to be blamed. Dont want those other countries docs practicing here. Oh no cant have that.

[Catchme]

It is all about training Drs, or utilizing them in a different way. Again nurse praticioners is a good move to do

Yup, all those things but it's also about keeping doctors. Training them for countries which put fewer obstacles in their way is not a solution. Our family doctor had a rant in the local paper yesterday. Even he says funding is not the problem, its the screwed up bureaucratic system that runs the system. Among other things the authority is too fragmented resulting in too little accountability and a whole bunch of frustration for those who work in it.

There was a feature on the news the other day. One of the two OBGYN's in Campbell River immigrated from SA a few years back. For personal reasons they had to return to SA for an extended period then they returned to Canada and reapplied. While he went right back into practice the Federal bureaucrats have told them they have to start all over and in the meantime the rest of his family can't work in Canada. Australia has made him an offer with no strings attached and while he doesn't want to go, thinks he might accept for his family's sake. The town is now up in arms because there is a good chance they are going to lose 50% of their obstetricians because of bureaucratic bone heads. This is very much a sellers market when it comes to labour and we have to stop shooting ourselves in the foot at every level.

Yes I concur, the bureaucratic system that is the Council of Physicians and Surgeons is blocking many outside of the country Drs. and indeed denying other persons the right to become a Dr. It is a very closed organization. And anyone wanting to be a Dr must submitt application to them.

And it is interesting that you mention Campbell River, my friend has been waiting for months now for surgery in CR, and cannot get it becaue of the situation you mention. She nows has to find a OBGYN in Nanaimo and go on their wait list.

Truly the Council of Physicians and Surgeons, should be stripped of its right to approve those applying. It should be open access as is the case with every other field of endeavour. But then there is also training spaces that are needed.

UNBC now has a new Drs program, and they are wiping clear student debts, if the Drs or nurses in training sign a contract saying they will remain in the north for 4 or 6 years, forget which. This initiative is an attempt to stem drain from the north to the south portions of the province.

There are many health boards that are getting innovative with their recruitments, some were found here in the north through advertising in Ski and Snowboarding magazines. Targeting those in the medical profession who are all about winter sports worked.