Just to be fair, I'll point out that the potential response above suffers slightly from the Reductio ad americanum fallacy.

http://www.stephentaylor.ca/2006/05/reductio-ad…

I would love it if Harper tried that kind of obvious deflection. It only invites the question: will you make opposition to abortion a litmus test for international aid to women and children just like George Bush did? Why can't you rule out such ideological imprint on our international aid policy?

The reality is that Ignatieff is not even the one to bring abortion back into the debate. He's just guilty of making public the issue and what Harper has been sneakily doing beyond the public eye and what pro-life groups started to campaign to do after Harper's uncharacteristic and surprise announcement last week.

If Harper wants to assure Canadians he won't let abortion be a barrier to funding the health and safety of women and children, then all is good, he just needs to confirm that and we can move on. If he is going to change Canadian aid policy – as pro-life groups immediately already started to lobby for – then he should be upfront about it and tell Canadians he is once again going against our wishes and values.

In case readers don't want to bother with the links:

The first link is an article about Harper gutting Planned Parenthood Canada (now Canadian Federation of Sexual Health) by cutting its budget by 99%. The second two are links to an article listing the many pro-life sites that have are making an effort to lobby Harper to make sure aid to mothers and children is not going to organizations that support or discuss contraception and abortion options.

These are from before Ignatieff made his statement that he hopes Harper does not continue down that road of sneakily bringing in anti-abortion policies through the backdoor of international aid and at the expense of women and children in developing countries.

I don't think it's entirely unreasonable on his part to suspect that aid for abortions is something that might not be supported by a government with a significant number of pro-lifers in its ranks. It's obviously the responsible choice—as hundreds of thousands of women die every year in pregnancy and childbirth, a good deal of whom probably would still be alive if they had access to abortions—but it may be a tough sell to the Conservative base and backbenchers. We saw it happen south of the border under Bush (remember the so-called “gag rule”?), and while abortion is a debate that's passed domestically, it's not something we can take for granted in terms of government aid.

If you feel that strongly about their loss of funding then you can donate to them yourself and get a tax credit to boot. Would a Liberal gov't be willing to support a group that say ,gives help to young mothers and is openly pro life?

You accuse pro life groups of lobbying but not the pro choice group.

Already we have seen Liberals and womens groups disagreeing with Ignatieff's statement here.

Ignatieff did not have the courage to use the word abortion himself. He'll leave that for others.It was a deliberate and calculated political move.

There is some confusing issues that he must address.

Should Canada only give foreign aid to countries that adhere to Canadas abortion laws?

Will Canada refuse to participate in helping third world nations with disater aid if abortion clinics are not provided by other helping nations?

Does he include tubal ligation in the types of contraceptive aid that must be provided? Vasectomies?

If the disaster is primarily one of needing clean drinking water will he object to Canada not providing abortions?

The difference is that access to abortion has the capability to save thousands of lives (and I mean the lives of mature, living people, not embryos). Intentionally blocking access to abortion would be a political or ideological decision, not a rational one or one with the best interests of women in mind.

then he should be upfront about it and tell Canadians he is once again going against our wishes and values”…. Here's a thought Ted…speak for yourself and quit presuming you speak for all Canadians because you do not. Every comment of yours is anti Harper and that's fair, but, stop thinking that you know the “pulse” of Canadians because you dont. Vote out the bum in the next election, protest on the streets for all most of us care, but, speak for yourself and ask yourself one question….why does the CPC continue to reap financial donations from grass root Canadians at what is now a 4 to 1 ratio if they continue to go against the wishes and values of Canadians?

You are completely missing the point.

The Prime Minister has announced he will push for aid for the health and welfare of mothers and children in developing countries. That is a good thing. However, when Bush did this, he made all funding conditional on abstinence teaching and no contraception and abortion education, referrals or materials being available. So, in other words, some mothers and children in need did not get any needed US funding because their government did not ban abortions, for example.

So the question is: will Harper provide aid strictly on a needs basis or will he deny the aid if the agency or country also provides other health services?

As for lobbying, please show me where pro-choice groups are lobbying Harper to make sure he doesn't change Canada's international aid policies?

I think you have it completely backwards.

Ignatieff is trying to ensure that Harper doesn't change Canadian foreign aid policy and make opposition to abortion a condition to getting aid.

gbillg:

22% of eligible voters voted for Harper in the last election. The number of donors to progressive pro-choice parties is greater than the number of donors to Conservatives. Also, you can't even say that a vote or a donation to the Conservatives is a vote or a donation for a pro-life party. The Conservatives have no policy on abortion, and in every election they have promised not to change our abortion laws.

So I think, no party in Parliament is proposing to change our abortion laws, when no party in Parliament has campaigned on changing our international aid policies, when poll after poll after poll shows that the vast majority of Canadians support a woman's right to choose… I think I am on solid enough ground to say that for him to unilaterally change our longstanding international aid policy would indeed be going against the wishes and values of Canadians.

And to be very precise about “values” there: regardless of what your view is on criminalizing abortions, and even factoring in the few who would throw women in jail for an abortion, I don't think you will find many Canadians who think that international aid intended for needy women and children should be subject to any conditions, which is all that Ignatieff said.

Apparently gbillg, the instant response to foreign aid to HAITI has not hit the liberal party as of yet.

Good for PMSH for cutting Planned Parenthood's budget by 99%. Why should PP get any money from the federal government?

By any standard, Planned Parenthood has failed in its mandate, which, they say, has always been to lower the teen pregnancy rate and abortion rate. They have done neither. They insist that their “public education” programs — why are they funded at all seeing as they are a partisan, pro-abortion lobby group? — are to educate young people about their sexuality in order to decrease the rate of pregnancies and abortions, when, in fact, they push teen sexuality and are voracious advocates of abortion rights.

