South Dakota Outlaws Abortion
Well it looks like my fears of the religious right taking away a women's right to choose have come to fruition. South Dakota just recently passed legislation basically outlawing abortion I believe this should be of great concern to all who value a women's right to choose. With the Supreme Court already having 4 conservative judges and likely to increase when Bush makes his next appointment, there is no guarantee this draconian and outdated law won't get struck down when it reaches the Supreme Court. If it passes the Supreme Court expect other states to make similiar laws. The religious right's growth has been quite frightening in the United States and the fact some Conservative MPs admire these extremists is quite disturbing. While I am not worried in the immediate future of Canada passing such law, those from the religious right need to reminded once again, we don't support their backward's views. They try to touch the abortion issue, I like many other open-minded Canadians will work hard to defeat any government that touches it and not just ensure their party gets thrown out of office, but annihiliated at the polls. What was once the nation of forward-thinking, liberty, and the inspiration to the rest of the World, seems to be moving backwards as the religious right gains control at all levels of government and all branches. Hopefully Americans will stand up to this nonsense this fall and defeat all the religious right Republicans. If not, its reputation as a forward looking nation will be severely diminished. While this is a domestic decision and they can do what they want, they can be assured this move to the far right will only lead to greater negativity in Canadian's opinions of their country.
posted by Monkey Loves to Fight at 12:23 AM
26 Comments:
So I take it you'll be bashing Ireland on this one too?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Ireland
The fact is, putting aside whether one personally believes abortion should be legal or not, the screwy manner in which Roe vs. Wade was initially decided puts it in jeopardy.
The decision was made on the basis that Amendment XIV provides a guarantee of privacy. The amendment reads as follows:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
You might have noticed that the word privacy appears nowhere in that amendment.
The one part of the US constitution that provides some measure of protection of privacy is Amendment IV, which states that "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..."
Amendment IV is not cited in the decision on Roe vs. Wade.
As Justice Rehnquist said in his dissenting decision: "To reach its result the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment."
That forms the basis of the opposition to Roe from a legal point of view.
I actually don't think that Roe is going to be overturned, given that Chief Justice Roberts concurred with the notion of a constitutionally protected right of privacy during his confirmation, and is said to have a habit of adhering to precedent.
My point is simply that Roe is on shaky ground not just because of some vast right wing conspiracy. There is a legal basis for the opposition to it.
That's where you have to decide, do you believe in natural inalienable rights that transcend the written law, or do you believe that judges out to actually interpret the law itself and leave their personal views out of it.
For example, in the Canadian case, is same sex-marriage a right that transcends law itself, or is it a right because some courts have said it is?
If you argue the latter, the defence you used for Paul Martin on the issue (that the courts called it a Charter issue and that he thus put his own past views aside) crumbles to pieces.
I'll finish by saying that this is an issue upon which reasonable people can disagree. There are compelling reasons on both sides.
And surely, if as you say, Paul Macartney can legitimately oppose clubbing baby seals on the basis of humanitarianism, then the people who oppose this on similar grounds surely must have a leg to stand on.
Because a lot of people see this as morally abhorrent on humanitarian grounds, rather than merely religious conviction alone.
And I don't think it's right to demonize people for genuinely feeling that way.
I just thought I'd add this to bolster my last point:
The doctor subsequently extracts the rest of the fetus, usually without the aid of forceps, leaving only the head still inside the birth canal. With sufficient force, the doctor inserts scissors into the base of the back of the skull. The doctor spreads the scissors to widen the opening, and then inserts a suction catheter. The brain tissue is removed, killing the fetus, and allowing the rest of the fetus to pass easily.
That from Wikipedia on "intact dilation and extraction" or "partial birth abortion."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intact_dilation_and_extraction
I'm well aware that that procedure isn't protected by Roe.
I simply meant to ask, do you honestly think people can legitimately be demonized for considering such a barbaric practice morally reprihensible?
I would certainly hope not.
Brandon - I don't agree with the Irish position, but it has been illegal in Ireland, so they aren't moving backwards, whereas South Dakota is going backwards. Regardless of whether it is constitutional or not, I believe it is a fundamental attack on a woman's right to control her own body. If Abortion is illegal we will go back to the days of women getting unsafe abortions in back alleys. This is not something I want and something you don't want. Off course reasonable people can agree to disagree on whether abortion is moral or not, but if you don't agree with abortion don't get one. But don't tell others they cannot get one. Now I'm not suggesting we will see women getting abortions in back alleys in South Dakota as for now they will probably travel out of state to get them. Still this is a slippery slope.
