# Religious Right Reveals Con Hidden Agenda



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

The stealth campaign that Harper and his boys are running, attempting to keep their legions of socially conservative candidates and supporters quiet, while they attempt to convince middle of the road Canadians that the new Conservatives are really just a centrist party, has started to develop a few cracks.

Evangelical anti-abortionist groups are complaining about Harper muzzling the social conservative voices of their favourite candidates. They claim that Conservative Party candidates are refusing to answer questionnaires put out by “pro-life” and “pro-family” groups. A web site called LifeSiteNews.com claims to have a copy of a Conservative Party memo ordering candidates “not to sign written pledges of any kind during the election period”. They have quite a few Con candidates on the record telling them they’ve been ordered not to discuss their views.

This has got the evangelicals pretty P O’d. They believe that it’s important for Conservative candidates with anti-abortion and anti-gay views to speak up, so as to provide “that added boost many voters need to get out to the polls and support the candidate who best represents them.”



> From LifeSiteNews.com:
> 
> [Campaign Life Coalition] National President Jim Hughes told LifeSiteNews.com, "If this is true, and the party is dictating this, then it's a bonehead move on their part and it puts the lie to what they've been claiming regarding transparency."* Hughes added, "they're leaving themselves open to charges of a hidden agenda again.*It remains to be seen whether the Conservative brain trust will totally clarify ths situation before it becomes a major last minute election gaffe."
> 
> ...


And I agree with them. Don’t hide your agenda. Don’t listen to that pinko dictator Harper. Speak up and tell the world how you can’t wait to get that seat in Parliament so you can re-open the same-sex marriage debate and make abortion illegal again. Stand up for Canada and testify to us all of your intolerance, racism and narrow-minded petty hatred for those who don’t share your beliefs. Go for it guys! Someone hand Stockwell Day a microphone.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Nice gift for the Liberals.


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

"They have to talk this way to get elected..."


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

The Doug said:


> "They have to talk this way to get elected..."


... talk this way to get elected, or in other words, lie.

sez Harper: No we aren't hiding anything, just focusing on other things, things that people won't find worrisome. (makes creepy smile)

Yes folks, nothing to see here. Oh look over there, corruption and scandal, scandal and corruption!!!


----------



## Myrddin Emrys (May 24, 2005)

Conservatives intolerant? Repressed maybe... :lmao:


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Welcome to politics. The Conservatives learned the game, although they're still having trouble with some of their supporters.


----------



## Beachy Cove (Mar 12, 2005)

*Abortion: Who are the Real Extremists?*

In am really tired of being hectored by this shallow, shrill rhetoric. Is this what I am supposed to stand for as a Canadian?

Did you know that Canada is the only nation in the "civilized" world with absolutely no law governing abortion? Are you really proud of that? Think about it.

A foetus is viable outside the womb at around 26 weeks. At this moment, it is perfectly possible under the (absence of) law in Canada for some zealot to terminate a pregnancy at, say, 36 weeks, or even at 40 weeks. Are you really saying that all thinking people ought to support this under any and all circumstances, and that this alone represents the true and the good? That way lies madness.

Does it (abortion at more than 26 weeks) happen in Canada? We frankly don't know, for though presumably it is rare, it is totally licit. It's open season. The Dept. of Health, in its paradixical secretive-propagandist wisdom, even refuses to release any meaningful statistics - in fact it covers up the data by describing all abortions as natural miscarriages/D&Cs. Why the secrecy if it's such a wonderful gift from the gods of rights and freedoms? Could it possible be the someone is afraid of the notion that the truth that absolute rights and absolute freedom is the same thing as tyranny?

Why not set a limit of 26 weeks? Wouldn't that be a model of moderation? 

I suspect that the vast majority of Canadian people, if for once confronted by the facts, would say that it is a moral obscenity to deny - as do the NDP, the Liberals, the Bloc, and the Conservatives alike - that abortion needs some sort of reasonable legal regulation. We regulate abbatoirs and dog kennels, for God's sake! To say that there ought to be a law against abortion of a fully formed, viable-outside-the-womb foetus of 36 weeks, as in all other legal jurisdictions on the planet, is not an extremist position, and it is not the same thing as to say that all abortion ought to be banned. It is not to say that abortion ought to be severely curtailed. Nor is to prove yourself a right-wing nut-case. What it amounts to is a perfectly reasonable claim that there are moral and legal limits here, as in the whole of life, that need to be drawn.

So yes, perhaps millions of people in this country would be bitterly disappointed, if they ever thought about it, that neither the Conservatives nor anyone else proposes to impose some reasonable limit on abortion. And yes, I have to tell you that the reason they do not wish to brooch the question is because they are indeed very afraid of you, because people who seem to "think" like you have all the power, in media, in the courts, in the law, and, as it happens, in much of Liberal government. 

But the fact is that all but a tiny minority of these people who find your views disturbing would continue to allow for abortion within some sort of limits, even generous limits. Are you so generous? You think so, to be sure! But your insinuation that even opening up a discussion of the issue is a threat to Canadian "virtue" gives the lie to your protestations of openness. 

Political life is about living with others with whom you often disagree. It is not about shoving your prejudices down their throats with a jackboot. At this moment in time, I respectfully suggest, the jackboot is firmly on the feet of people like you. And the word "jackboot" is not too strong a term to use: you scare me. 

You scare me because it happens that the political left has murdered vastly more people than the political right in our era. It is not only rightists who are "scary," virtue is not unique to the political left, and extremism is a two-way street.

No doubt you intend well. But you need to go learn some ethics, get outside your elitist Canadian bubble ("we are always right"), ponder some facts, maybe meditate or pray even a little, and hopefully find for yourself a little more moral sanity.

And if more people did it this country would be a better place.



*****




GratuitousApplesauce said:


> The stealth campaign that Harper and his boys are running, attempting to keep their legions of socially conservative candidates and supporters quiet, while they attempt to convince middle of the road Canadians that the new Conservatives are really just a centrist party, has started to develop a few cracks.
> 
> Evangelical anti-abortionist groups are complaining about Harper muzzling the social conservative voices of their favourite candidates. They claim that Conservative Party candidates are refusing to answer questionnaires put out by “pro-life” and “pro-family” groups. A web site called LifeSiteNews.com claims to have a copy of a Conservative Party memo ordering candidates “not to sign written pledges of any kind during the election period”. They have quite a few Con candidates on the record telling them they’ve been ordered not to discuss their views.
> 
> ...


:baby:


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

It's good to have another point of view on the matter, and it opens up an interesting point for debate.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

I believe that Harper's on record as not planning on revisiting the aborition issue. :clap:


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

I wanna smack you Beachy Cove. Seriously.

Edit: Not for your views, you don't think abortion is good and that's fine. I was a vegetarian for a good eight months because my guinea pig had babies and I just decided I didn't want to eat meat because it was wrong and immoral. But did I ever force my views onto anyone? No. Anti-abortionists just sicken me everytime I see them like holy mind your own business, if you don't like it that's okay but don't threaten people to get your point across.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Is there no reason to argue some scientific-based limit? Right now our approach does work, but it isn't codified. Is our policy to place our trust in individual doctors? That is one option, and not unreasonable, just odd. 

I think this is a reasonable topic for discussion. Can science draw a line between human and pre-human? How about the 'reasonable' expectation of a normal life? There is no magical occurrence, as demonstrated by caesarians, about being outside the womb. When do human rights begin? All great grist for discussion but, sadly, also great grist for anger by many.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Beachy Cove said:


> In am really tired of being hectored by this shallow, shrill rhetoric. Is this what I am supposed to stand for as a Canadian?
> ...
> 
> Political life is about living with others with whom you often disagree. It is not about shoving your prejudices down their throats with a jackboot. At this moment in time, I respectfully suggest, the jackboot is firmly on the feet of people like you. And the word "jackboot" is not too strong a term to use: you scare me.
> ...


Interesting, the religious right hits ehMac.

Hey Beachy, thanks for proving my point. Please speak out, it's a free country. Just don't tell Harper you're speaking up, he wants you to be very quiet for the next week or two.

Pardon me if I pass up on your suggestions about doing some praying. It's a little hard to do with my jackboots on. Not to mention the fact that I'm a morally insane elitist.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Interesting, the religious right hits ehMac.
> 
> Hey Beachy, thanks for proving my point. Please speak out, it's a free country. Just don't tell Harper you're speaking up, he wants you to be very quiet for the next week or two.
> 
> Pardon me if I pass up on your suggestions about doing some praying. It's a little hard to do with my jackboots on. Not to mention the fact that I'm a morally insane elitist.


Can we all cut the rhetoric and name calling? Respond to his points if you must - but merely denigrating others while not responding to points (whether you consider them legitimate or not) is not the way to win friends and influence others.

The responses thus far in this topic have disappointed greatly.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

dona83 said:


> I wanna smack you Beachy Cove. Seriously.
> 
> Edit: Not for your views, you don't think abortion is good and that's fine. I was a vegetarian for a good eight months because my guinea pig had babies and I just decided I didn't want to eat meat because it was wrong and immoral. But did I ever force my views onto anyone? No. Anti-abortionists just sicken me everytime I see them like holy mind your own business, if you don't like it that's okay but don't threaten people to get your point across.


I want to make no other point than its ironic that you said "if you don't like it that's okay but don't threaten people to get your point across", when your started your own point with "I wanna smack you Beachy Cove. Seriously."


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

MLeh said:


> Can we all cut the rhetoric and name calling? Respond to his points if you must - but merely denigrating others while not responding to points (whether you consider them legitimate or not) is not the way to win friends and influence others.
> 
> The responses thus far in this topic have disappointed greatly.


I agree... discuss and argue the issues.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Interesting, the religious right hits ehMac.


Between Macnutt and some of the other tools trolling around here I am about to bow out. I honestly looked to ehMac.ca as a community of like minded individuals. I more than enjoy a good discussion and have been the instigator of many a heated exchange.

Over the past couple of years I've been here I think I have mellowed out, and certainly taken more conservative views on things like the environment (probably agree with Macnutt that Kyoto is a bad idea). I have also doubled my efforts and thoughts that same sex marriage are essentially to Canadian freedoms. At this point however, the discourse is no longer constructive. I find myself wanting to reach through the ether and smack a few people as they are being ignorant and obtuse.

Generally I don't mind people being ignorant and obtuse, so long as they keep it to themselves. I can't change other peoples minds on certain issues and I have to live with that. That being said unfortunately more and more of the people who need to shut up and listen... won't, and to make matters worse they feel compelled to "educate" others on why their ignorance is the way it should be for everyone else.

I need to take more lessons from Sonal on tolerance... as mine has been wearing thin.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Another non-response, just denigrating empty attacks. I suspect some have considered bowing out for the same reason, but opposite politics. Welcome to diversity.

For all:
If abortion eligibility is determined by medical associations (I said individual doctors earlier, not sure if that's correct, but I'll go with this) is that what is wanted? They too make choices about what is and is not allowed, based more on science but, regardless, do choose to allow and disallow abortions (or do they define no limitations?). 

This seems like an odd solution, but it seems to work. Others, like accounting organisations, are entrusted with similar responsibilities. It's not 'cool' to equate the two, but there are parallels of professional organisations self-regulating.

Without needlessly denigrating others, and thus debasing one's self, is this a good solution?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beachy Cove said:


> A foetus is viable outside the womb at around 26 weeks.