Their mandate is political (look at their lobbying in the States to get a pro-life ad by Ted Tebow during the Super Bowl pulled) and there is no justification for taxpayers' dollars funding their agenda and their programs. Let them raise their own money.

Planned Parenthood is not so much an educational organization as it is a political advocacy group. As such, it has no business being funded by the federal government. This is one more file that Stephen Harper and his government is cleaning up. It's certainly not the case that pro-life groups get federal funding: They raise their own money.

Knock, knock. Anybody home?

Hundreds of thousands of women do not die every year in developed countries either in pregnancy or childbirth. And, while it's true that many do die during pregnancy and childbirth in underdeveloped and developing countries, the answer to their distress isn't abortion but access to medical attention during pregnancy and safer procedures during the birth of their children.

Poor women do NOT want abortions. This is a common fallacy among well-to-do or comfortably off folk. Poor women WANT their babies, they just need better medical attention and access to safe birth procedures.

It might be a good idea for all of you pro-abortion advocates to read a Canadian book called Women's Health After Abortion: The Medical and Psychological Evidence, which chronicles all of the many negative after-effects of abortion to women's health.

BTW, abortion is the only surgical procedure in Canada that does not require informed consent before it is performed. Most girls/women before having an abortion have no idea just how invasive and potentially harmful an abortion procedure is for their future health — and they are not told before the procedure. Yes, their stressful pregnancy is terminated, but that is only the beginning of a whole slew of potential medical problems which abortion advocates like to leave out of any discussion of abortion, thus leaving most women in the dark — and at risk.

Ignatieff had better do his homework on this one, rather than being a typical knee-jerk, pro-abortion lib-leftard. The presumption that abortion is a good thing for women and that access to abortion is necessary for their full emancipation is a fallacy, as is the idea that all women need access to cheap child care. Most moms would like significant tax breaks and job-sharing opportunities to help them make a real choice about child care. Most women, when surveyed, have said that they would prefer to stay home with their children when they're young, before they enter school. These are the initiatives that Ignatieff and his party should be looking at: not herding small children into government-funded daycare facilities where the ratio is often over five children to one adult or into all-day kindergarten for three-year-olds.

That's what the Communists did. It didn't work.

You know what, I think that is a fair policy position to take for a government. Not all NGOs or charities should be entitled to get funding and the government should be entitled to make up its own mind on such matters. What bugs me is that Harper is doing this – and many other changes like this – on the sly. He never mentioned any of this in any campaign, never gave Canadians a chance to voice their opinion about this, and it flies in the face of some of the general statements he did make.

I provided the example to provide some context to Ignatieff's comments. Stephen and the PMO are howling that this is politicizing Harper's announcement and comes out of the blue, when the reality is that Iggy is only taking to the public what Harper has been trying to do behind closed doors. Now it's out in the open.

Was Harper going to change Canada's international aid policies based on far right ideology? My guess is yes he was because he has been.

Again, that's fine, but let's do the democratic thing and talk about it, openly. My guess is that now that it is out in the open, there's not a chance that Harper will. He's that kind of guy.

Could you please post links for Harper's announcement at the G8, and Ignatieff's response that you disapprove of? I just want to be sure I'm seeing what you're seeing. Thanks.

Sometimes reductio ad amaricanum isn't a fallacy. If the shoe fits…

The presumption that abortion is a good thing for women and that access to abortion is necessary for their full emancipation is a fallacy, as is the idea that all women need access to cheap child care.

Hoo boy. THIS. This is why it's a wedge issue.

The RIGHT TO ACCESS TO ABORTION is absolutely necessary for [women's] full emancipation. There's no room for debate on this. Sorry.

Re access to child care – in this day and age, it's no longer possible for someone earning minimum wage in Canada to get out of poverty, much less support a family. In most families, both parents have to work. When it's possible for any family to get by on a single income, I'll support your call to stop subsidizing daycare. Really. Call me.

If Harper is proposing to provide subsidies that would allow a parent to stay home for the first 5 years of life, I'd be receptive, but it's hard to imagine how that will be less expensive than subsidized day-care…

For a pro-family party, your opposition to same-sex families is puzzling, btw.

Or we could just have Stephen Harper exhibit uncharacteristic candour and either say he supports a woman's right to control her own body at every stage of the reproductive cycle as a matter of public policy – notwithstanding his or any other Canadians' own faith or personal moral views – and that Canadian foreign policy will embrace contraceptives and accessible, safe abortions as critical elements of our maternal health agenda abroad.

But Canadians know not to hold their breath for that kind of honesty from Stephen Harper.

As all good Tory sycophants know… he can't. The base would revolt. The wink-wink, nudge-nudge cowardice of Tories on this issue is laughable, especially for a PM who's been so ballsy if hopelessly misguided on other issues.

The truth is, many Tories support the Bush era restrictions on these precise dimensions of female health, moral and policy calamities that they were. If the Conservative Party believes in any such restrictions they should say so. If not, as the PMO seems to infer with Stephen's response, they won't object to Ignatieff's proposal.

I'm the furthest thing from an Iggy Liberal, and have in fact always voted NDP, but the reality is the Prime Minister needs to answer the question. This is a Conservative Party whose members have advanced PMBs to restrict or eliminate abortion rights in several ways, and perhaps a majority of whose Federal caucus is on the record opposing reproductive rights for women.

Iggy is asking a valid question: what's Harper's and the Government's view of this question. If Canada is going to be undertaking a global campaign on maternal health, these are highly relevant and eminently fair questions.

