If God he gave you a voice, then use it

[Soozy]

He looks scary. Even if I knew nothing of his political life, I'd still be scared of him.

[mosaik]

What you said is true, there are no facts about souls, so why do pro-choice supporters assume that only after being born does a baby receive its "soul." We have no idea when the soul emerges, so we should not assume that a fetus does not have one. It’s simply a tragedy that a child can be aborted in its second or third trimester and it is considered "ok" when killing it moments after it exits the womb is considered a tragedy. Does a child receive its soul between its third trimester and its birth? We have no way of knowing, so why is abortion still going on.

Because we have no way of knowing if anybody has a soul. it's not something that can be defined. Therefore you must treat the fetus as what it is scientifically and that is certainly not a human.

[Joe Cooler]

Two questions. If no one has a soul then why is murder wrong and abortion "right?"
Secondly, how does science define a fetus?

[thirdhour]

I don't think science has a clear-cut definition either...

[Axtech]

There is no clear-cut definition that draws the lines between "clump of cells", "fetus" and "human". That's because it's a gradual progression with few significant "steps". Choosing a place to draw the line is in large part arbitrary, and has everything to do with social convention and nothing to do with morality.

[Joe Cooler]

So therefore we can't "treat the fetus as what it is scientifically" because we don't really know, correct?

[Axtech]

Exactly. It's a philosophical problem, not a scientific one, since the issue is about defining the emergence human life.

[Joe Cooler]

Thank you. Now, knowing this, I can't see how we as a people are prepared to "draw the line" anywhere but at conception. As this forum has made clear, defining human life is sketchy business. If it can't be drawn at conception, where can it be drawn?

[Axtech]

(let me start by saying that I do tend to agree with you on that, but that the issue isn't quite so simple)

Do you look at an acorn and say "this is a tree"? Typically, one wouldn't. It doesn't possess the qualities of a tree. If you were to describe everything that is a tree, "a small hard round object with a smooth nut-like surface and a rough cap" isn't going to be even close (nor would any of the more detailed biological specifics).

However, that acorn (as well as the fetus) possess a quality that links it irrevocably to the tree. And that is the potential to become a tree. (or, obviously, in the case of the fetus, a human).

There's an interesting read from my philosophy class. It's written by Judith Thompson, and she asserts that, even assuming that the fetus is a human from conception, the mother is under no moral obligation to keep it. I'm still not entirely convinced about her argument, but she makes a very strong case and brings up some very interesting points. It's a lengthy read (and a bit heavy at times), but it's definitly worth a read.

http://www.utdallas.edu/~jfg021000/thomson.html

[thirdhour]

I think...that what makes a fetus human lies in the distinct and special relationship between mother and child. Until that fetus can rely on anyone else in the world, the fetus is a part of the mother. This is a deep and possibly spiritual relationship, but it belongs alone to the mother. I don't think anyone else has the right to tell that mother what to do with itself (including that part of them) until the child is well developed enough that it could survive outside the womb.

Like I said, I don't know. I don't have extremly clear beliefs on either side.

[Korzic]

Love the thread hijack.

But what you should all learn from democracy is that when the majority of people vote against you... they're all idiots. When they vote with you, they've finally seen the light

[Kathy]

"But in his first public remarks after taking the oath of office, Mr. Harper was forced to explain two surprise appointments to his 27-member cabinet — defector David Emerson, re-elected just last month as a Liberal in Vancouver, who moves from industry to trade, and Montreal lawyer Michael Fortier, the Tory campaign co-chairman who will be appointed to the Senate so he can sit at the cabinet table as public works minister."