Then yank the little creature out of the womb and see how longs it survives on it's own.

This is about free choice and personal freedoms. The decision to have an abortion is not one that is taken lightly by any one I know. 

Funny how anti-abortionist are quick to dictate how others should live but are rarely ready to assume responsibilities and help others.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

So the current approach (still need a clear description of this) is ok? 

I'm not against it (does it have limits?) and tend to lean towards our current odd balance, but just want to see a discussion of the issue and not attacks on others based on them being different from an undefined status quo. Even attacks based on a defined status quo would require some clarity.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> Welcome to politics. The Conservatives learned the game, although they're still having trouble with some of their supporters.


Except that this is endemic to the Cons. I don't think that the Greens, NDP or even the Liberals are ready to lie as much as these cretins.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> So the current approach (still need a clear description of this) is ok?
> 
> I'm not against it (does it have limits?)


It's a woman's choice. It's her body - 
If I wanted to be frivolous, I would say allow abortion until the age of 18 - that way you can always keep your kid in line....


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Except that this is endemic to the Cons. I don't think that the Greens, NDP or even the Liberals are ready to lie as much as these cretins.


Could be, although when too much is 'enough' is a personal choice. 

The Conservatives do have more to avoid in the sense of their proportions of social conservatives. The Liberals have similar diversity as the Cons, but social conservatism is clearly in the minority in the Liberal party. 

I actually found it somewhat telling that only the Liberal party had anything approaching representative diversity on the issue of same-sex marriage. NDP, Bloc and Conservative were near 100% for or against, while Canada was divided.

Back to the dominant, though not title, issue. I would like to see many common attackers show that they aren't left-Harpers. You have leaned somewhat towards an honest and open discussion, but others have not.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> It's a woman's choice. It's her body -
> If I wanted to be frivolous, I would say allow abortion until the age of 18 - that way you can always keep your kid in line....


Do they have full choice, right to the end, under the current system?


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Beej said:


> Another non-response, just denigrating empty attacks. I suspect some have considered bowing out for the same reason, but opposite politics. Welcome to diversity.


I'm certainly not going to get drawn into a discussion on abortion with an anti-abortionist, who decided to register on ehMac today and hijack a discussion with some very shrill arguments and much name-calling.

What my original point in the first post was has little to do with whether abortion is right or wrong, my personal opinions are beside the point. I disagree with the right-to-lifers and that's all I'm going to say on that issue, because the discussion is essentially pointless. No one's going to convince anyone here.

My original point was that Harper is covering up the views of many of his supporters and candidates and this is evidence of a hidden agenda. If they are so proud of these supporters and candidates many who as well as wanting to make abortion illegal, would ban homosexuality, then why issue directives to be silent. 

The only reason is very clear, because if people knew what many of the Cons real views on issues were, including Harper himself and the team of neo-conservatives behind him, the Cons wouldn't be in the position of possibly forming the government.

People should know who it is they are thinking about voting for, but Harper's whole campaign this time has been to cover that up. So far he's been successful at that. 

So please, ultra-social-conservatives, vent away.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> My original point was that Harper is covering up the views of many of his supporters and candidates and this is evidence of a hidden agenda. If they are so proud of these supporters and candidates many who as well as wanting to make abortion illegal, would ban homosexuality, then why issue directives to be silent.
> 
> The only reason is very clear, because if people knew what many of the Cons real views on issues were, including Harper himself and the team of neo-conservatives behind him, the Cons wouldn't be in the position of possibly forming the government.


Some would call this clever campaigning. It's worked to the south and in other countries - why not here. 
I respect people who tell me honestly what their views are.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> What my original point in the first post was has little to do with whether abortion is right or wrong, my personal opinions are beside the point. I disagree with the right-to-lifers and that's all I'm going to say on that issue, because the discussion is essentially pointless. No one's going to convince anyone here.


That applies to much of the discussion in this area. It also doesn't justify denigration. Some of the points may have, but they weren't identified, just smears.

The discussion, in my opinion, can be useful to learn how others think if it is done without being dominated by slurs. You may not change your mind, but you may learn something about others. Maybe not. If that's the standard, consider that standard applied in other threads...not beneficial and very dogmatic. 

There is much more than to public discussion than convincing others or hanging out with like-minded individuals (not your words). For example, so-cons who want that comfort-food should hang out at Free Dominion.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

da_jonesy said:


> Between Macnutt and some of the other tools trolling around here I am about to bow out. I honestly looked to ehMac.ca as a community of like minded individuals. I more than enjoy a good discussion and have been the instigator of many a heated exchange.
> 
> Over the past couple of years I've been here I think I have mellowed out, and certainly taken more conservative views on things like the environment (probably agree with Macnutt that Kyoto is a bad idea). I have also doubled my efforts and thoughts that same sex marriage are essentially to Canadian freedoms. At this point however, the discourse is no longer constructive. I find myself wanting to reach through the ether and smack a few people as they are being ignorant and obtuse.
> 
> ...


"Generally I don't mind people being ignorant and obtuse, so long as they keep it to themselves." That's the reason they are ignorant: they can't keep it to themselves. They toss out half-baked opinions long before they've given themselves a chance to think thru all the possibile downsides to their ideas. We're all guilty of mis-informed ideas. But only the truly ignorant begin peaching them before evaluting them fully.

Anyways, I have the opposite opinion. I love dealing with "extremists." That's why I come here. I love to harrass and taunt them, pointing out the absurbities and heartlessness of their positions. I find political discussion with "moderates" to be boring.

Maybe it's because I'm a "radical liberal" (or "moderate libertarian"). My opinions are also somewhat "extreme."

By the way, I don't think MacNutt is a troll. Here's been here a pretty long time. I don't like his opinions, but I love the opportunity to pound sense into another heartless reactionary.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> Do they have full choice, right to the end, under the current system?


I cannot dictate what a woman does with her body - the decision is 100% hers.

I'm in agreement with Canada's laws on abortion. While I don't think there should be limits, I think that it is a hard decision for any woman to do. The facts are that most abortions are performed in the first trimester (90%) and just 2 to 3 % after 16 weeks. I wish that in Quebec, more funding went to abortion clinics and also offered free counselling before and after.


----------



## jicon (Jan 12, 2005)

dona83 said:


> I was a vegetarian for a good eight months because my guinea pig had babies and I just decided I didn't want to eat meat because it was wrong and immoral. But did I ever force my views onto anyone? No.


Interesting point about the guinea pig enlightenment.
Is it abortion if you eat the baby after it is born?

Sorry... but I REALLY couldn't resist...
-One ticket to hell please...


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> I cannot dictate what a woman does with her body - the decision is 100% hers.
> 
> I'm in agreement with Canada's laws on abortion. While I don't think there should be limits, I think that it is a hard decision for any woman to do. The facts are that most abortions are performed in the first trimester (90%) and just 2 to 3 % after 16 weeks. I wish that in Quebec, more funding went to abortion clinics and also offered free counselling before and after.


Thank you. A clear statement.

To push it, for discussion purposes, does this apply right up until outside the womb? Pragmatically, I doubt a doctor would abort an 8.5 month pregancy, but that doesn't seem to be what you're saying. The current rules, as I inexpertly understand them, involve either doctor or medical association decisions that do not neccessarily follow the 100% rule.

For me, I lean towards some point of 'baby-rights', but would lean towards medical associations self-regulating. It's far from perfect, but it limits political interference.

This is a good discussion. Thank you, again.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

Beachy Cove said:


> I suspect that the vast majority of Canadian people, if for once confronted by the facts, would say that it is a moral obscenity to deny - as do the NDP, the Liberals, the Bloc, and the Conservatives alike - that abortion needs some sort of reasonable legal regulation.


Canadians know this fact. You are not delievering any new facts to anyone, Beachy the Baptist.



Beachy Cove said:


> You scare me because it happens that the political left has murdered vastly more people than the political right in our era. It is not only rightists who are "scary," virtue is not unique to the political left, and extremism is a two-way street.


Who are the political left? Communists? What are the political right? Fascists?

It is not "left" nor "right" that has murdered millions in the modern era. It has been tyrants. Communism/fascism and left/right are just window-dressing terms that hide the underlying theory: a society without freedom or privacy. The only difference between red-shirts and brown-shirts is superficial colour-scheme, not ideology. They are the same politics, just different slogans.

"Extremism" doesn't kill anyone. Extreme pacifists are pretty harmless, for instance.



Beachy Cove said:


> No doubt you intend well. But you need to go learn some ethics, get outside your elitist Canadian bubble ("we are always right"), ponder some facts, maybe meditate or pray even a little, and hopefully find for yourself a little more moral sanity.


You have knowledge of what is ethical and factual? Sorry, I haven't heard it from you yet. And praying doesn't deliver ethics magically into the brain.

Abortion is not unethical. Human rights do not apply to the unborn.

I call this "the parable of the acorn." The fetus does not have rights for the same reason an acorn doesn't have leaves. And just as there is no "magical" cut-off between acorn and tree, there is no cut-off between fetus and human. Attempting to define a cut-off in order to advance your ethical theory is simply trying to manufacture physical facts to support unfounded ethical theories.

Why doesn't a fetus have rights? Because rights are a legal protection from the government. The government cannot violate the rights of the fetus directly because the woman already has rights protecting her from the government.

Rights cannot be used to increase the power of the government. Rights are a limitation on the power of government, protecting the individual. By claiming that the fetus has "rights," you are demanding greater power for the government. In other words, you are deliberately *inverting* the meaning of rights to advance a political agenda. (The fascist and communist tyrants used similar ideas to create "moral legitimacy" for their excessive power.)


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> I call this "the parable of the acorn." The fetus does not have rights for the same reason an acorn doesn't have leaves. *And just as there is no "magical" cut-off between acorn and tree*, there is no cut-off between fetus and human. Attempting to define a cut-off.....


You been reading your Vedas again !!!!! That's a reeeeaaaalllly key concept. The illusion of differentiation.

.......gonna remember that next time you get all biblical on me 

John Fowles would approve heartily.

......your argument could be easily turned back on you tho


----------



## Eukaryotic (Jan 24, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> ... (makes creepy smile)


YES!


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

Actually, I've never read the Rig Veda, I just more-or-less know what's in there. But the illusion of differentiation is not really my point. An acorn is different from a tree - for instance, an acorn doesn't have leaves!

There is a greater difference between a tree and a log. A log is dead, a tree is not. That's a fundamental difference!

And there is a difference between a woman defining her own life, and having the government define it for her. Ethically, a woman may become a mother if she chooses to, but no one can choose it for her. Just as no one can ethically make anyone a doctor, a soldier, or a servant. They can do it, but they cannot claim to be ethical doing so. That's why the "pro-life" movement is morally *in the wrong*.

I've never gotten "biblical" on you. We were just diagreeing on whether "evil" is an exclusively biblical word or not. In case you forgot, I was right! 

Good luck trying to turn this parable against me.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

lpkmckenna said:


> Why doesn't a fetus have rights? Because rights are a legal protection from the government. The government cannot violate the rights of the fetus directly because the woman already has rights protecting her from the government.
> 
> Rights cannot be used to increase the power of the government. Rights are a limitation on the power of government, protecting the individual.


An excellent post and much valued contribution, but not as cut-and-dry as seems to be implied.