Maybe instead of piling on an easy target like Iggy we could get a simple answer from Canada's leadership?

This isn't about domestic policy. Everyone knows that is settled.
Ignatieff is trying to set the foriegn aid policy of this country which is not a settled issue as far as I know.

I saw the article which outlined Igantief's concerns last night on the Toronto Star website and suspected it would be front and center on most other websites by the time I got up this morning. I was wrong and not for a lack of trying to find it. It was almost as if the usual media culprits that love to tear down Harper took one look at the issues Iggy was raising and decided to censor him. To send him back to his wedge-issue drawing board.

I also found it amusing that the Star article went to pains to try to draw a link between Harper's new proposals and George Bush's aid policy in Africa. Although I'm not exactly sure how the two are related, I find it odd that regardless of Bush's funding strategy, the one area on which virtually all of his detractors agree is the overwhelming progress Bush made in Africa. They love him there. I recall the widespread criticism of Bush's aid policy. I also remember the quiet applause he received in retrospect for the results of those policies, regardless of the funding policies.

Oh well. It all seems like a moot point this evening due to the fact that the media decided to save Iggy from himself this time and more or less ignore his foray into the chasm of an abortion-rights debate.

Shame on the cowardly politicians who declare the debate “over”. Here's a talk given recently by Michael Coren at Queen's University entitled “Abortion: Canada's National Shame”:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnwtCJPvGRY

“Great truths can only be forgotten and can never be falsified.”, “Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” – G.K. Chesterton

No matter how thoroughly the truth is ignored or debate shut down, the truth of fundamental human rights will always remain.

My MP said this issue is “Not going away”. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWH14ljM1BM

Poor Teddy,

Remember your FB pajama group? 220k right, less than 20k got dressed, oh well.

Disrespecting the 5.2 million Canadians who voted for the CPC to form the government again. Fortunately for us in 2008 over 750,00 Liberal voters decided to stay home. In November 2009 voters continued to abandon the Liberals resulting in 0-4.

The Liberals are scraping the barrel again.

“The Conservatives have no policy on abortion, and in every election they have promised not to change our abortion laws.”

Uh, Ted, that was and is their policy, to keep the status quo and not make any changes. Gotta give you credit though. Not many people can contradict themselves in the same sentence.

No policy on abortion as an issue: the Conservative Party is neither pro-choice, like the other parties, nor pro-life. It has no position on abortion.

It also shares the policy of the others of not making any changes to the laws.

I believe the subject was aid to mothers and children in 3rd world countries. What does this have to do with abortion. Does Mr. Iggy expect us to fund abortions in these countries, That must be what he wants because we as tax payers already pay for abortions here in Canada.

This is a non issue and is being used to excite his base, satisfy the lobbiest, and hopefully get the women's support and divide the citizens. In other words – he just stirring up the Sh#*. No one is refused an abortion here in Canada and this issue was put to bed a few years ago. Pretty darn pathetic.

Ted, though I appreciate some of what you say, you are being disingenuous when you say that Stephen Harper didn't campaign on divesting PP of 99% of it's (illegitimate) budget from federal funds.

Did the Liberal Government campaign on giving federal funds to Planned Parenthood? Did they tell Canadians that they'd be funding Planned Parenthood's pro-abortion advocacy? No, they didn't. So, you're advocating a double standard here. It's OK for the Liberal Party to fund PP without telling Canadians, but it's not OK for the CPC to withdraw federal funding from PP without telling the Canadian public.

That's essentially what you're saying. Why the double standard?

Um, no, that's not at all what I'm saying.

What I said was that it is the appropriate purvue of the government to decide where it should send money. This particular government, in order to get the abortion monkey off its back, has gone out of its way to clarify that it would not make any changes. The gutting of Planned Parenthood is not a change to the abortion laws. But, unlike other political funding cuts like rights advocacy and KAIROS and arts cuts, they have been chipping away at this and now have almost complete defunded it. Again fine, but the quiet way they are doing it suggests a deliberate attempt to keep it quiet and to push policy that they did not campaign on.

This is different than the Liberals openly saying we are a pro-choice party and making funding decisions that are pro-choice. We don't expect every future decision to be vetted in an election, but you do hope/expect/demand that there is a policy position that supports or is consistent with other policies and actions. You know what you are getting when they won.

The anti-democratic aspect of this is not huge and was not my point. The reason I raised it was more simply to show that Harper is implementing an agenda that he is not discussing in the public and Ignatieff has brought it to the attention of the public. I think that it is always good to have policy discussions out in the open, don't you?

Based on the reactions from the PMO and Stephen here, I suspect they are less pleased about an open discussion about policy.

No, he is trying to preserve the foreign aid policy of this country which we all thought was a settled issue, i.e. there are no ideological pre-conditions for health aid. The reaction from Conservatives seems to indicate that there ought to be.

kenn2: “When it's possible for any family to get by on a single income, I'll support your call to stop subsidizing daycare. Really. Call me.”

GIVE. ME. A. FRIGGING. BREAK.

Call you? Forget it.

I'm that mom. That's my family. We lived on a single income — my husband is in “a helping profession,” so money was always short — and we're now, not facetiously, talking about Freedom 85. We don't own a home, we rent. That's been the cost to our family of my staying home with our kids when they were young, of being Mrs. Volunteer at their school, of providing free daycare for the kids of single moms in our community. And I wouldn't trade our lives for anything because we are tight with our kids, now in their 20s, they share our values, they HAVE values, they volunteer, they work hard, they don't do drugs, they're generous, they help their friends, they contribute to society.