"if you don't agree with abortion don't get one."
I respect your viewpoint, but that is like saying to people who oppose the seal hunt on humanitarian grounds should be content with simply not participating in it themselves. The same could be said for opponents of the grizzly hunt, or whale hunt or what have you.
What I'm saying is, believing that abortion should be illegal is a legitimate point of view. As I was alluding to in my last comment, reasons for that point of view are broader than simply what you would believe to be religious fanaticism. Humanitarian concerns also come into play.
But, I'll certainly concede that whether it can be made illegal constitutionally is another matter.
Constitutionally (and politically) the issue is dead in Canada as the chances of changing the staus quo are slim to none.
In the US, there is a legal basis for the opposition to the status quo, and some measure of popular support for overturning it.
As for opponents of abortion vs. seal hunt, I think the circumstances are slightly different. Most of the seals killed are not used for meat so it is not necessary for one's survival, whereas abortion in the case of incest or rape is necessary. In addition much like the War in Drugs (note I think Vic Toews attitude on tougher sentences for drugs is totally backwards, but thats for another post) has failed to stop drugs, outlawing abortion will only create a black market. I would rather women have abortions that are legal and safe rather than in the back alleys where their lives are at risk.
Opposing the concept of abortion is a legitimate view and personally wanting to see it outlawed is too. But actually going ahead and outlawing it is a different matter.
I believe it is a constitutional right since court decisions operate along the rule of precedence so once one ruling is made others follow the precedence. This was the case with gay marriage and likewise I believe this will likely apply to future health care rulings unless waiting times dramatically drop. In the case of Canada, I believe restricting abortion violates section 7 - the right to life, liberty and security.
In the case of Canada, you are absolutely right, it would be political suicide, but my worry again comes back to Harper's civitas speech that socially conservative policies will be done gradually so no one will notice. Lets remember Canada under Trudeau didn't swing to the left quickly, rather he gradually implemented left wing policies that didn't lead to radical changes in the short-term, but lead to a radically different Canada in the 16 years he was in office, but there were never radical changes in any given year.
In the United States, unfortunately, outlawing abortion has a lot of support and very little is based on humanitarian grounds. It is largely driven by the religious right who want to base government policy on the Bible. This is a very large group, that no one should turn a blind eye on. Had they not shown up in huge numbers in November 2004, Kerry likely would have been president. It was this group who played a decisive role in re-electing Bush, so don't underestimate their influence. In addition support for abortion is strongest in the large metropolitan centres on the West Coast, Northeast and to a lesser extent in the Great Lakes. However, these areas no longer contain the majority of the population so their views are now in the minority in the US. My point is South Dakota is a small state and women wanting abortions can always go across the state line, but this is a slippery slope.
This could also be harmful to Canada's medicare system in the long-run. As Americans start coming North to get abortions if they become illegal in the US, this will mean more doctors exiting the public system especially essential services to provide abortions to Americans coming North. And unlike my proposals for a parallel private system which would require doctors to work so many hours in the public system, this rule wouldn't apply to providing services to those outside the CHA, which abortion for foreigners is. Britain takes in many Irish women wanting abortions, but since Britain has more than ten times the population of Ireland, this only has a minimal impact on their health system, but with the US being ten times as large as Canada it could have a large impact.
Opposing the concept of abortion is a legitimate view and personally wanting to see it outlawed is too.
I'm glad you can admit that.
And you're right that it's been ruled a constitutional right on either side of the border.
I also agree that the constitution has to prevail either way. And the only legitimate way to change a constitution is by amendment, not by judges with an agenda.
I'm just saying that constitutions are ultimately compromises and that people will have legitimate opinions on either side of constitutional issues.
For example, the US Supreme Court ruled that the line-item veto is unconstitutional.
That doesn't mean there weren't legitimate reasons for supporting the line-item veto to begin with.
I agree people can take different interpretations on the constitution when it comes to abortion, but once one decision is made, the precedent is set. That does not mean some future judge can make a different ruling, but using precent is followed. In the case of Canada we have the notwithstanding clause, although banning abortion and then using the notwithstanding clause to override it would be political suicide here. In the US, my fear is conservative judges would ignore Roe Vs. Wade due to their own opinion rather than legal reasoning. Anytime a judge ignores precedence, there should be a good reason.