Rights aren't only a legal protection from government, depending on the interpretation of rights. A basic difference, though not objectively absolute by any means. Rights, although applying to the individual, are not sourced in and of themselves from an individual. They can be sourced from a collective defense. It's ugly, and open to abuse (you mentioned examples) but a practiced and necessary option. Individual rights only practically exist at the behest and active pursuit of government, whatever form it may be.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Okay - I will.

What you have laid out is the that all such "differentiations" are inherently illusionary - it's we who supply the parameters for differentiation.

An acorn is just one aspect of treeness or the process of becoming a tree in a continuity.

WE choose to subdivide it into sections just as WE choose to define the various aspects of the "process of becoming human".

It's a CHOICE of where the "other than mother" begins and where rights are acquired.

That point may change in public consciousness such as acceptance of gays as a part of the human spectrum instead of aberration or be changed in a legal form which currently sits at "not a person" outside the mother.

The point during the progress of "becoming a human" where the incipient human acquires "rights' is a choice.

Society can view the as "the greater good" in overuling a woman's right to to choice with her person by choosing a point earlier than physical separation. Perhaps last trimester for instance. Many would view that over riding as a fundamental intrusion.

It IS a choice society can make......whether it SHOULD is the question.

I personally feel the choice of that "point" is between woman and physician as opposed to being imposed by society.
Rights are assigned not inherent.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Anti-abortionists will always be so. No amount of arguing or fact will ever make them change their decision.

Abortion will never become a political issue. Any politician that would even dare bring it would would be obliterated in any election.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> It's a CHOICE of where the "other than mother" begins and where rights are acquired.


Never heard that way of referring to it before, but I like it.

If you are, "other than mother", you should simply shut up. It doesn't involve you.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

SINC said:


> If you are, "other than mother", you should simply shut up. It doesn't involve you.


That applies so well to most social issues, including marriage. Of course, on the topic at hand, the doctor/medical association seems to have a say.


----------



## Beachy Cove (Mar 12, 2005)

*Smacking - and other violent attitudes!*

Maybe you ought to read what I wrote and deal with the details rather than assume I'm anti-abortionist. What I said is that there are different kinds of extremism, and a great many of them are alive and well and living on the left. 

By the way, I don't want to smack anybody. I'd just like to hear a little less total crap on this question.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Beachy Cove said:


> ... maybe meditate or pray even a little, and hopefully find for yourself a little more moral sanity...


There are none so blind as those who look for answers on their knees with their eyes closed.


----------



## Beachy Cove (Mar 12, 2005)

*None so bilind, or none so deaf?*

If I meditate or pray (they are not the same things, by the way), I tend to keep my eyes open and I prefer to walk in the country. Was Gandhi blind because he prayed? (He prayed a great deal - hours a day.)

On the other hand, there are undoubtedly none so deaf as those who will not listen.

What, exactly, makes anyone think in all of this that I am from the religious right? What I said actually represents the social consensus on abortion in most of the Western world - and even in the Canadian medical profession, the members of which, as somebody said some posts back, will of course not generally abort a foetus at 38 weeks. So why can't we acknowledge such common decency in the law, and draw a limit? Is the vacuum at the heart of Canadian public life so vast that it is impossible to talk meaningfully about such things?

What I tried to point out is that many of the people who are unhappy with the Canadian stance, or lack of stance, on this issue (to repeat: we have no abortion law at all) have a very good point, in that they as soon as they so much as cough about it, they encounter the most violent prejudices, from, of all people, the rights and freedoms brigade. I am personally heartily tired of those who villify these people - and yes, evangelicals and political conservatives are people too, haven't you noticed? - and then smugly suppose that such open villification is virtue. What have they ever done to you? A good many of them feed your homeless. They were also largely responsible for the foundation of the Canadian welfare state, though that too is a suppressed little detail about them about which it is impossible to speak publically (Tommy Douglas - Baptist minister; original CCF/ NDP constitution down to VERY recently: full of quotes from the Bible). 

There are many kinds of intolerance: again, the left killed many millions more than the right. And it did it in the name of freedom. So even freedom needs its limits, or it becomes merely a hollow shell.

I think it fair to say that some of the discussion appears to support my basic claim. Thank you for the feedback.

I am sorry to have upset some of you. I don't normally contribute to any such on-line discussion, but I saw this and, in the context of THOSE BLOODY LIBERAL ADVERTS, I just snapped.

Last post on the subject.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beachy Cove said:


> There are many kinds of intolerance: again, the left killed many millions more than the right. And it did it in the name of freedom. So even freedom needs its limits, or it becomes merely a hollow shell.


Dude, you are scaring the children....


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Oh and Beachy, if you want, I'll set up a video cam in my bedroom cause I think you are the kind of person who would get off on that...
Remember valium is your friend.

OMG - I just snapped! Those bloody seal eating NeoCons.....


----------



## tedj (Sep 9, 2004)

*shameful forum altogether*



Beachy Cove said:


> What I tried to point out is that many of the people who are unhappy with the Canadian stance [...] have a very good point, in that they as soon as they so much as cough about it, they encounter the most violent prejudices, from, of all people, the rights and freedoms brigade. I am personally heartily tired of those who villify these people - and yes, evangelicals and political conservatives are people too, haven't you noticed? - and then smugly suppose that such open villification is virtue.


Here here!! Very well done.

Fact is, I'm surprised that on a site such as this so many purport to know the truth (imagining that all ideas liberal are presuppositionless and self-evident) about anything other than APPLE COMPUTERS, PEOPLE!!!! 

This is not the "I'm-a-lefty-and-proud-of-it-and-will-smack(!?)-anyone-who-disagrees-with-my-"enlightened"-view Forum, eh?"

For f*cksake, it's a Canadian Apple users fan-forum. Help someone with their goddam broken imac, convince an MS user that OSX is the answer. Leave the self-righteousness at the door.

As I see it, this forum has turned into nothing but a masturbatory back-slap. The way so many ehmacers treat new members such as this "Beachy Cove", I'm surprised they're against the right's (apparent?) immigration policies.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Ahh tedj, what's the matter?
You see, I'm not even a lefty. Libertarian actually, so I do take offence at being labelled Liberal.

The quote from Cozy Beach was great and was something that I though well articulated. 

Then out of nowhere "the left killed many millions more than the right. " and you have to wonder WTF?

And please note that this it the "everything else" section. Fanboys have other sections....


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

The 'l' wasn't capitalized in 'liberal'...big difference.

[Edit: unless the post was editted]


----------



## tedj (Sep 9, 2004)

ArtistSeries said:


> Then out of nowhere "the left killed many millions more than the right. " and you have to wonder WTF?


Sorry, I wasn't wondering WTF... please explain why you were wondering WTF. Because I wasn't wondering WTF.

You might mean, by "TF": "I'm sure, yeah, millions on the left, Beachy old boy, but there's millions on the right too. A little Stalin here, a little Adolf there." But "WTF"? Nope. I wasn't wondering that. Didn't seem to be T pressing F at the moment. The debate, if there ever was one, passed into TF right from the get go, but you're still, like, W?

Was there anyone else wondering WTF?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> and even in the Canadian medical profession, the members of which, as somebody said some posts back, will of course not generally abort a foetus at 38 weeks


If it ain't broke, don't fix it comes to mind. The issue is between a woman and her doctor.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

I do agree with macdoc on this one and have stated it many times in this thread.

The WTF came about because the subject at hand is the right to choose.
We get a nice opening about semantics.

An obfuscation of his religious background. Some ones trying to force their opinion on abortion (without really citing or explanation). An honest question.

Again, what seems like his agenda. Feeling that he feels prejudiced upon because Canadians prefer freedoms over letting "evangelicals and political conservatives" dictate our lives. Then there is a rant against the "welfare state. And we should be grateful to these men of religion.

And then: "the left killed many millions more than the right. And it did it in the name of freedom. So even freedom needs its limits, or it becomes merely a hollow shell." This is about abortion? What does the left/right have to do with any of this?

Then pointing out that some agree with him.

And then an attack on the Liberals?


yes WTF indeed....


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

MacDoc said:


> If it ain't broke, don't fix it comes to mind. The issue is between a woman and her doctor.


You may not think its broke but then again, your not the one facing the scalpel. My wife is in her 26th week of pregnancy and those kicks I can feel from her belly are not coming from a lump of lifeless tissue. To me, to willfully choose to ignore the issue is like driving past a burning school bus full of children and turning your head in the other direction as you drive on by. 
Abortion is a complex issue but to have absolutely no laws governing it is barbaric.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacGuiver said:


> Abortion is a complex issue but to have absolutely no laws governing it is barbaric.
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


Or, absolutely correct, depending on your personal opinion of course.

Woman/doctor/decision is the right way.

Any other way is an emotional knee jerk.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> You may not think its broke but then again, your not the one facing the scalpel


Neither are you - it's your wife's choice period. Any influence she grants you or her doctor or society is also her choice.....have along talk with your sperm if it makes you feel better.

They face extinction every time you hit the john.


----------



## tedj (Sep 9, 2004)

ArtistSeries said:


> Ahh tedj, what's the matter?
> You see, I'm not even a lefty. Libertarian actually, so I do take offence at being labelled Liberal.


Oh, you sophisticated little snowflake! I apologize...


----------



## tedj (Sep 9, 2004)

SINC said:


> Or, absolutely correct, depending on your personal opinion of course.
> 
> Woman/doctor/decision is the right way.
> 
> Any other way is an emotional knee jerk.


That is quite possibly the most illogically constructed three lines of argument, ever. The first line sets us up with the familiar tenant of our faith, while the second and third argue against the universality of the (correctness=personal opinion, of course.)

Unless, of course, you totally omit the first, leaving the still-unsubtantiated second and third lines which only rest upon the general assertion of the first. Good thing Macdoc was there with the second rebuttle, completely ignoring MacGuiver's point that "abortion is a complex issue" that must take into account the life of the whatever-the-hell it is. Hmmmm.... best course of action? Confuse him with jedi mind-fallacies. And belittle him. Yep. That's the best course.

And, PS, I couldn't care less about abortion, really. Nor is it that I am conservative. Nope, I simply think you really ought to have a better argument of some sort, other than bullying, name calling, and buzz words like "neo-con"(yikes!) or "hidden agenda".

For instance, and this is something I've heard alot lately: "Darth Harper and his Emperial Neo-cons have a hidden agenda-- they're going to turn us to the dark side, and we'll have to go to church and have babies! And then, we'll be in cahoots with the evil and wrinkly Emperor Bush. Damn his oppressive forces of neo-con agenda. Only Jack Layton and his wise (and experienced) forces of pure, responsible goodness can get us out of this agenda. Neo-Agenda! Hidden! Neo-hidden! Vote NDP!!"


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Abortion is NOT a complex issue. A woman decides, period. Regardless of laws, browbeating, it WILL be her decision unless she is physically restrained to term.

Any other "complexity", is an artifact.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Abortion is NOT a complex issue. A woman decides, period. Regardless of laws, browbeating, it WILL be her decision unless she is physically restrained to term.
> 
> Any other "complexity", is an artifact.


It is complex. 

At the heart of arbortion is a philosophical assumption. You are assuming a fetus is not a distinct living being. You are assuming it is a part of the mother, much like any other body part.

But...If one were to look at DNA, the fetus is clearly a separate person. If one were to look at feelings of pain, then at some point during the pregnancy, the baby crosses this threshold. When does the baby obtain a spirit? When do we as humans become self aware? Maybe science still needs to progress in this area to answer some of these questions. 