There's more to life than money. Relationships, which you have to nurture, don't just “happen.” You can't rewind the tape. One of the most pressing problems in our schools and our society are neglected children. Do you know how many angry kids there are out there because they get little or no attention from their parents? I do. I'm in their classrooms every day. 'How about you, kenn2? What do you know?

Wake up and smell the coffee. It's exactly your thinking that's got us into the dysfunctional societal mess we're in. Institutional daycare is not the answer. Remember I said it's what the Communists tried and it failed? Do your homework. They also tried it on Kibbutzes and the women after a couple of experimental years said No Way and took their kids back.

Our governments need not to punish parents who decide to stay home to care for their own kids, as the Liberal government did for years, by an inequitable taxation system, when my kids were young. What the CPC are doing now — $100/child 6 and under/month — would have been manna from heaven for my family, and anyone who thinks that $2400/year is “peanuts” is living in an income bracket that, obviously, doesn't need that money. But there are many for whom this amount of money is extremely helpful — and who deeply appreciate the government's acknowledging that staying home with their kids is important: This is a fundamental difference between the CPC and the LPC and NDP.

Leave the ss-parented families out of it, kenn2. I know you want to muddy the water, but, like I said earlier, forget it.

“I'm not exactly sure how the two are related.”

The two are hopefully not related; that is the point.

Bush did some very good things in Africa and helped many Africans. US funds fed babies, fought off diseases, saved lives. But there was a pre-condition to getting US aid to feed your babies, fight of diseases, saving lives: you had to bow to US policies on abortion and even contraception, you had to teach abstinence and not safe sex.

In other words, in order to save the lives of your citizens, you had to adopt George Bush's moral positions. That is what was offensive. And that is what Ignatieff said he hopes Harper isn't trying to do.

So far, Harper and the PMO have remained curiously silent on this issue.

I think you should actually read what he said, which was not that abortions would be required, but that anti-abortion policies would not be a prerequisite to getting funding like Bush did with his African aid.

” … a woman's right to control her own body at every stage of the reproductive cycle” is an oxymoron. She can control her own body BEFORE conception by either not engaging in sexual intercourse or by using contraception is she is sexually active and doesn't want to get pregnant.

HOWEVER, when she becomes pregnant it is no longer only her body that's involved. There are two bodies: hers and her child's. That is scientific fact, not a value judgment.

“If the Conservative Party believes in any such restrictions they should say so.” Well, I don't remember the Liberals, when they were in power, making it explicit what their stand on abortion in third world countries was, though I know they supported abortion in their outreach to third world women regarding “reproductive and health issues.” It's a two-way street, Diane. How come you advocate only one-way street? How come you have one standard for Liberals and another for the CPC.? 'Typical entitled and snotty attitude, if you ask me.

“Reproductive rights for women” should mean that women use their heads when it comes to the sexual choices they make. It shouldn't mean government subsidies for the lousy, often thoughtless, choices they make — i.e., getting pregnant when they “didn't mean to.” It's not the public's responsibility to bail out women who've been promiscuous and have “got into trouble.” Reproductive rights presuppose — or should — reproductive responsibility.

I'm asking for responsibility and accountability on the part of women's reproduction, not just an incessant call for woman's “rights,” too often at the cost of others.

So far, Harper and the PMO have remained curiously silent on this issue.

Not curiously. Not really.

It is amazing how many of those countries Iggy is worried about re abortion, already have laws permitting this, but they have restrictions. One of them is the father must give his permission. In another if the girl is unmarried, she must get her parents permission. Good luck in Iggy getting Iran to allow abortions for rape, mental problems, and other reasons.
Then how about those countries that will stone a woman for adultery, or a young unmarried girl if she has premarital sex. You can google countries with abortion laws, and all countries come up with information on how and when they are allowed. So, we do not need to set up clinics, they already have the facilities. As for Canada, abortion is allowed for every reason listed.

safe abortions as critical elements of our maternal health agenda abroad.

Translation: Either you buy into abortion or we don't give you aid. What if they are backward primatives that think that killing their babies is murder? Do we let them starve or die from drinking filthy water? Give your head a shake??? There's a tremendous amount more to helping people that forceing them into an unwanted and to them hideos practice.

What evidence do you have for your wild allegations?

Can you prove that you don't hit your wife?

What evidence do you have for your wild allegations?

Can you prove that you don't hit your wife?

Oh yes its curious because Harper has proven he is not trustworthy in the least

CS,er, Brusmit et al……….The liberals have always been open about women's rights to self determination. Your use of out of date stats doesn't change from blog to blog I see. Liberals are the official opposition,the government in waiting, and should take a stand, This is something you Tory lovers have criticised them for not doing in the past.

Parnel,
Just visited Nik's blog and see that your latest account again has been suspended for trolling. You do NOT get to decide what FACTS are out of date. Nice try!
Clearly it disturbs you when Teddy refers to the 2008 election results as an aberration instead of the pattern of voters abandoning the Liberal Party for others parties. Again you don't decide if Canadians stop supporting your party.
Layton in the leadership numbers from most pollsters beats Iffy. The same problem existed for Dion and we knew how that turned out!
In 1993 the Liberals launched the Red Book and spent years ignoring it. From the environment ignoring Kyoto to tackling a Provincial Issue such as Daycare the pattern is NOT unique for the Liberal Party.
Your leader may have taken a pro-abortion policy stance as a means of population control even though statistics prove Africa is NOT overpopulated. His views in Empire building and Colonialism is another failing.
The announcement reflects another decision not widely supported within his caucus.(Check with Paul Szabo or John McKay) The fact he spent 34 years outside Canada and not democratically elected to lead the Liberals by the grassroots may have been responsible for his recent outburst.
The fallout from the Liberals in losing the Catholic vote, the “hide the wafer” smear at a state funeral, and now demanding we enact population control in Africa is part of the systemic problem with the Liberals.
It is NO suprise in October 2008 they polled the worst in over 100 years in P.O.P. It is of NO suprise in November 2009 they lost all four elections. Many Liberals are now wishing they had a leadership contest!