Miles Lunn what an idiot.
Anonymous your comments just prove how intolerant you right wingers are. That is partly why I left the Conservatives for the Liberals was I was sick and tired of this idea one had to blindly follow the right wing agenda whereas the Liberals are a party of diversity that tolerates differences. We also believe in minority rights, not just majority rights.
The Conservatives represent a broad base of people, Miles: libertarians, capitalists, social conservatives etc. To say we all blindly follow the same agenda is absolute crap and you know it. I'm sure you don't like getting comments about being called an idiot, but to generalize all right-wingers under the same stereotype of intolerance is absolutely heinous. For shame, I'm sure you know better than that...or at least, I would hope that you do.
Miles knows that. He's just rightly pissed about what the anonymous poster had to say.
But I think this ties into the point I was trying to make here already. Too often (and especially on social issues) people on the left have a habit of trying to deem any opinion other than their own as illegitimate.
Like the subject of this post. If you disgree with social conservatives on an issue like this, fine. But I think one ought to respect the fact that people do have legitimate opinions on the opposite side of these kinds of issues.
People on the left talk about the intolerance of the right, and yet are often totally oblivous to their own intolerance toward opposing views.
BC Tory - I am not referring to all Conservatives, but rather the far right. I've found people on both extremes, left and right tend to be quite intolerant of people who don't subscribe to their views. I myself am centre-right, but I don't blindly follow the right wing ideology like the Reform Party did and the Republicans still for the most part do.
I do agree with Brandon that many on the left and I should say right as well take the view that anyone whose views are different than their own are illegitimate. In the case of social conservatives, I believe they have the right to hold their views, but no right to impose their values on others. It is one thing to believe abortion is morally wrong, which I can totally respect, it is quite another thing to impose this value on others by outlawing abortion. I've said and I'll say again, if you oppose abortion, don't get one. If you oppose gay marriage don't get married to a same sex partner. I think the perceived attitude anyways that the Liberals weren't tolerant of opinions different than their own probably hurt them. I know that is not true considering the diversity within the caucus, not to mention I've heard from people who know Paul Martin that he actually has more respect for people who disagree with him on some issues than people who just blindly fall in line.
All right, thanks for the clarification then.
I don't think it has to do with "the right" at all, it has do with people who think abortion is murder, and many of these people come from "the left" as well, in fact I know a few myself. I'm pro-abortion myself.
Are libertarians like myself who don't support the welfare state part of the "far right"? and if I am, am I also part of the anti-aborition crowd even though libertarians are pro-choice?
Clinton - Here is my response to both questions. I think it is completely legitimate to personally oppose abortion. Although I don't, I know many who do. However, like yourself I have strong libertarian leanings and I don't believe the government has the right to impose its values on others. Also the South Dakota bill is extreme in the extent it outlaws abortion even in rape and incest. Even George W. Bush who is pro-life said that abortion should be allowed in the case of incest and rape.
As for Libertarians being on the far right, I would argue that the left/right spectrum is rather out of date. Rather I tend to agree with the box idea with the upper right being conservative on both economic and social issues, lower right being libertarian, upper left being authoritarian, while lower left being left wing on economic and social issues. Anyone along any of the four corners I would call extreme. I am generally a libertarian, but I think one should distinguish between a pragmatic libertarian and a pure libertarian. A pragmatic libertarian is generally for less government and only supports government intervention when absolutely necessary. However they don't reject government intervention outright. This is where I fall. A pure libertarian believes government should only run the military, police, and courts and nothing else. Such system might work in a country of 500 people, but not of 32 million people. Since pure libertarians believe in trying to do something that is completely unrealistic, I wouldn't call them extremists, but rather unrealistic. Extremists rather in my view are those who blindly follow an ideology and base all their opinions on ideology while completely ignoring the facts.
...the Liberals are a party of diversity that tolerates differences.
Really? I beg to disagree, and cite your own sweeping generalizations of the "right wing" as suggestive of intolerence among Liberals. (and you are far, far from the worst in hat regard)
The abortion debate is rife with intolerence, on both sides. Even realizing that it was the political equivilent of shooting himself in the foot, I admired Stephen Harper for saying his views were complex. So are mine, and I'll bet so are yours.
But such is this debate that folks seem pressured to take a simplistic and sweeping "fer or agin us" position and are afraid to suggest that some areas maynot be so black and white.