In some people's minds, abortion is murder and I can respect that viewpoint. It doesn't happen to be my own. I think a womens right to choose wins out over another person's freedom of religion / philosophy.

I don't think abortion should be between a woman and her doctor. I think the father should have a say in the whole situation. I also don't think woman should just be able to have immediate access to an abortion. Hormones can cause pregnant woman to make irrational decisions. I think there should be a waiting period and a mandatory eduction program in which the woman hears all sides of the abortion argument. I think we need to ask why the want an abortion. Maybe there is something the government and somebody else can do to resolve their problems. 

This is not a proceedure we want to encourage.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

In your response Vandave, all I see is someone trying to dictate and impose their point of view. 

There is a difference between have a procedure available and doing all that you can to discourage and place roadblocks. You make it sound as if "hormones" in women's bodies render them stupid. And, a woman who decides on an abortion already knows all the arguments, distressing her with "sides" of an argument is not progressive. It's getting in the way of someone's choice.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> In your response Vandave, all I see is someone trying to dictate and impose their point of view.
> 
> There is a difference between have a procedure available and doing all that you can to discourage and place roadblocks. You make it sound as if "hormones" in women's bodies render them stupid. And, a woman who decides on an abortion already knows all the arguments, distressing her with "sides" of an argument is not progressive. It's getting in the way of someone's choice.


They aren't buying a pair of shoes, this is a life decision. I don't care if the government gets in the way of making a choice and forces a little bit of time.

The government does this all the time (e.g. gun waiting period).


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> They aren't buying a pair of shoes, this is a life decision. I don't care if the government gets in the way of making a choice and forces a little bit of time.


Don't you think that a woman has though of this before goes to the clinic?
You are trying to impose your views when this has nothing to do with abortion.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Vandave said:


> They aren't buying a pair of shoes, this is a life decision. I don't care if the government gets in the way of making a choice and forces a little bit of time.
> 
> The government does this all the time (e.g. gun waiting period).


You are comparing forcing a woman to go through an unwanted pregnancy to the wait time for purchasing a gun?

Did I get that right?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

No Vandave YOU make it complex - you are bringing into play societal values and your values and it does not matter what laws you pass, what pronouncements you make THE WOMAN WILL DECIDE.

What level of safety a woman has in her decision EITHER WAY is up to society but she WILL choose her path. Short of physical restraint there nothing you can do about it.

All you are stating is that society's view of abortion is varied and engages conflicting "greater goods" and in that creates tension and dissent.

The decision to terminate a pregnancy is straight forward tho the path to the decision may be difficult.... 
A woman will choose to terminate or not regardless of "imposed rules". It's not complex in the least.

Society's say in the matter is to acknowledge this reality and make EITHER choice she makes as safe and constructive as possible.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

There is a role beyond mother-doctor, as demonstrated by alcohol consumption during pregnancy. Should the choice to consume alcohol during pregnancy be completely free and clear of laws because it's no one's business?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Vandave said:


> It is complex.


Unless you make it simple by ignoring the complexity.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Beej said:


> Unless you make it simple by ignoring the complexity.


:clap: :clap: :clap: 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Beej - freedom is double edged.....short of getting a judges order for commitment to a facility due to insanity you won't get far with that argument. It's as easily extendible to eating too little during pregnancy, going horse back riding - the list goes on and on.

It's hard enough for society to step in on behalf of children against "parental rights" let alone interfere in a pregnancy.  *Small Change* is an excellent movie about the state and children.

Just the aspect of things like corporal punishment is fraught with issues pitting parent versus state versus child's right.

•••

What is being hidden here in all the noise of "complexity" is that you have no control over a woman's decision and you don't like it 

Chattels again shall we.....please your male egos to no end I bet.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

double post


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> What is being hidden here in all the noise of "complexity" is that you have no control over a woman's decision and you don't like it
> 
> Chattels again shall we.....please your male egos to no end I bet.


MacDoc being MacDoc.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Folks I am at a loss on this one. I see a lot of "guys" making decisions for the women.

Tell me... which of you thinks that it is morally acceptable to FORCE a woman to go through an unwanted pregnancy?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> No Vandave YOU make it complex - you are bringing into play societal values and your values and it does not matter what laws you pass, what pronouncements you make THE WOMAN WILL DECIDE.


I totally agree. I am placing my values and societal values into the equation. How else do you build a society? Our society requires a fundamental moral underpinning. I also agree with you that a woman has the right to decide. But, society also has a responsibility to ensure the woman understands all points of view and makes an informed decision. 

Assuming that a person who gets an abortion has looked at all sides of the equation is naive at best. 

If people in Canada have to wait 2 years for heart surgery, surely a person could wait a couple weeks for an abortion.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Beej said:


> MacDoc being MacDoc.


Yeah Beej you must beat your wife and kids. I know I do and that is why I have a problem with the death of an unborn child. My lack of compassion for all living things is the driving force of my concern for the millions of deaths of unborn babies. Now if you'll excuse me the dog is barking again and I can't seem to find my baseball bat.  

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Vandave said:


> If people in Canada have to wait 2 years for heart surgery, surely a person could wait a couple weeks for an abortion.


Dude have you ever gone through the process? It is not like you can walk in off the street and get one. You have to schedule a an appointment... there is a process.

It's not like there is a convenient drive through window... seriously did you think it was like going to Tim Horton's?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> Tell me... which of you thinks that it is morally acceptable to FORCE a woman to go through an unwanted pregnancy?


Because time is of the essence...
Same question for each of:
Month 7, 8 and 9.

Is there a role for the state at any stage?

Is there a role for the state in what can be consumed during pregnancy? 

If there is a role, is it done after the fact (like almost all laws are enforced) or as preventative (how? seems infeasible)?

Believing the answer is no to all of the above is a fair position, but said position doesn't require denigration of others.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> Dude have you ever gone through the process? It is not like you can walk in off the street and get one. You have to schedule a an appointment... there is a process.
> 
> It's not like there is a convenient drive through window... seriously did you think it was like going to Tim Horton's?


No, I haven't and I don't think it is like Tim Horton's.

All I am saying is that it shouldn't be easy, nor should it be encouraged. Our goal should be to reduce abortions. We should understand why somebody wants to get an abortion and see what we can do to solve their problems. Maybe a big hug from society is all some people need to feel more secure about themselves and worry less about having a child. You know... it takes a village to raise a child... 

The decision to have an abortion is based on 'negative consequence' thinking. I don't want to have a child because...(I can't finish school, I don't have enough money, I want to have a social life, I don't want my parents to know, I don't want to raise a child). The government or other groups can help solve many of these issues.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> How else do you build a society?


You start by recognising your rights stop at someone else's nose......or body.
That of course is IF you believe in personal freedom.

If you don't well - welcome to fascism. It'll accomplish everything you want ...as long as you happen to be in the ruling oligarchy.

••••

So Vandave is your name on the waiting list to adopt unwanted children..talk is cheap.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Beej said:


> Because time is of the essence...
> Same question for each of:
> Month 7, 8 and 9.
> 
> ...



I think that the current consensus around fetus viability outside of the womb pretty much covers that.

As for denigrating others... well I have to try to be more tolerant (it is tough).

A related aside (but very much pertinent to the thread)...

What I am starting to see in Conservative values is somewhat of a paradox to me. Conservatives claim to value freedoms right? You should be free to own a firearm. You should be free to choose where to spend your child car dollars. You should be free to choose how your health care dollars are spent. etc...

Why is it that the party that is so adamant about personal freedoms is against the personal freedom to marry someone of the same gender? or terminate an unwanted pregnancy? In each of these cases, by "Conservative values" they want to remove the rights of others? 

I don't get it.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> Folks I am at a loss on this one. I see a lot of "guys" making decisions for the women.
> 
> Tell me... which of you thinks that it is morally acceptable to FORCE a woman to go through an unwanted pregnancy?


Well, except in the case of rape ... pregnancy is generally a foreseeable consequence of particular actions.

I'd personally like to get to the point in society, and life, where all children are wanted, and where people consider the potential consequences of their actions. Too many people use abortion as a form of birth control. Is this right?

And the long term consequences of having an abortion - are pretty immediate for the fetus involved, but also result in a lot of problems for the women later on. I have a friend who is mentally tortured because of a mistake she made when she was young and single, and the abortion seemed the best immediate resolution to the problem. It was at the time ... but the consequences are far reaching.

As people have said - no simple answers.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Vandave said:


> All I am saying is that it shouldn't be easy, nor should it be encouraged. Our goal should be to reduce abortions. We should understand why somebody wants to get an abortion and see what we can do to solve their problems. Maybe a big hug from society is all some people need to feel more secure about themselves and worry less about having a child. You know... it takes a village to raise a child...
> 
> The decision to have an abortion is based on 'negative consequence' thinking. I don't want to have a child because...(I can't finish school, I don't have enough money, I want to have a social life, I don't want my parents to know, I don't want to raise a child). The government or other groups can help solve many of these issues.


Now you are talking...

My wife teaches a program for teen moms at our local school board (pre and post natal teen moms can attend her class and continue to work towards credits for their high school diploma. I think it is a great option, however the publicly funded separate school board refuses to offer the same program. NO provisions are made for teen mothers.

At issue here (to me) is the hypocrisy inherent in organized religion interfering in social issues. No you shouldn't get an abortion, and if you do... well you are out of luck then aren't you?

Can anyone tell me of the last church run program for teen moms they have seen?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> You start by recognising your rights stop at someone else's nose......or body.
> That of course is IF you believe in personal freedom.
> 
> If you don't well - welcome to fascism. It'll accomplish everything you want ...as long as you happen to be in the ruling oligarchy.


That is a good working definition and I also believe in personal freedom.

But… prove to me that fetus isn’t a separate person whose rights are being infringed by an abortion. 

You can’t ignore the philosophical side of this discussion. What is life and when does it start?

I can’t prove it either way, nor do I think science can at this time.

Now it comes down to religion and philosophy, neither of which are definitive things that can be proven. Thus, personal freedom overrides somebody else’s beliefs and that is why I believe in a woman’s right to chose. 

But then again, when it comes to killing another being, maybe we should err on the side of caution. If we really don’t know, then why are we doing it? Hmmm… I see my opinion changing now that I think more deeply about this…


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MLeh said:


> Too many people use abortion as a form of birth control. Is this right?


Abortion is not a form of birth control... who do you know that uses this as a systemic form of birth control like condoms or the pill? Do you have any idea how traumatic this is for the woman? 

If there is anyone here who can point to a woman who says she enjoys getting an abortion please let me know.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> I think that the current consensus around fetus viability outside of the womb pretty much covers that.


True, that means abortions are not needed at this stage, it's more akin to an adoption. 

Some proponents want this codified, while others prefer the current system as a matter of pragmatism. The risk of codifying is that politicis may keep pushing the date, whereas pragmatics let science push it. 

I prefer the current system, but don't see why people who want a pragmatic result codified should be insulted.

Freedom is complex, but Canada has done it quite well.

[Edit: By the way, thanks for some engaging posts. Things started off quite bad here but, with exceptions, have improved.]


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Freedom is complex, but Canada has done it quite well.


Now THAT is indeed the case, in both aspects.