Parnel,

making up the facts again?

Mr. Nanos, meanwhile, said that from the point of view of leadership, Mr. Harper maintains a “pretty substantial lead on trust, vision and competence” when compared to his rival federal leaders. The Hill Times January 11, 2010
http://www.hilltimes.com/page/view/prorogation-…

Nice try with another “mistatement” of facts!

The $2400/year I'm referring to above is what a family with two children, as I had, would receive a year under the CPC policy. If you have five kids, as some families I know have, they would receive $6000/year. That's a lot of snowsuits, snowboots, milk, etc., which cost a one-income family the same as a two-income family — and it was always a challenge, living on one income, to cover all of those basic expenses: but, let me emphasize, worth the struggle to be with my children during what is, undoubtedly, the most developmentally rich time of their lives. All psychologists say that the first five years of life are extremely important for children and that what happens in those first years has an impact on the individual for the rest of their lives.

I should also emphasize that my children were well socialized, a common fallacy on the part of daycare advocates about stay-at-home moms and kids being that they aren't socialized because they don't spend all day with children their own age. My children, I submit, were better socialized because we spent time with kids “from two to 92.” They are comfortable with their peers, but also with younger and much older people. Their socialization was multi-generational.

The leftists don't really care about this issue, they are just trying to re-introduce the coalition friendly talking points.

Is this plan costed, or does it have the support of the provinces? The Federal Government has NO authority in dictating policy in this area and can only transfer money. The provinces have a history of Federal 'lip service' with a start up donation than left holding the bag for running the programs.

The provinces will have a great deal of experience being left at the altar with the Federal Liberals. Anyone rember the $ 25 Billion gutted in healthcare, education and social services by the Liberals in the 1990's?

You made it. Congratulations. We don't know what town you're in (guessing it wasn't big urban) , or what your husband made (might not be 6 figures, bet it wasn't minimum), but nonetheless, you made a choice, made sacrifices, worked at it, and got through it. You have a right to be proud about that.

You don't have a right to inflict that on others because you disagree with their choices.

What do I know? I know that too many families can't get by on one income, even by making sacrifices. I know that even some middle-class earners can't get by on one salary if they have to work around a major city. I know many “freedom 85ers” who will end up on welfare cos they don't have retirement savings.

And it's not looking much better for the short term, because while we were out there working and raising kids and doing our part, some rich bastards went and broke the economy.

I have no problem with the CPC grant for children. With enough of that in place, I'd reduce or drop daycare subsidies. I think it's great when parent's have the choice to stay at home with their little ones. But I wouldn't FORCE a parent to stay home.

The trouble with some of these “values” from the right is that you think you have the right to force others to act according to your beliefs, without regard to their values, situation, culture, beliefs, aspirations.

We have to work with what we have now. Much as we all may like, we can't rewind to the '60s.

Just stick to your myths about media, please.

Kenn2

1) Censorship
2)Population Control

anything else behind your hidden agenda?

CS, er, brusmit……That's the best you can do. A comment from a month ago. Why not quote Frank Graves of EKOS on his two latest polls..here's the latest from him:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/pdf/federal-vote-intenti…
And from the G&M quoting Graves:

“But Mr. Graves says the arithmetic around an election and the public appetite for one appears to be changing.

“It seemed that the first take on the new deadlock was that this would spike everyone’s interest in a spring election,” Mr. Graves says. “But as the trend clearly favours the opposition and Liberals there may be a growing sense that given the right opportunity, why not?”

This latest survey also shows some other interesting trends – that the Tories, for example, no longer have the lock on all the key demographics. Conservatives are now only leading among seniors and in Alberta and Saskatchewan.

The Liberals, meanwhile, have grown in support and are leading in key battleground areas such as Ontario and Quebec; among women (31.5 per cent for the Grits compared to 28.3 for the Tories); and among university educated voters. “
…………………………….

Nobody actually likes abortion. Even lefties.

So tell me why the right opposes proper sex education, including full and frank discussion of the contraceptive options? And of the availability of safer, earlier abortion options like RU486?

Abstinence education? Two words: Bristol Palin.

You don't need to be promiscuous to “get into trouble”. Once is often enough, and contraceptives can fail, especially when their use is not fully understood. Reproductive responsibility requires knowledge.

It's not the public's responsibility to bail out women who've been promiscuous and have “got into trouble.”

… and yet you decry the plight of neglected children upthread. Which is it?

Beer in fountains. Free pizza after midnight.

Priorities little man.

1) Clean water (Maslow hiearchy)
2) Food, shelter.

Your population control sex education is down the list of needs.

Terry,

one of the problem with the Michael Mann hide the decline Liberals is they ignore actual evidence.

General Election and by-elections take place. Since 2000 the results have been VERY clear.

The earth is cooling and the Liberals are losing support by sending less MP's to Ottawa.

I understand why Liberals like to “cherry pick” specific polls, like Michael Mann who ignored tree ring data in Northern Russia and ignored other weather data that showed global cooling.

The Facts are in this decade temps are down as are Liberals fortunes. Nothing personal but if your party can't match the small donations per 40k per quarter, run to the courts to prevent bankruptcy, muzzle the canaries in the coal mine (Janine Krieber and Denis Coderre) your party is DEAD.