So Harper says it's disgraceful when a conservative crosses the floor to become a liberal last year, Stronach is even called a whore by more than one conservative, then Harper runs on a campaign about accountability, ethics and transparency. Then he gives a cabinet post to a guy who won his riding as a Liberal incumbent just 2 weeks ago and crossed now to be Conservative... one has to wonder how long this has been in the works and why he didn't run as Conservative in the first place. Maybe because he wouldn't have been elected that way. The Conservative candidate came a distant third in this riding, and yet now they have a Conservative MP. If I was in that riding I would be furious and fighting for a by-election. And Harper gives another cabinet post to a guy who did not run in the election, but Harper appoints him anyway.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ ... wTory2006/

[closeyoureyes]

This David Emerson thing is creating a HUGE AMOUNT OF BAD PRESS for the Conservatives. It makes me sooo happy.

I say, Alls fair in love and war. I loved it when Belinda Stronach defected, I was verre happy, and if David Emerson chooses to defect, that is his agenda. He totally screwed over his riding, it's really quite excellent to see how people react to our great electoral system!

I love how Global National interviewed all the people, who when Belinda Stronach was defected, accused her of "prostituting herself"- care of Maurice Vellacott, and then they interview him when Emerson defects and gets a cabinet seat and he announces what a great man Emerson is.

I also love how when Stronach defected Harper went on and on about banning it and how unfair it was, etc etc, but then he solicits a cabinet post to Emerson and welcomes him with open arms a week after the election? Jeez Stevo, you've got some questions to answer!

To anti-conservatives everywhere, this is a most idyllic thing to happen so early into his term as PM, because now the NDP candidate from Vancouver-Kingsway wants to call an Ethics Enquiry, stating Harper broke ethics rules when he offered Emerson a seat.

I also love how Emerson said he didn't owe his riding(A riding which overwhelmingly voted Liberal, and then NDP, and then at the bottom Conservative) an apology. This is so juicy. Even Conservative MP's have come forward to say he should call a by-election and run again!

Teehee.

[Korzic]

With the election win only just happening and your next election 3 or 4 years away, bad press makes no difference. AS the saying goes... a week is along time in politics. Come next election no one will care.

[closeyoureyes]

3 or 4 years away? You don't know anything about our government, do you. (Surprise Surprise)

We have a minority government. Which means that they have to skate very lightly across issues and be careful not to piss off any party/group too much, or else the other parties in the gov't can call a non confidence vote and we can be into another election.


It would be a miracle to last 3 or 4 years, it won't.

That said, this Emerson thing won't have any affect, it just makes me giddy.

[Joe Cooler]

I think it will last 3-4 years based on the fact that if if another election is called within 2 years or so the Canadian government as a whole will look completely incapable of doing anything. Honestly I'm tired of politics at the moment. Let the government run. If the government were liberal, or NDP i'd be saying the same thing. I'm sure a lot of canadians feel the same way.

[closeyoureyes]

Yeah but it isn't up to us. It's up to the MP's, and they don't feel that way at all. They're gonna fight about everything. Don't be fooled by our psuedo-democracy. We decide nothing.

[Korzic]

Seems like a dangerous way to be governed imo. How the hell do unpopular but necessary bills get pushed through parliament? Populist policies are not necessarily the best. Also, you failed to see my point and instead decided to pick at the time frame instead. No one will care. 1 month down the track everyone will forget about it.

[Kathy]

I'm not sure this will blow over in a month. The people of his riding feel extremely wronged, and they have a right to. There are petitions everywhere getting signatures from the riding and from across Canada about how this is a mockery of the democratic process, especially since Harper and his party made their feelings well known when people defected from their own party. A lot of people think Harper could score some major points if he told Emerson to run in a by-election, but everyone knows Emerson would lose.

Emerson doesn't think he owes an apology to his riding. He doesn't think he should have to run in a by-election. He says he can't believe such a big deal is being made of this whole situation. He says he and/or the Conservatives shouldn't have to pay back money to the riding association. How unbelievably hypocritical and unethical!! I'm appalled.

[Korzic]

Nothing in politics ever lasts more than a month. There will be a bigger story within the next 30 days that will relegate this to oblivion.