•••

Let's solve the problem all drinking water contains contraceptives, women drink bottled water when they want to concieve, societal engineering at it's finest.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> Abortion is not a form of birth control... who do you know that uses this as a systemic form of birth control like condoms or the pill? Do you have any idea how traumatic this is for the woman?
> 
> If there is anyone here who can point to a woman who says she enjoys getting an abortion please let me know.


Enjoys? No. Has repeateded abortions and continues to refuse to use any other form of birth control? Many.


----------



## tedj (Sep 9, 2004)

da_jonesy said:


> What I am starting to see in Conservative values is somewhat of a paradox to me. Conservatives claim to value freedoms right? You should be free to own a firearm. You should be free to choose where to spend your child car dollars. You should be free to choose how your health care dollars are spent. etc...
> 
> Why is it that the party that is so adamant about personal freedoms is against the personal freedom to marry someone of the same gender? or terminate an unwanted pregnancy? In each of these cases, by "Conservative values" they want to remove the rights of others?
> 
> I don't get it.


Conservatives, of course, want to CONSERVE these freedoms, and believe that freedoms are not to be allowed an infinite reign, even in the individual. Think of Tocqueville: the manifestations of the ideas of freedom and equality always, eventually, contradict each other in some way.
The thing is, conservatives tend to not be "Progressive" because at the heart they believe democratic liberalism not to be unquestionable, self-evident, etc., but a very good idea that might one day become self-destructive if not guarded closely. Guarding means to define explicitly--i.e., in law-- and hence does not open itself up to an unbridled progress of what the individual may will.
Hence, what was once liberal is now conservative... James Madison, for instance, was very skeptical about the inherent goodness of democracy and the free reign of individual rights, but was, for that time, radically liberal. Remember, the founders of democracy knew that progress was not co-equal with goodness.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> Abortion is not a form of birth control... who do you know that uses this as a systemic form of birth control like condoms or the pill? Do you have any idea how traumatic this is for the woman?
> 
> If there is anyone here who can point to a woman who says she enjoys getting an abortion please let me know.



I have known women who have had multiple abortions, and use them as a form of birth control, otherwise I would not have made this statement.

Can't say as they claim to 'enjoy' them. Rather endure them the same way some of us endure other regular medical procedures.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

tedj said:


> Conservatives, of course, want to CONSERVE these freedoms, and believe that freedoms are not to be allowed an infinite reign, even in the individual. Think of Tocqueville: the manifestations of the ideas of freedom and equality always, eventually, contradict each other in some way.
> The thing is, conservatives tend to not be "Progressive" because at the heart they believe democratic liberalism not to be unquestionable, self-evident, etc., but a very good idea that might one day become self-destructive if not guarded closely. Guarding means to define explicitly--i.e., in law-- and hence does not open itself up to an unbridled progress of what the individual may will.
> Hence, what was once liberal is now conservative... James Madison, for instance, was very skeptical about the inherent goodness of democracy and the free reign of individual rights, but was, for that time, radically liberal. Remember, the founders of democracy knew that progress was not co-equal with goodness.



If I can add ... personal or individual freedoms should not come at expense of the greater good, or what is best for society. There is a point when an individual freedom infringes upon the freedom of another, or the freedom of the whole of society. The rule of law is not really applicable to individual rights but what is in the best interests of society. 

This is, of course, a moving target.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Speaks the incipient fascist.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MLeh said:


> If I can add ... personal or individual freedoms should not come at expense of the greater good, or what is best for society. There is a point when an individual freedom infringes upon the freedom of another, or the freedom of the whole of society. The rule of law is not really applicable to individual rights but what is in the best interests of society.


Um, so where is the societal benefit to handgun ownership? And why don't the conservatives support a complete handgun ban in Canada?

Um, isn't it in the best interests of society to pool our resources together in collective agreements? So why are the conservatives against organized labour and taxation?


----------



## tedj (Sep 9, 2004)

da_jonesy said:


> Um, so where is the societal benefit to handgun ownership? And why don't the conservatives support a complete handgun ban in Canada?
> 
> 
> da_jonesy said:
> ...


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Speaks the incipient fascist.


Pardon me?


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> Um, so where is the societal benefit to handgun ownership? And why don't the conservatives support a complete handgun ban in Canada?
> 
> Um, isn't it in the best interests of society to pool our resources together in collective agreements? So why are the conservatives against organized labour and taxation?



I believe the official line is that the existing laws are more than sufficient and merely need to be enforced.

And is not society one big collective agreement governed under the laws of the country? 

Organised labour has it's place, especially in ensuring workplace health & working conditions. But has organised labour gone beyond that tenet and become more of an elistist system protecting only that portion of the workforce who pay dues to the union?

Conservatives are not against taxation. Conservatives are against 'unfair' taxation. RevMatt and I have had more than one discussion about the goal of taxation: is it to be used to collect money to pay for social programs, or is it to be used as method of income adjustment?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MLeh said:


> Pardon me?


MacDoc being MacDoc.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MLeh said:


> Conservatives are not against taxation. Conservatives are against 'unfair' taxation. RevMatt and I have had more than one discussion about the goal of taxation: is it to be used to collect money to pay for social programs, or is it to be used as method of income adjustment?


That's a good question. 

I suspect many lefties are really closet communists and will support any type of social programs as a backhanded way of adjusting income (i.e. the real Hidden Agenda of the NDP).


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

Beej said:


> MacDoc being MacDoc.


So I'd gathered.

However, the best 'first' response to what I perceive as incredible rudeness is to give MacDoc the opportunity to elucidate or recant.

His choice.

(In other words, to MacDoc: "Is that the BEST you've got? Don't trifle with me, child.")


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MLeh said:


> However, the best 'first' response to what I perceive as incredible rudeness is to give MacDoc the opportunity to elucidate or recant.


I would agree, if I thought this was a relatively isolated event (everybody has their days) and if...well, just a whole bunch of ifs.

-Cheers


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Vandave said:


> I suspect many lefties are really closet communists and will support any type of social programs as a backhanded way of adjusting income (i.e. the real Hidden Agenda of the NDP).


Do you really, honestly believe that? Are you serious in thinking that there is a Left Wing hidden communist agenda being put forth by the NDP?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

For me, income taxes should fund social programs and some income equalisation (not just across provincial governments). 

I would probably differ with lefties about the amount, though. Of course, in some places, I am a leftie!


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

Beej said:


> For me, income taxes should fund social programs and some income equalisation (not just across provincial governments).
> 
> I would probably differ with lefties about the amount, though. Of course, in some places, I am a leftie!


See - that's the problem. 'Left' or 'right' is all relative to the basis of comparison. 

Which is why lumping all Conservatives into one 'easily distinguishable package' is just as much a fallacy as thinking that all Liberals have the same agenda or values, or all NDPers would just as soon live in a commune somewhere on an island in the Strait...


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

da_jonesy said:


> Do you really, honestly believe that? Are you serious in thinking that there is a Left Wing hidden communist agenda being put forth by the NDP?


I'm guessing he's being tongue-in-cheek.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> Do you really, honestly believe that? Are you serious in thinking that there is a Left Wing hidden communist agenda being put forth by the NDP?


No, otherwise I would have said NDP.

I think some people within the NDP do support such an agenda though.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

Beachy Cove said:


> even in the Canadian medical profession, the members of which, as somebody said some posts back, will of course not generally abort a foetus at 38 weeks. So why can't we acknowledge such common decency in the law, and draw a limit?


Because we don't need to.



Beachy Cove said:


> Is the vacuum at the heart of Canadian public life so vast that it is impossible to talk meaningfully about such things?


Since you have said little which is meaningful, I guess not. 



Beachy Cove said:


> There are many kinds of intolerance: again, the left killed many millions more than the right. And it did it in the name of freedom. So even freedom needs its limits, or it becomes merely a hollow shell.


I guess you didn't even read my rebuttal of your position. You can find it at: http://www.ehmac.ca/showthread.php?p=338713#post338713



Beachy Cove said:


> I think it fair to say that some of the discussion appears to support my basic claim. Thank you for the feedback.


I think it fair to say you didn't read anything the pro-choice crowd wrote.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

vandave said:


> Our goal should be to reduce abortions. We should understand why somebody wants to get an abortion and see what we can do to solve their problems.
> 
> The government or other groups can help solve many of these issues.


That is your goal but you seem to imply that we should put road blocks to a woman's choice. Any woman that I know who has gone through this procedure, gave it a lot of mulling over. You are asking the government to impose a moral choice for society when the chose is already there. If abortion is against your "moral code" then you can voice your concern to your partner. If she agrees with your point of view and she accidentally becomes pregnant then abortion is not an option for her. If she believes in a woman's right to choose, then you have no say, with the exception to your opinion. 

I have made my moral choice about abortion. It is first and foremost the woman's choice and I don't believe in any restrictions. I don't think that a foetus is a separate being and hate to see others impose their moral views. The foetus has no consciousness until very late in the pregnancy. Not many abortions are performed in that period of the term.






MLeh said:


> I'd personally like to get to the point in society, and life, where all children are wanted, and where people consider the potential consequences of their actions. Too many people use abortion as a form of birth control. Is this right?
> 
> If I can add ... personal or individual freedoms should not come at expense of the greater good, or what is best for society.


How can forcing a woman to endure an unwanted pregnancy be for the good of society? In most cases you will be ruining at the least two lives....
While I agree with your statement, forced pregnancies, anti-abortion indoctrination and the lack of respect for a woman harms society magnitudes greater than freedom of choice.

If you want to do good in society, sex education for teenagers is the better choice. I don't know of anyone who uses abortion as a form of birth control but if this is your worry, offering sex education at the high school level should be a priority then.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> What you have laid out is the that all such "differentiations" are inherently illusionary - it's we who supply the parameters for differentiation.


I never said any such thing. You are infering what I am *not* implying.



MacDoc said:


> An acorn is just one aspect of treeness or the process of becoming a tree in a continuity.
> 
> WE choose to subdivide it into sections just as WE choose to define the various aspects of the "process of becoming human".


What I said is this: there is no dividing line between when a fetus stops being a fetus and becomes a human, so there is no point where human rights for the unborn can be pegged.

What you are saying appears to be this: there is no dividing point behind anything. All differentiation is created by our consciousness, by our choices. I *emphatically* reject this viewpoint.



MacDoc said:


> It's a CHOICE of where the "other than mother" begins and where rights are acquired.


Whose choice? The woman's? The government's? Society's? Where there is a choice, there is someone doing the choosing. Who is it?



MacDoc said:


> That point may change in public consciousness such as acceptance of gays as a part of the human spectrum instead of aberration or be changed in a legal form which currently sits at "not a person" outside the mother.


Homosexuality has *always* been ethical, just as the earth has always been round. It has been a moral failing of society not to recognize it. Our minds have been clouded by the delusions of religious thinking (i.e. unprovable belief), which have now been (mostly) replaced by scientific thinking. Rational thinking is the basis of moral thinking. That's why religious moral thinking is so cruel, callous, close-minded.



MacDoc said:


> The point during the progress of "becoming a human" where the incipient human acquires "rights' is a choice.


Again, whose choice?




MacDoc said:


> Society can view the as "the greater good" in overuling a woman's right to to choice with her person by choosing a point earlier than physical separation. Perhaps last trimester for instance. Many would view that over riding as a fundamental intrusion.
> 
> It IS a choice society can make......whether it SHOULD is the question.