Is this what the Liberals are reduced to in payment for the war room college kids? Another photo contest, or hide the wafer stories?

I get it, Liberals are terrified of costing and negotiating real policies in parliament. They can only offer solutions from the press gallery and staged events?

Again, congratulations.

Wow, two families. On a right wing site. This is a real trend…

Look I don't want to disparage good people with good intentions. But you cannot impose a burden on others unless you can somehow also magically also impose all the advantages you also had – your families, your values, your education, your skills, your breaks, your… race/ethnicity/religion.

Exactly, we call them priorities.

Kenn2 calls them tax funded rights!

Their are perhaps a few reasons that we have to work longer and with two incomes;Some are selfish others not.
The standard of living is generally higher today than it was a generation ago.Houses are bigger, there are more appliances ,cars, computers,etc. We won't live without them.
But the other part is social engineering. We have increased taxes so much that it takes more of our income than lodging.You must work more to pay more taxes.
The solution suggested is more services that will lead to more taxes.

Suppose that the average income per family in 1960 was 1.4.Suppose today it is 1.8(these are guesses). What does the family do when it reaches more than 2.0? It makes more sense to pay people to stay home and raise their kids. The system will eventually collapse.

Exactly.

On what planet do your live?

You are NOT entitled to anything, go get a job and pay for your lifestyle.

Want an XBOX, new car a trip to Florida, good grief!

Why should my tax dollars be funded to pay for your lack of planning, personal responsibilities or priorities? If you want a nanny state keep voting for the coalition parties who think National Daycare and funding for abortions in Africa are worthwhile uses for taxpayers dollars.

Try China and Cuba, Liberals love those places.

If we can't impose a burden on families, why can your side tell us we must kill our unborn children.
Canada has no abortion law, but many of the countries Iggy is worried about do have laws. Google countries with abortion laws and you might get a surprise, especially at the restrictions placed on them.
Will libs campaign on, we will build abortion clinics and fund them in 3rd world countries, but wont object to girls being blown up by terrorists, or their schools being blown up, again by terrorists.
But, if all doctors in Canada that do abortions decide to go to those countries to practice their craft, more power to them.

eat my shorts.

You've skipped your meds again, haven't you?

I am not on any meds of any kind and do not need any. Your side thinks it is ok to push your views on everyone, but refuse to allow anyone to disagree with you. Look at all the anger in the US for the super bowl ad re chosing life over death. Why are they so afraid of this story getting out. Are they afraid that one 30 second ad will change any opinions. Oh, and support for Roe vs Wade is losing support by the public in the US. All your side can do is insult and hide in your immorality.
You just try to bring everyone down to your level, so you can feel good. How many abortions have you been responsible for.

Any catch the news report about the woman having her 19 th kid.

I hear you, but we have to work with what we've got.

A great number of forces, including several governments, got us to where we are today. Liberals spent (They also wiped out the deficit at one point btw) PCs spent.Liberals cut. PCs cut.And business kept slowly squeezing more out of their companies, and we all agreed to trade jobs for cheap stuff. And kept buying more and more stuff.

If the government & business didn't want us to spend spend spend, then why are 0% down mortgages still supported by CHMC? Why are payday loan companies (loansharks with storefronts) legal?

(Also, as refresher, we're arguing about existing daycare subsidies, not new programs)

Hi and welcome to Ontario.

batb and I were discussing the situation IN Canada.

Try and keep up. It's tough, but it's worth it.

Well when ladies I work with have ultrasounds done-they are pretty excited about the LIVING person they see. In fact they bring pictures to show us. Tell them they are not living!!!!

The RIGHT TO ACCESS TO ABORTION is absolutely necessary for [women's] full emancipation. There's no room for debate on this. Sorry.

Yes there is. I'm a woman. I am emancipated. I am emancipated because I am responsible. You and your feminist ideology do not represent me.

we did. my wife was a stay-at-home mom from 1989 through 2001, when our youngest turned 10.
it starts with this – you buy a modest house, you drive old cars, no exotic vacations, no expensive renos.
We lived on a street full of stay at home moms in Burlington, On. If we could do it here, you can do it anywhere. You just have to choose to afford it.

we did. my wife was a stay-at-home mom from 1989 through 2001, when our youngest turned 10.
it starts with this – you buy a modest house, you drive old cars, no exotic vacations, no expensive renos.
We lived on a street full of stay at home moms in Burlington, On. If we could do it here, you can do it anywhere. You just have to choose to afford it.

As a volunteer who travels to Southern Africa at least twice a year for a month each time to work with women, AIDS orphans and vulnerable youth, I can tell you first hand that the people I come in contact with and have come to known quite well over the past 5 years do not see abortion as a solution their health problems. they need food, clean water, quality school education and medical care. They want to keep their babies. Having said that “How many of the commentators on this blog have actually been to a third world country and lived and worked with the local people”. Many here speak like they have all the answers BUT have never spoken with a regular person in the third world in their lives. You lack credibility.

“Should Canada only give foreign aid to countries that adhere to Canadas abortion laws?”

we don’t have an abortion law.

“Should Canada only give foreign aid to countries that adhere to Canadas abortion laws?”

we don’t have an abortion law.