Too bad.
When I say the Liberals tolerate difference of opinion, I am talking about party membership and members within the caucus. The reason they were condescending and insulting during the campaign is right or wrong, these tactics do work. If one feels embarassed to be a Conservative and feels it is un-Canadian to be Conservative, this will make them re-think voting Conservative. Also people will become embarassed to say they are Conservative and work for Conservative causes. Now I am not saying I support such campaign tactics. I am simply pointing out they work and so as long as they continue to work, I suspect they will continue to be used.
My views on abortion are really not that complex. I am 100% pro-choice and I oppose any restrictions on a women's right to choose. My only disagreement with some on the left, is except in the case of rape, incest, and when a woman's life is threatened, I don't believe the Canada Health Act requires abortions be covered. Unless the federal government brings forward legislation requiring that abortions be covered by the public plan, I don't believe they have the authority to fine provinces that refuse to fund non-medically necessary abortions. This rule applies to all medical procedures. If you need a hip replacement, the government must cover it, but if one day you decide to get a hip replacement even though your hip is perfectly fine, they you have to pay as it is not medically necessary. I should not I don't just support the right of a woman to choose, I personally approve of abortions and see absolutely nothing wrong with them.
Late-term abortions are controversial, but they are extremely rare and usually have good reasons, so I oppose a ban on late-term abortions, even though I am in the minority here. I also oppose a ban on partial-birth abortions, since despite some people's misgivings, I don't note see a fetus as a living being until it is born. My birth date is March 20, 1981, not June 1980 when I was most likely conceived, so prior to March 20, 1981, I was not a human being.
Miles, two things:
1) Just because you believe underhanded campaign tactics work, does that mean they should be used? Your position seems to state, if it gets the job done, go with it, no matter how vicious or how fallacious it is. Do you also support the Republicans using the Swift Boat ads in 2004 then? After all, they got a rise in the polls from it.
2) Who are these people who are ashamed to be Conservative, Miles? I have not talked to any such person, everyone I know is proud of their political background, be it Liberal, Conservative or whatever. Sometimes with friends with differing political opinions, I won't discuss my political opinions much, as I don't feel like inciting a big argument, which is what results when you tell a lefty you vote Conservative- something I don't do to them when they vote NDP or Liberal. But again, this is my personal experience, and if yours is different, please do elaborate.
BC Tory Here are my responses
1. The Swift Boat Ads were disgusting just as the Liberal military ads were. But much like corporations run ads to convince you to buy their goods and services, parties run ads to convince you to vote for them. For those who don't like negative advertising, don't vote for parties that do it. If negative advertising causes parties to lose votes, they will quit doing it. As long as parties who do it win elections, they will continue to do it. Its no different than Canadian Tire getting rid of the annoying person in all their ads since he was doing more harm than help to the company so they got rid of him.
2. I am not saying it worked, I am simply saying that was the goal. Right or wrong, there is a belief amongst certain segments that holding Conservative values is un-Canadian, whereas even those who disagree with the Liberals, very few see them as un-Canadian. Also the Liberal corruption countered this, which is why it failed. I know back in the 90s, the Reform Party/Canadian Alliance always did better on election day than polls stated as most people who voted for them were embarassed to say they voted for them as they were viewed as extreme, intolerant, lacking compassion, too American, and Un-Canadian.
Off course I don't talk about my political views in areas where it is inappropriate such as at a job interview, but I do mention my beliefs with people with different views. In fact when I use to be a Conservative for a brief period, I was actually embarassed to say I was a Conservative. I would always call myself a Progressive Conservative even when the party didn't exist, whereas now I am proud to call myself a Liberal. Perhaps this has to do with the fact I live in downtown Vancouver where Conservatives are generally viewed as backwards and intolerant. If I lived in Rural Alberta, I would probably be embarassed to say I was a Liberal.
My thoughts:
1. The Liberal ads were worse than the Swift Boat ads.
The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth included people who served with Kerry and at least one was an eyewitness to the events in question.
Of course there are other members of Kerry's crew who have contradicted them. I'm simply saying that it's matter of "he said, he said."
The only people who know who's lying and who's not are the people who were actually there.