Ah ha! The cat is outta the bag. MacDoc, you seem to believe that "society" creates truth (i.e. differentiation).

Your "social subjectivism" is the root cause of all tyrannical governments.

Truth is not manufactured by the mind, neither social nor individual. Truth is drawn from observed facts and logical conclusions. Man does not create truth - he discovers it!

There is no such thing as "the greater good." The is only the individual good. In fact, "the individual good" is an unnecessary redundancy. There is only "the good."

The "greater good" is a sick rationalization for violating the rights of some, for the ostensible benefit of many. I say ostensible because objectively, the many *never* benefit from the sacrifice of the few.



MacDoc said:


> Rights are assigned not inherent.


Assigned? By who? The government? Gee, that's awfully convenient for the government, but not so convenient for the citizens.

Rights are inherent. They are a characteristic of man, as surely as breathing, eating, and sleeping are characteristics of man.

Time for some Ayn Rand:

Man faces a fundamental choice: live or die. Death will come on its own, but to live a man must meet the objective requirements of his survival: he must eat, sleep, drink, rest, seek shelter from the environment, seek protection from danger, and so on.

And, he must seek safety from his fellow man, who may choose at any moment to snatch the food, water, shelter, and even the life of his neighbor at any time.

Thus man needs even more: he needs government.

Government exists to protect man's survival. A lone man can be reasonably safe from packs of animals, but not from a gang of man. The existence of many individuals in a single geographical location makes objective laws a requirement to live peacefully together, without violence.

But man's survival requires more than meeting his physical needs. Man cannot gather food, build homes, draft laws, or even communicate basic ideas without: thought. Man's reasoning mind is the real source of his survival.

But thought requires certain social conditions to function. The mind requires freedom of thought. And to implement one's thoughts, a man requires freedom of action. Thus, an effective (i.e. morally legitimate) government must observe its citizen's need of free thought and free action. Thus, the concept of rights.

Freedom is the fundamental requirement of man's mind. Man's mind is a fundmental requirement for man's survival. Thus, political rights protecting man's freedom are an inherent characteristic of man's nature.

So yes, rights *are* inherent, not assigned.

This is about all I can effectively communicate, sitting in the basement of the Sun Financial Building using some cafe's free wifi, so if you're looking for further clarification, Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead would be a great place to start.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

Vandave said:


> That's a good question.
> 
> I suspect many lefties are really closet communists and will support any type of social programs as a backhanded way of adjusting income (i.e. the real Hidden Agenda of the NDP).


Give me a break! Unless you are a mind-reader, you cannot know this fact. They don't know what many lefties really think.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

Vandave said:


> At the heart of arbortion is a philosophical assumption. You are assuming a fetus is not a distinct living being. You are assuming it is a part of the mother, much like any other body part.


Stop telling me what I think. I make no such assumption.



Vandave said:


> But...If one were to look at DNA, the fetus is clearly a separate person.


Trees, chickens, cattle, dafodils - they too have their own DNA. Is it wrong to kill them?



Vandave said:


> If one were to look at feelings of pain, then at some point during the pregnancy, the baby crosses this threshold.


Cows, pigs, chickens - they have feelings of pain too. Is it wrong to kill them?



Vandave said:


> When does the baby obtain a spirit?


Spare me your superstitious nonsense. And more importantly, don't use your religious beliefs as a crutch to make political laws controlling my body. 



Vandave said:


> When do we as humans become self aware? Maybe science still needs to progress in this area to answer some of these questions.


You don't strike me as a man of science.



Vandave said:


> I don't think abortion should be between a woman and her doctor. I think the father should have a say in the whole situation.


Uh, why? He doesn't have to carry the baby.



Vandave said:


> I also don't think woman should just be able to have immediate access to an abortion. Hormones can cause pregnant woman to make irrational decisions.


So let's just take away their freedom? You misogynistic orge! 



Vandave said:


> I think there should be a waiting period and a mandatory eduction program in which the woman hears all sides of the abortion argument.


Yeah, let the baby develop for a few more weeks, so it can go thru that painful, spirit-killing abortion even more self-aware!



Vandave said:


> I think we need to ask why the want an abortion. Maybe there is something the government and somebody else can do to resolve their problems.


Or maybe, they don't want to have a baby at that time? Maybe they'd like to finish school first? Maybe she'd like to get over a medical situation (say, depression or bulimia) or escape a poor social situation (abusive parents, poverty) or any other reason. Or maybe, none of that is any of your business?


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

--- double post deleted ---


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> Speaks the incipient fascist.


Who is the incipient fascist you speak of? MLeh or Tocqueville? Your post is really unclear.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

MLeh said:


> If I can add ... personal or individual freedoms should not come at expense of the greater good, or what is best for society.


There is no such thing as "the greater good" or "what is best for society." See my lengthy post to MacDoc above.

And the fact that you and MacDoc use the same illegitimate political terminology isn't lost on me. 



MLeh said:


> There is a point when an individual freedom infringes upon the freedom of another, or the freedom of the whole of society.


Could you give an example? 'Cause, that's the most ridiculous thing I've read in days.



MLeh said:


> The rule of law is not really applicable to individual rights but what is in the best interests of society.


Do you even know what "the rule of law" means? Doesn't seem like it.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

Ok, 6 posts in one day on a single topic is enough. See ya tomorrow.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

lpkmckenna said:


> Stop telling me what I think. I make no such assumption.


Idiot.

Your post is not worthy of a response beyond this.


----------



## tedj (Sep 9, 2004)

lpkmckenna said:


> Truth is not manufactured by the mind, neither social nor individual. Truth is drawn from observed facts and logical conclusions. Man does not create truth - he discovers it!
> 
> There is no such thing as "the greater good." The is only the individual good. In fact, "the individual good" is an unnecessary redundancy. There is only "the good."
> 
> ...


The necessary (man needs rights to live well) is not the "ought" (man must live well) without some principle of the "deservedness" of Being (capital B, duderino.) Nothing is inherently deserving without some share in that which "IS" -- and lets not name the "G" word here. Only the rational mind can grasp the argumentation which leads to a "right", and that must start at a single proposition. 

For instance, freedom is not "inherently" good because without it man won't be man-- who gives a rat's ace if man is alive, dead, in-between, or in a vegi-state besides man? You must first prove whatever way that "the world of flux", as the pre-Socratics put it, or "multiplicity", as Augustine said (not that we want to even speak of Xianity here....shudder!!) takes part in a certain sharing of "inherent-ness", or "in-itself-ness." Thus, the inherent deservedness and the undeservedness of rights are "mixed" in a reality of things that are not inherently actualized of "rights". Instead, it is only the rational mind which must overcome a life that is, without it, (and I'm sure your Rand would agree) "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." 

Thus, without you arguing to a first principle that then leads to the proposition, "and now we see why the rational decision to respect that which is not "self" is what ought to be," you really must just give in to Macdoc's "relativism". (and I do agree that his argument does come down to that...) 

For instance, his argument seems to be, generally, that there is nothing which "IS", and thus no specific "deservedness" to which rights guard the actualization thereof, and it is only we who arbitrarily give such silly and superstitious meanings. Somehow, though, it hasn't occured to him that *the "right" to one's own material substance might just be such an arbitrary distinction* that we silly folk have made up for a peaceful co-inhibitance. Back in good ol' nature, the potential father might just crack his mate on the head and drag back to yon cave, as in the car-toons, pro-choice and apparent rights be damn-ed. Again, in this, man is key in some one way or the other--whether as a "diviner" of logos, or, contrarily, he who vainly attempts to make sense out of that which is not.

It is Macdoc's lack of a self-evident ontological statement that you're going to have to take advantage of, here, lpkmckenna. I see your need for a solid humanism, but you'll have to look past modernity for it.


PS: yuck! Ayn Rand??? That's two-week-old, warmed over Hobbes at best.


----------



## tedj (Sep 9, 2004)

lpkmckenna said:


> Homosexuality has *always* been ethical, just as the earth has always been round. It has been a moral failing of society not to recognize it. Our minds have been clouded by the delusions of religious thinking (i.e. unprovable belief), which have now been (mostly) replaced by scientific thinking. Rational thinking is the basis of moral thinking. That's why religious moral thinking is so cruel, callous, close-minded.


Errr, lets think this one through just one more time. How about the callous rationalization of subjective materialism that said, at least a couple of times last century, "homosexuality is not, biologically speaking, very viable for our society, therefore off you go!" Religion often attempts to persuade and condemn-- most likely even wrongly-- but usually European death camps, Siberian vacations aren't its milieu. No, thats the work of the hardcore "unbeliever", a society which bases itself on nothing but the cold hard fact of your much praised "scientific thinking." If religion had its great sins in certain ages, science will have its in this age. Pride and self-assuredness, especially on the grand scale, is always tragic.

C'mon, its not like religion never thought that, "hey, there might just be something to this rational thinking stuff... Everybody at school's doin' it!!" That's just what you've seen today. Take yourself out of the presuppositions of the age.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Whose choice? The woman's? The government's? Society's? Where there is a choice, there is someone doing the choosing. Who is it?


BOTH. If I choose to draw a line here, and you choose there - we both exercise our choice - if the woman's and society's choices coincide, fine, if they don't SHE WILL arbitrate short of being bound and fed.

Vedic...you express "no line" in one instance of "process of becoming human" yet reject it as a principle.
Few more turns on the wheel for you.

YOU and the UNVERSE remain separated in your mind. When you work it through that the separation is illusionary, just as you did with the specific instance then ALL your very fine approaches fall together.



> Hindu Vedantic monism calls this Absolute God-Self the Atman (literally "Self"), whilst in Mahayana Buddhism it is sometimes referred to as the "Buddha Nature"


What I find fascinating is the reflection of the principles in string theory, symmetry, entanglement resting comfortably with 4,000 year old Vedic insights into reality and human perception.



> he most important characteristic of the Eastern world view - one could almost say the essence of it - is the awareness of the unity and mutual interrelation of all things and events, the experience of all phenomena in the world as manifestations of a basic oneness. All things are seen as interdependent and inseparable parts of this cosmic whole; as different manifestations of the same ultimate reality.
> In Indian philosophy, the main terms used by Hindus and Buddhists have dynamic connotations. The word Brahman is derived from the Sanskrit root brih – to grow - and thus suggests a reality which is dynamic and alive. The Upanishads refer to Brahman as ‘this unformed, immortal, moving’, thus associating it with motion even though it transcends all forms. The Rig Veda uses another term to express the dynamic character of the universe, the term Rita. This word comes from the root ri- to move. In its phenomenal aspect, the cosmic One is thus intrinsically dynamic, and the apprehension of its dynamic nature is basic to all schools of Eastern mysticism. They all emphasize that the universe has to be grasped dynamically, as it moves, vibrates and dances. (Fritjof Capra, 1972.)


http://pangea.tec.selu.edu/~kvanderklis/edf607/eastern.htm

You skid in and out of that conscious realization, which drew me to the phrasing about acorn and "no line". Don't get your back up, it's an excellent approach especially given your background and takes a while to absorb the wider implications.


----------



## tedj (Sep 9, 2004)

who's reverting to religious claims and "un-scientific" belief now?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Pardon me......you clearly know nothing of Buddhism or the Veda to make that very uninformed statement.

One of the key tenents in is that "man creates the gods" as iconic projections of human characteristics.