The Star’s Susan Delacourt has already done the round up of why this came up and it wasn’t Ignatieff who first raised it. After Harper’s announcement about wanting to help women (HA!), the pro-lifers were first to point out that ‘maternal health’ better not include abortions.

http://thestar.blogs.com/politics/2010/02/not-so-much-of-a-surprise-part-2.html

The Star’s Susan Delacourt has already done the round up of why this came up and it wasn’t Ignatieff who first raised it. After Harper’s announcement about wanting to help women (HA!), the pro-lifers were first to point out that ‘maternal health’ better not include abortions.

http://thestar.blogs.com/politics/2010/02/not-so-much-of-a-surprise-part-2.html

what mess?

what mess?

Very good post. I find I’m growing tired of the oposition hammering issues that the general pop doesn’t seem to give a stink about. Then, ballon the issue to have people believe that they should be upset about them. Proroguing (who cares?), Afgan detainees, abortion…… How about the Liberals tell me thier bright ideas on how to run things here in Canada? I prefer a leader with his nose to the grind stone. Not a fence sitting Liberal do-nothing.

Very good post. I find I’m growing tired of the oposition hammering issues that the general pop doesn’t seem to give a stink about. Then, ballon the issue to have people believe that they should be upset about them. Proroguing (who cares?), Afgan detainees, abortion…… How about the Liberals tell me thier bright ideas on how to run things here in Canada? I prefer a leader with his nose to the grind stone. Not a fence sitting Liberal do-nothing.

Not so much my agenda; I'm only going by what the majority of Canadian women seem to have said – in public, through elections and court cases, and by what all political parties have agreed not to change. If you want to reopen this, by all means. Let us know what you decide on and we'll vote on it.

No-one's reading up here so i can say this in relative obscurity… I agree with this editorial:
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/artic…

If Harper's being straight-up about this, and there's no hidden Bush-like preconditions… then I can support this initiative. I'm hoping that it's not merely a shuffle of existing aid allotments, other than cutting programs that are demonstrably ineffective.

So… have I been trolled… by Ignatieff? I'm gonna Rick-roll him RIGHT NOW!

I have never figured out why we need Planned Parenthood. Okay, a man and a woman fall in love and marry. They decide to have a child. They have a child. They either stop there or have more. There – it's all planned.

How is it saving lives? If a mother's life is in danger, I am sure the pregnancy would be terminated. Otherwise, what lives are bing saved? Just because two people are careless and have no regard for human life is no reason to murder the most vulnerable member of our society – namely, the unborn. Murdering unborn babies is not in the best interests of women. How about men and women behaving responsibly instead of doing the horizontal cha-cha and then murdering an unborn child?

No kidding. There is nothing like the smile on an expectant mother's face when she shows the ultrasound photo of her little baby.

Classic.

Are you talking of hundreds of thousands of Canadian women who die in pregnancy and childbirth or are you talking about war-torn or third-world countries?

No debate on that issue? Uh, says who? You? Fine, we won't discuss it with you. BTW – I believe that you are wrong but, since you won't debate it, I won't. A closed mind is a waste of time.

Kenn – they can't get by on one income because they are paying too much in taxes to support cost inefficient government programs. I don't know why you commies insist on pushing day care instead of listening to women and some men who want to stay home but want a tax break for doing so. Commies just won't listen to the actual people – they only push their own twisted agenda.

I'm sorry your reading comprehension is under the weather today. I've said above and elsewhere in here that I'd have no problem with a direct allowance (or a tax break) for parents in lieu of subsidized daycare. The net cost would be comparable, so what would be the savings, though?

And, try to lose the commie bullsh!t, m'kay? I haven't called anyone a fascist bigot yet, have I?

Sorry, to be clear, are you saying that Canadian women should not have the right to access to abortion?

CS alias brusmith……….keep up the retro work and whining. It looks good on you

Parnel,
You party has not won a majority in over a decade, reduced with 77 seats using props and staging publicity events to get attention has put in a second leader polling behind Jack Layton on key issues.
A) Who is whining and distorting the facts with 20 aliases?
B) Your party ran to the courts over debts in 2006, refuses to repay the GST.
C) Reduced to radio and print ads on attack ads….

How is the revolt at HQ over Iffy going pro-abortion?

Harper acknowledges global warming. He may also acknowledge defeat sooner than you expect, if he doesn't get back on track.

Uh, no. That is not what I was saying. I'm sorry our reading ability is sub-par, today. Now, for the record: if a woman's life is in danger, I support termination of pregnancy if she so chooses. As a method of birth control – NO. That is when it becomes murder, pure and simple. Sorry, that's the way I see it. You do the horizontal cha-cha during a fertile period without protection – pregnancy usually results. Will we die if we don't have sex right now? Uh, no. So, easy sleazy sex should not be paid for by the unborn baby. I repeat – if the mother's life is in danger and she chooses to terminate, then I am in support.

Well, it seems that our party has accepted the fact that abortion exists. Despite Ignatieff and Antonia Zerbisias' rantings, the CPC has not touched the issue. It is Ignatieff who wants to make it an issue. He's about 30 years out of date – about the same time he was American.

Ok. That's quite clear. Thanks.

Well, kenn2, thanks for the kudos, but where did I say that I would “FORCE a parent to stay home”? That's the problem with you lefties. You ASSUME from a stand that I take for myself, and others who CHOOSE that stand as well, that I am insisting that everyone do as I do. That's not what I said. However, it sure pi**ed me off that the Liberal$ only wanted what tax revenue I could pour into their coffers had I worked outside the home and that they penalized my one-income/parent-home-to-care- for-the-kids family.

They had an agenda. The feminists in the Librano party had an agenda to get women out of the home and into the workplace because they wanted to take over the education — IMO indoctrination — of Canadian children. I wasn't having any of it. But I certainly never proposed FORCING women with children to stay home. And neither has any Conservative government, so I don't know what you're talking about.