If it's Kerry that is lying, then Kerry's the one who's conduct is despicable. I think the fact that Kerry took it upon himself to meet with a representative of the North Vietnamese regime in Paris while he was still a commissioned officer in the US Navy seems to indicate that his character is not above reproach
A far better example of Republican ads crossing the line would be those or Saxbee Chambliss accusing his opponent Max Cleland (who lost three limbs in Vietnam) of being unpatriotic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Cleland
The Chambliss's ads were slightly worse than Martin's, but erroneously implying that your opponent took illegal contributions from foreign extremists, that he is plotting with separatists to destroy the country and that he intends to impose martial law "in our cities" is nothing short of reprihensible.
The equivilant would have been the Tories mentioning that cocaine has been found on the hull of Martin's ships
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1088698898525_84108098?hub=TopStories
and that the Liberals eliminated the ports police, with the insinuation that he may have been involved in drug trafficking.
Could you even imagine how loud the howls of rage would be if Harper had ran an ad like that?
Miles, I highly doubt you'd be sitting back and just saying "hey, if it works" if that had happened.
2. This whole Canadian/un-Canadian thing is nonsense.
Individual Canadians have their own views, and they don't all correspond with those of the Liberal Party.
There are millions of Canadians who will never vote Liberal, and at least 1/3 of the electorate will never vote Liberal or NDP any time soon.
Are we just supposed to sit back and just concede that Canada and the Liberal Party are one in the same and not bother even trying to vote for people who represent our own views.
Miles, in mentioning rural Alberta, you're openly acknowledging that there are huge swaths of this country that do not and will not vote Liberal.
To say that the Liberals exclusively represent Canadian values is like saying that the latte sipping urbanite in downtown Vancouver or Toronto is somehow more Canadian than the cattle rancher in rural Alberta or the churchgoer in the Fraser Valley.
That's a load of garbage and you know it. We're all Canadians, and Canadian society is the sum of all 30 million of us, each with our own set of beliefs, opinions and values.
Kind of funny how the Liberals talk about how the bedrock Canadian value is a mutual respect and toleration for our differences, when they turn around and accuse anyone who dares to disagree with them as being "un-Canadian"
To me, that is nothing less than reverse McCarthyism.
Brandon
1. I think the military ad was definitely bad. The ad on the contributions was misleading, but they only said Harper is popular amongst right wingers in the US (which he is, Washington Times endorsement) and he never revealed his donors (He did for the Conservative leadership race, but not the Alliance leadership race, mind you Martin never did for the 1990 race either). I haven't seen the swift boat ads so I cannot comment. Lets also remember 7 out of the 11 Liberal ads were actual Harper quotes (although taken out of context).
2. I am not suggesting you must be a Liberal or a left winger to be a true Canadian nor is a Rural Albertan less Canadian than someone from downtown Vancouver. I am saying there is a stereotype that most Canadians are left wing and many on the left do believe that not being a leftist or Liberal is un-Canadian. I am not one who agrees with this, but you cannot deny there is a strong stereotype of Canadians being left wing. Lets remember downtown Toronto and downtown Vancouver is where the media comes from and where all the elites mostly come from. How often have you heard from others that being a right winger means you lack compassion, are intolerant, are American, or Un-Canadian. You cannot deny some people, even if wrong, do believe this. Also a common rebuttal is 64% of Canadians voted for left wing parties. Off course I find it hard to believe all Liberals are left wing. I wouldn't describe the North Shore or Richmond as left wing areas, if anything they are pretty conservative when you consider provincially those areas went massively BC Liberal. The same could be said about the 905 belt also. Never mind in Vancouver I would say Vancouver is definitely left wing on social issues, but split down the middle on fiscal issues as both municipally and provincially the BC Liberals and NPA got slightly more votes than Vision Vancouver and the BC NDP.
I also wouldn't say that 1/3 would never vote Liberal. In fact most in their 50s and 60s who voted Conservative (this is the demographic they are strongest amongst) in all likelihood voted Liberal in 1968 (the PCs got most of their support from people over 40 who are mostly dead today, while the people who went strongly for Trudeau are mostly still around and many are now Conservatives). Now true some of those people will probably never vote Liberal again and they may have been more left wing simply due to age since younger people are generally more left wing.