Just making that statement as you did indicates your complete lack of understanding of the founding tenents. John Fowles understood it and craftily laid it out in *The Magus.*.
Craftily enough to trap a top university prof who THOUGHT he understood the book.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

For those who feel strongly about this issue, one way or another, the following anti-abortion/pro-life site surveyed candidates and posted their results.

http://www.campaignlifecoalition.com/elections/federal2006/index.html

From the Globe and Mail article:
When asked, “If elected, will you support measures to introduce and pass a law to protect every unborn child from the time of conception (fertilization) onward?” 18 Conservative MPs replied Yes, as did 24 Tory candidates, 10 Liberal MPs and two Liberal candidates."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/serv...4.wxabortion0114/BNStory/specialDecision2006/


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

An American's POV: You give these people (fundies) an inch, they take a mile. They feel very impowered lately, so you have to slam them down hard. Otherwise, they'll dictate your lifestyle and tell you what you should care about. Your kids may be taught in high school that the earth is 6,000 years old. 

I wouldn't vote for any candidate who associates with them. If Harper wins, it will only encourage them. Be afraid, be very afraid.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Thanks for your POV, MissG. Quite true.

What seems to have worked for the Conservatives and Harper this time around is that they have successfully convinced a whole lot of people that they have transformed into moderate Conservatives. While there is a rump of moderate Cons within the party, it is after all a coalition between the old Progressive Conservatives and the neo-conservative Reform party, the Reform party faction is firmly in control. Harper and his team are the ideological cousins of the Bush Republicans. He has made no magical transformation into Joe Clark, or even Brian Mulroney for that matter.

If you remember the 2000 US election, Dubya ran as a moderate too. It was all about cleaning up corruption, no more BJs in the White House, etc. The complaint of many at the time was that there was little difference between Gore and Bush's stated policies. But after the Bush team got power, look what happened.

Those Canadians who would tend to disagree with the failed Republican policies of the Dubya regime, but are considering voting for Harper because they somehow imagine he wouldn't be so bad and are tired of Martin and the Liberals, are jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire.

As Patrick Basham of the right-wing Cato Institute wrote in the Washington Times: *"Free-market economist Stephen Harper, leader of the opposition Conservative Party, is pro-free trade, pro-Iraq war, anti-Kyoto, and socially conservative. Move over Tony Blair: If elected, Mr. Harper will quickly become Mr. Bush's new best friend internationally and the poster boy for his ideal foreign leader."*


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

Listen to Applesauce. Please don't vote for Harper and repeat our mistake!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MissGulch said:


> Listen to Applesauce. Please don't vote for Harper and repeat our mistake!


Thank goodness the majority of Canadians don't accept fear mongering and will in fact vote Conservative.

It is time for change and the Liberals have worn out their welcome.

Get used to hearing Prime Minister Harper folks.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> Get used to hearing Prime Minister Harper folks.


There's a saying out there about counting chickens before they hatch. It's not advisable.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Sonal said:


> There's a saying out there about counting chickens before they hatch. It's not advisable.


We shall see, Sonal, we shall see.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> Thank goodness the majority of Canadians don't accept fear mongering and will in fact vote Conservative.
> 
> It is time for change and the Liberals have worn out their welcome.
> 
> Get used to hearing Prime Minister Harper folks.


From someone who said that they would be voting Liberal, SINC you seem quite happy at the turn of events for the Cons.

Are we talking total of voters in Canada or just the amount of seats the Cons may win? Please be more precise when you gloat...


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

SINC said:


> Thank goodness the majority of Canadians don't accept fear mongering and will in fact vote Conservative.


Unfortunately many Canadians (not even close to a majority) fall for PR-mongering and will in fact vote Conservative.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Unfortunately many Canadians (not even close to a majority) fall for PR-mongering and will in fact vote Conservative.


Paranoia again?


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

SINC said:


> Paranoia again?


Please explain SINC, that comment makes no sense.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC is in full MacNutt mode.... Two peas in a pod....


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> SINC is in full MacNutt mode.... Two peas in a pod....



Ummm...judging by pretty much ALL of the polls that we have been seeing for the past few weeks now...

It's not exactly just "SINC and MacNutt" as "two peas in a pod" on this subject.

It's more like the whole damn COUNTRY these days!

While Artistseries and macdoc are spoonin' and chanting "liberal...liberal...liberal":love2: :lmao: 

Hang on! Even macdoc has now said publicly that he thinks the Liberals need a "break from power". And that Canada needs a "break from the Liberals"!! :clap: 

I'd guess that this leaves you all on yer own, AS. One small fading voice in the wilderness.

YIKES! Hope you can deal with all of that loneliness.... :lmao:


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Again, MacNutt, you miss the point....
Carry on....


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> Again, MacNutt, you miss the point....
> Carry on....


One of us is certainly "missing the point" AS.

Or have you been living in a cave for the past few weeks?

No matter what happens on jan 23rd...the Liberals are pretty much finished as a power in this country. Probably for quite some time.

Paul Martin will retire from his current role as leader of what remains of the party...this is a given...and the whole party will probably implode after the next election. Many of them will be arrested in the investigations that will follow their defeat, and many will spend time in jail.

Are you not seeing this? Got the blinders screwed down real tight these days?

If so, too sad.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacNutt said:


> No matter what happens on jan 23rd...the Liberals are pretty much finished as a power in this country. Probably for quite some time.
> 
> Paul Martin will retire from his current role as leader of what remains of the party...this is a given...and the whole party will probably implode after the next election. Many of them will be arrested in the investigations that will follow their defeat, and many will spend time in jail.
> 
> Are you not seeing this? Got the blinders screwed down real tight these days?


MacNutt, you have been challenged many times on this board and failed miserably to rise to any challenge.

It would take someone obtuse to believe that:
- Liberals are pretty much finished as a power in this country. Probably for quite some time.
- The whole party will probably implode after the next election
- Many of them will be arrested in the investigations that will follow their defeat, and many will spend time in jail.

Define what you are saying in quantifiable terms with specifics. I'm ready to gamble a hefty sum that your predictions (once properly defined) will be BS....
Up to the challenge?


----------



## Vinnie Cappuccino (Aug 20, 2003)

One can Dream!


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

MacNutt said:


> No matter what happens on jan 23rd...the Liberals are pretty much finished as a power in this country. Probably for quite some time.


Sorry, but this is nonsense. There is no such thing as "pretty much finished" because politics is cyclical. 

I hope nobody minds if I make a comparison from my American frame of reference. The Democrats were the party in power for 50 years plus with little exception, and the Republicans mostly wandered the political wilderness until Reagan. With the exception of Clinton's two terms, the Democrats have been out of power since the 1980s. They have lost both houses of congress, the executive office, the Supreme Court is more and more dominated by conservatives. Yet, the scandals of late may knock the wind out of the GOP in 2006. We shall see.

As sick as you may be of the Chretiens, Martins and Parrishes they are not finished. Merely deferred.


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

ArtistSeries said:


> MacNutt, you have been challenged many times on this board and failed miserably to rise to any challenge.
> 
> It would take someone obtuse to believe that:
> - Liberals are pretty much finished as a power in this country. Probably for quite some time.
> ...


I'm so sick of people picking on MacNutt for voicing his opinion, enough!

Everyone who doesn't have thier head buried in thier....knows that the Liberal Party has some serious rebuilding to do. For know it's done as a powerhouse. Will it be back? As sure as it'll snow sometime before the spring is out. 

It takes someone pretty obtuse to ignore the damning damage of the Martinis and Chretienites civil war. There's a reason the vaunted liberal election machine looks like a bad effort from the old Reform Party.

As for any Liberals spending time in jail, doubtful, but I'd love to see those responsible for stealing from the gov't to get more than house arrest. 

So AS, we'll see how the final seven days play out but I'm willing to make the following "quantifiable" predictions

1) Conservative win, likely minority, possiblity majority.
2) Liberal leadership race if conservatives win majority, not if they win minority (to unstable)
3) NDP to maintain current level of support with possible loss of one or two seats. 
4) Green will go nowhere.
5) Liberals are toast in Quebec.

If Harper wins a majority, the Tories will likely only get one mandate, a minority (and a solid performance during Parliment) will give them a second majority mandate.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

NBiBooker there is a difference between opinion like yours and over the top ranting of a MacNutt. Why should I accept vile garbage ad nauseam from the SSI sage? Really? 
Now a few NeoCons on this board are up in shackles because we ask them to back up their mumbo jumbo?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

NBiBooker said:


> So AS, we'll see how the final seven days play out but I'm willing to make the following "quantifiable" predictions


And these will likely come to past.




NBiBooker said:


> 1) Conservative win, likely minority, possiblity majority.


Yes. If the Cons continue their campaign and they can win over the undecided.




NBiBooker said:


> 2) Liberal leadership race if conservatives win majority, not if they win minority (to unstable)


Given




NBiBooker said:


> 3) NDP to maintain current level of support with possible loss of one or two seats.





NBiBooker said:


> 4) Green will go nowhere.





NBiBooker said:


> 5) Liberals are toast in Quebec.


This was already predicted with the lost of at least 6 seats compared to the last election.


NBiBooker said:


> If Harper wins a majority, the Tories will likely only get one mandate, a minority (and a solid performance during Parliment) will give them a second majority mandate.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

NBiBooker said:


> I'm so sick of people picking on MacNutt for voicing his opinion, enough!
> 
> Everyone who doesn't have thier head buried in thier....knows that the Liberal Party has some serious rebuilding to do. For know it's done as a powerhouse. Will it be back? As sure as it'll snow sometime before the spring is out.
> 
> It takes someone pretty obtuse to ignore the damning damage of the Martinis and Chretienites civil war. There's a reason the vaunted liberal election machine looks like a bad effort from the old Reform Party.


A voice of reason and truth in the wilderness! :clap: :clap:


----------



## Myrddin Emrys (May 24, 2005)

I want the Rhino party back.

I think that Harper will make Muloony look good, Martin has no more deniable-plausibility, and Layton can only pray for a minority government to have any credibility.

Anyway you cut the cloth the losers are Canadians... I wish I had the money to file suit against the out of context/fiction remarks by the Conservatives, Liberals and the NDP over the campaign ads they are spewing.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Myrddin Emrys said:


> Anyway you cut the cloth the losers are Canadians...


Also the ones being pandered to. There's some connection here...


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Myrddin Emrys said:


> I want the Rhino party back.


I want my Natural Law party back. Yogic Flying is about the only thing that would cheer me up politics wise.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Yogic Flying is about the only thing that would cheer me up politics wise.


Just tot up the Con budget numbers.......similar principles engaged ....and the promises may at least make you FEEL good....


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Anyway you cut the cloth the losers are Canadians


There is one positive - democracy does require renewal and choice and the Libs are long overdue for a visit to the refurb bench. If the moderates running the Con campaign ALSO end up with controlling interest in the party policies then I'm cautiously optimistic.

But I don't trust that the NeoCon influence will be diluted enough and the Neaderthals kept at bay. I guess in some respect Preston Mannings reform was a more honest and upfront version which while I might disagree - I knew where he stood. Same with the PCs under Joe Clark.

This melange .....??? I'm only reassured a bit that it looks like there will be support by way of MPs from elsewhere than the NeoCon core....


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

MacDoc said:


> Just tot up the Con budget numbers.......similar principles engaged ....and the promises may at least make you FEEL good....


Funny, but I don't recall the Liberals' budget numbers EVER matching the reality. And their promises weren't much better. Similar principles engaged, indeed.

Oddly, neither ever made ME feel better.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

MacNutt said:


> Funny, but I don't recall the Liberals' budget numbers EVER matching the reality. And their promises weren't much better. Similar principles engaged, indeed.
> 
> Oddly, neither ever made ME feel better.


I would rather have a cautious Martin's balanced budget, that turns into a surplus, than a lying conservative, whose balanced budget turns into a 5 billion dollar deficit.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Indeed.
The JOB of the finance minister is to guard against a rainy day and keep reserves. Once the money is IN the bank....then spend it.
Martin's problem is he was TOO tight fisted and reluctant to spend, and indecisive in carrying through.

He was ALSO arguably the best finance minister of the G8 for a decade tho the Labour finance guy for Blair also got it mostly right. Funny that.

Where's the NeoCon success stories?......oh there are NONE!!!???? hmmmmm wonder why.

The Libs need a time out. Canada does NOT need a Mike Harris debacle. = Harper on a short leash.

Keep those lips flappin' ...it's workin'


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

tedj said:


> The necessary (man needs rights to live well) is not the "ought" (man must live well) without some principle of the "deservedness" of Being (capital B, duderino.) Nothing is inherently deserving without some share in that which "IS" -- and lets not name the "G" word here. Only the rational mind can grasp the argumentation which leads to a "right", and that must start at a single proposition.


Where did you learn to talk like this: Mork from Ork, or just too much Hegel?

Ayn Rand deals with the is/ought dichotomy in her work. Too boring to discuss here, so I leave it to you to look it up.



tedj said:


> For instance, freedom is not "inherently" good because without it man won't be man-- who gives a rat's ace if man is alive, dead, in-between, or in a vegi-state besides man?


I give a rat's ass, and so to millions of other people. The universe itself doesn't have to care about us. 

Imagine your grandmother was in the hospital, and you were faced with the ethical dilemma of helping her die or strive thru more painful treatments. You start thinking thru the issues, and then realize: who give's a rat's ass whether granny lives or dies? Just me and her?



tedj said:


> You must first prove whatever way that "the world of flux", as the pre-Socratics put it, or "multiplicity", as Augustine said (not that we want to even speak of Xianity here....shudder!!) takes part in a certain sharing of "inherent-ness", or "in-itself-ness." Thus, the inherent deservedness and the undeservedness of rights are "mixed" in a reality of things that are not inherently actualized of "rights". Instead, it is only the rational mind which must overcome a life that is, without it, (and I'm sure your Rand would agree) "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."
> 
> PS: yuck! Ayn Rand??? That's two-week-old, warmed over Hobbes at best.


Ayn Rand has nothing to do with the ideas of Hobbes. She ideas are akin to Aristotle, Baruch Spinoza, Locke, and Bacon. And refering to the pre-Socratics to undercut her ideas is pretty funny.

Yes, "rights" are a product of the rational mind. All abstract ideas are. Only concrete, perceivable objects are otherwise. Don't confuse the visible with the objective.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

tedj said:


> Errr, lets think this one through just one more time. How about the callous rationalization of subjective materialism that said, at least a couple of times last century, "homosexuality is not, biologically speaking, very viable for our society, therefore off you go!"


Who said this? No one. Your argument is a straw man.

And I am not a subjective materialist. I (following Ayn Rand) am an ethical contextualist.



tedj said:


> Religion often attempts to persuade and condemn-- most likely even wrongly-- but usually European death camps, Siberian vacations aren't its milieu.


Are you serious?!? The dark ages were like 1000 yrs of soviet rule! And haven't you heard of the Inquisition? Or witch-burnings? Or "feudal" slavery?



tedj said:


> No, thats the work of the hardcore "unbeliever", a society which bases itself on nothing but the cold hard fact of your much praised "scientific thinking."


Marxists and fascists are not advocates of scientific thinking. They, like scientologists, intelligent designers, and Malthusian catastrophists, deliberately misuse scientific terminology to advance unscientific ideas. Science is about *methodology*, not slogans and context-dropping terminology.



tedj said:


> If religion had its great sins in certain ages, science will have its in this age. Pride and self-assuredness, especially on the grand scale, is always tragic.


Actually, pride is a virtue. See Aristotle's Ethics, or Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

lpkmckenna said:


> Actually, pride is a virtue. See Aristotle's Ethics, or Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead.


It can be argued that pride is a virtue. Your wording sounds almost like it is a commonly unknown fact that pride is a virtue. Just my interpretation of inaccuracy in the sentence.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Hmmpph hell getting frigid again LPK - I'm mostly Objectivist as well and except for Mathus ...which deserves a thread as it's come up before.....we are quite in agreement. 

Rand's celebration of creativity as individual power and reward and her view that the those that recognise themselves as decision makers without regard of peers power the world and inspire every level of human creativity we personal inspirations to me.

I think she was coloured a bit as was Koestler by their Soviet experiences so her politics I question but her concept of self and it's power.....powers me. The Fountainhead and Atlas felt like coming home.
( BTW I like the relationship books that have come out of the Objectivist circles. )

Now ahem.......



> Malthusian catastrophists


 THAT should not be in that list!!!! 
Care to watch Darwin's Nightmare...on just now.

•••

Oh yes potpourri comes to mind reading the melange.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> BOTH. If I choose to draw a line here, and you choose there - we both exercise our choice - if the woman's and society's choices coincide, fine, if they don't SHE WILL arbitrate short of being bound and fed.


That's absurd. Try to imagine someone saying both the rapist and the rape-victim have a choice. It's technically true, but the choice of the rapist to rape is an unethical choice. Similarily, the government's "choice" to deny freedom of abortion to women is an unethical choice. The woman's choice is the only ethical choice to be considered.



MacDoc said:


> Vedic...you express "no line" in one instance of "process of becoming human" yet reject it as a principle.
> Few more turns on the wheel for you.


Is that the pseudo-Vedic way of saying "see you in hell." ??



MacDoc said:


> What I find fascinating is the reflection of the principles in string theory, symmetry, entanglement resting comfortably with 4,000 year old Vedic insights into reality and human perception.


Gee, that's sounds so much like the way intelligent designers say that some scientific research is "reflected" in creationism, or how the Catholic Church claims that the Big Bang is "reflected" in Genesis. That's the pseudo-philosophical version of shooting fish in a barrel.

I remember Issac Asimov giving a harsh criticism of "reflective" analysis in a essay. I think it was in his short-story book "Magic," but I can't definitively recall. Maybe give Carl Sagan's Demon-Haunted World a read. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demon_haunted_world.



MacDoc said:


> You skid in and out of that conscious realization, which drew me to the phrasing about acorn and "no line". Don't get your back up, it's an excellent approach especially given your background and takes a while to absorb the wider implications.


Uh, what do you know of my intellectual background? And are you such an amazing mind-reader you know what "skids in and out of [my] conscious realization" ?

There is nothing wrong with my "parable of the acorn." You didn't understand it, so you read into it some ancient vedic stuff.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> I'm mostly Objectivist


Things become clearer.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

nxnw said:


> I would rather have a cautious Martin's balanced budget, that turns into a surplus, than a lying conservative, whose balanced budget turns into a 5 billion dollar deficit.


Gotta agree with that.

I used to be a "small-c conservative," so voting against the man who actually tackled the deficit (as opposed to talking about it) is hard.

Look at the policies of Bush vs Martin, and then tell me who is "fiscally responsible."


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

LPK You like using "pseudo" for things you don't understand and clearly and self admittedly have not read.

There is no conflict in how modern science and philosophy explore perception and how Vedic scholars approached it just as the Greeks postulated atoms without "observation" coming millenia later.

You may see a firearm and know much about it - I see a "gun". My basis of being informed on that is limited.

You miss some philosophical implications in your own writing while I see them because I'm trained in that - it's not mind reading, it's simply I've got that background. Dr. G can take both of our writings from a linguistic standpoint and see much we both miss and perhaps don't even understand.

Take a compliment instead of being prickly. You've been very informative and enlightening on several topics and I enjoy your posts and the volleys. 

•••••

As for "choice" you did not understand my point at all.

Regardless of how she became pregnant she WILL decide the outcome even to the point of taking her own life. Society can only provide safety within the choices she makes.

She WILL choose to seek out a backroom butcher if she feels it necessary - society can only make that choice safer...she makes the choice.

Society can put all sorts of moral warnings and social barriers in one direction or another.....she will still make the choice.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> LPK You like using "pseudo" for things you don't understand and clearly and self admittedly have not read.
> 
> There is no conflict in how modern science and philosophy explore perception and how Vedic scholars approached it just as the Greeks postulated atoms without "observation" coming millenia later.
> 
> ...


I will have to come back to this later. To much to clear up now. And I too enjoy the volleys. 



MacDoc said:


> As for "choice" you did not understand my point at all.
> 
> Regardless of how she became pregnant she WILL decide the outcome even to the point of taking her own life. Society can only provide safety within the choices she makes.
> 
> ...


You have missed my fundamental point again: the government is *morally wrong* to place barriers in the way of her choice. Her choice to have an abortion (or not) is moral. Any governmental attempt to block it is immoral.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

lpkmckenna said:


> I will have to come back to this later. To much to clear up now. And I too enjoy the volleys.
> 
> 
> You have missed my fundamental point again: the government is *morally wrong* to place barriers in the way of her choice. Her choice to have an abortion (or not) is moral. Any governmental attempt to block it is immoral.


That is one part of the 50% of the Conservative platform that bothers me.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> I'm mostly Objectivist as well


Colour me incredibly suprised!  Denial of differentiation is completely non-Objectivist. If you have a reading list, throw "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology" on it. I promise to give The Magus a read in return. 



MacDoc said:


> Rand's celebration of creativity as individual power and reward and her view that the those that recognise themselves as decision makers without regard of peers power the world and inspire every level of human creativity we personal inspirations to me.


:clap: :clap: :clap: 



MacDoc said:


> I think she was coloured a bit as was Koestler by their Soviet experiences so her politics I question but her concept of self and it's power.....powers me. The Fountainhead and Atlas felt like coming home.
> ( BTW I like the relationship books that have come out of the Objectivist circles. )


Haven't read them. Gotta a recommendation?


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

You guys sound like Woody Allen and Diane Keaton in "Love and Death".


> Boris: Yes, but objectivity is subjective!


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

Oh No!!!!...There goes Canada...
Here comes Harpzilla!!!

D


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Denial of differentiation is completely non-Objectivist.


Yes, in philosophical terms its a bit like the disconnnect between Newtonian physics which works fine for the day to day macro world and quantum physics which is has little day to day directly observable/manipulable effects but underlies everything including Newtonian physics.

Objectivism for me provides a basis for making choices in the social and sociological interactions of individuals and institutions. Traffic guides if you wish an analogy that are useful.

The Vedic view underlays that like quantum physics does and keeps me aware those guides are only of MY making. So it has little impact on how I conduct "myself as apart from and part of" human society. ( Free willed individual within a society ).

It just reminds me that it's of our own making and open to be changed. The "illusion" that we think we see in the world is very real to us and objectivism works well for me in dealing with that as a "way of life" which is one important facit of philosophy.

But the freedom of recognizing that it IS illusion.....is very empowering, hard to grasp and hard to get to.....like thinking about relativity - it hurts the brain.


----------