One more thing - I was referring primarily to letters to the editor, which I read many of. People on the left have no doubt been called some nasty and unfair names such as lazy, immoral, and corrupt. The same can be said about the right being called greedy, intolerant, and backward-looking, however I have never heard a right winger call a left winger un-Canadian whereas I have heard left wingers called right wingers un-Canadian. I don't agree with either of these stereotypes, but I am use to seeing them. Finally stereotypes often take traits of certain countries and then augment them. Since we are left wing relatively speaking when compared to the Americans, many try to exaggerate this by claiming our social safety net is as generous as Sweden (which it isn't) we are as socially liberal as the Netherlands (which we aren't, regretably), our government is as large as France (which it isn't), and our taxes are as high as the Scandinavian countries, Netherlands, France, and Italy (which they aren't). The only area I can think of off the top of my head where we are very left wing compared to the rest of the developed world is our attitude towards private health care for medically necessary services (if you include all health care services, the private sector actually plays a larger role in Canada than most EU countries since our plan is not nearly as comprehensive, i.e. little or no coverage for prescription drugs and dental care). Still many refer to our health care system as Soviet style.
Miles: My views on abortion are really not that complex. I am 100% pro-choice and I oppose any restrictions on a women's right to choose.
There is so much in this post that I only begin here for the sake of debate.
You are saying, are you, that you would agree to a woman's right to abort a fetus right uptil the moment of birth?
Because - that's the problem with law, be it rights or be it sanctions, if you say a right is absolute - then so it shall be.
Because you believe something "might not happen very often," doesn't mean that it won't or, in fact, doesn't happen.
Yet you seem willing, for the political expediency of labeling people who disagree as "right wing," to put absolutism into play.
That's exactly what's so sad about the Liberal party: it's mimicking of the most debase,undemocratic polarization of George Bush's Republican Party to try and cling to power - catagorizing anyone who questions its abolsutism as dangerous religeous right wing nuts.
It is so sad, so anti-democratic and, if not stopped, so evil.
Just change a word or two in your own sentences and you'll hear how just like George Bush you sound.
Oh, and by the way, I believe that until a certain term in pregnancy, and I'm not sure how long that is, a woman should have an unquestioned right to an abortion - so please - don't call me names.
But, and I haven't fully formulated how this would work, I'm not sure that right should be absolute.
I won't begin to comment on your ignorant, racist statements about rural Albertans. You shoud be ashamed - but you're a Paul Martin / Scott Reid Liberal - so I should have guessed you would play this dishonourable card. Shame on you anyway.
AB/ba
Anonymous - One of my Grandpas comes from Rural Alberta so I have nothing against Rural Alberta. I simply said my viewpoints would likely be different than they are living in downtown Vancouver. I also pointed that unfortunately far too many people here in downtown Vancouver do like down on Rural Alberta due to lack of understanding just as some from Rural Alberta look down on Toronto.
As for abortion, most Canadians don't support third trimester abortions so I admit I am in the minority here. As for the name calling, I was referring to the religious right in the United States who have been pushing hard to base government policy on biblical principles. This is a very powerful group and they scare the living hell out of me. They can hold whatever opinions they want, unfortunately they feel it is their moral duty to impose their values on others and I will fight back against those who wish to impose their values on mine. I have my right to my values as everybody else does and as long as one respects them I am okay.
As for the name calling and insults by Paul Martin and Scott Reid. I agree it went over the top, although when you are ten points behind in the polls, what other choice do you have but to go negative. Had they not gone negative, Harper would have probably won around 140 seats and the Liberals likely only around 80 seats, so while morally it was wrong, strategically it was right. Since being a Liberal was becoming increasingly unpopular and more and more people were ashamed to admit to being Liberals, by going negative the goal was to turn this on its head and make being a Tory embarassing and something no one would want to be. In the end they failed since it looked more like desperation than genuine attacks.
Hello !.
You re, I guess , probably very interested to know how one can make real money .
There is no need to invest much at first. You may start earning with as small sum of money as 20-100 dollars.
AimTrust is what you need
The company represents an offshore structure with advanced asset management technologies in production and delivery of pipes for oil and gas.
It is based in Panama with structures everywhere: In USA, Canada, Cyprus.
Do you want to become a happy investor?
That`s your choice That`s what you desire!
I feel good, I started to take up income with the help of this company,
and I invite you to do the same. It`s all about how to choose a correct companion utilizes your savings in a right way - that`s AimTrust!.
I make 2G daily, and my first deposit was 1 grand only!
It`s easy to start , just click this link http://hivanadyt.kogaryu.com/ipykexi.html
and lucky you`re! Let`s take our chance together to feel the smell of real money
Post a Comment
<< Home