Then, this doozy: “The trouble with some of these 'values' from the right is that you think you have the right to force others to act according to your beliefs, without regard to their values, situation, culture, beliefs, aspirations.”

EXCUSE ME? You could be talking about values from the left which force others to act according to their beliefs, without regard to others' values, situation, culture, beliefs, aspirations. That's what abortion on demand — paid for by all Canadians, many of whom who abhor abortion — does: It forces lib-left-fem “solutions” to social problems on all of us, solutions that many of us have moral and spiritual objections to. We all are forced to pay for them, despite our divergent values from those who champion abortion as a solution to a “problem pregnancy.”

'Last time I looked, Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms still upheld individuals' freedom of religion and, yet, if those of us with religious scruples speak up, we're accused of “forcing our values on others.” My objection to abortion does no such thing. I, however, in having to pay for over 100,000 abortions a year in Canada am forced, against my values, to participate in a procedure I have deep moral objections to.

BTW, I've taken a young, pregnant girl into my home when she needed a place to stay and provided physical and emotional support to her — something that preserved life, as she had her baby and gave it up for adoption. That was her choice. She did not want an abortion, but she was chastised by many of the twenty-somethings in her college dorm a) for getting pregnant in the first place and b) for carrying her baby to term. She, herself, had been adopted, which may have been the impetus for her wanting to give her baby the gift of life.

Let's look at abortion in third world countries. If there are complications in a tiny town or out in the country, who will the woman go to for medical care? There are no clinics. There are no doctors. There are no drugstores where she can buy medications. She has no money. Unlike here in Canada, where a woman experiencing complications after an abortion procedure can go to the emergency department of a hospital (which is what she is counseled to do in pamphlets given to her in an abortion clinic), where medicare will pay for the cleanup or post-op difficulty, where a drugs dispensary is just down the street and open until midnight, thousands of women in the third world would die from complications after an abortion — and, possibly, never be able to conceive again, which is a risk that aborting women face. That would be a disaster for her and her family, seeing as children are the only “old age security” desperately poor women have.

Oh, wait. Is that the ulterior motive for the AGW-, One World Government-sensitive lefties? They think the world is already overpopulated, so third world women not being able to have any more children from post-abortion complications might not really bother them. There are circles within circles when you begin talking about the “therapeutic benefits” of abortion to women.

In fact, there are very few benefits of abortion to women, except a few very short-term ones (no more inconvenient baby) and a faulty sense of having been emancipated. Hundreds of thousands of women regret the abortion(s) they had, and far from feeling emancipated, often feel (ab)used by the father of their aborted child and haunted by who that child might have been.

Abortion — the taking of a tiny, vulnerable human life — as a solution to a social problem forces a brutal, short-term panacea on our society, doubly scandalous in that it elicits even the participation of those who oppose it because we have to pay for it. Who's forcing what on whom, kenn2?

Brusmit/CS…when was the last time a Tory party won a majority……….1988 maybe? just thought you'd like to know you put your foot in your mough again.

Pendulums swing and they are now swinging LIBERAL

ken2…..she , canadian sense, cannot keep up,not even close.

Kenn2… they all seem to have forgotten the Harris “download” years that still resulted in serious deficits that are still felt today.

Brusmit/CS………….the libs are moving ahead in the polls. Please try and keep up. they ar emoving ahead because they provide credible oppostion while Harper lies and fiddles around with every ethical practice he can ge this hands on.

Would those be the same years that the FEDERAL LIBERALS decimated the provincial transfer payments? Get up to speed man and do some due diligence research so that your talking points offer a simple fact or two, just one or two, that's all we ask. As it stands, zero but hey, enjoy your current 'have not' Premier whittling away your provincial wealth, credibility and character. Yup, that's a guy worth defending. (sarc)

I said: “It's not the public's responsibility to bail out women who've been promiscuous and have 'got into trouble.'” (By which I meant that it's not our responsibility, or shouldn't be, to pay for abortions as birth control after-the-fact, after a few too many martinis …)

You said: ” … and yet you decry the plight of neglected children upthread. Which is it?”

It's not an either/or situation.

Are you saying that all “unwanted” children, if not aborted, will end up being neglected?

Oftentimes, when an unexpected pregnancy is taken to term, the baby is eventually accepted by his/her mother and and welcomed into the family with open arms. In such cases, these children are in no way neglected.

However, even if an “unwanted” child became a neglected child, I'm afraid I could never agree that being aborted would have been better for them. Neglected children often find mentors in teachers, pastors, athletic coaches, etc.

Unfortunately, people with your mindset, kenn2, seem incapable of seeing the broader picture and seem to need to compartmentalize situations into “it's either this way or it's that way,” “it's all or nothing.” Life is more gloriously complicated than that and where there is love and compassion and a willingness to sacrifice, no child is ever an unwanted child and all children are welcomed, even if not by their birth mothers or families.

You are against abortion on demand. I get that.

Let's get the myths out of the way first:

They had an agenda. The feminists in the Librano party had an agenda to get women out of the home and into the workplace because they wanted to take over the education — IMO indoctrination — of Canadian children.

You have got to be kidding. Liberals want what any federal party wants – people to work and pay taxes and to re-elect them. Period.

Then, this doozy: “The trouble with some of these 'values' from the right is that you think you have the right to force others to act according to your beliefs, without regard to their values, situation, culture, beliefs, aspirations.”

EXCUSE ME? You could be talking about values from the left which force others to act according to their beliefs, without regard to others' values, situation, culture, beliefs, aspirations. That's what abortion on demand — paid for by all Canadians, many of whom who abhor abortion — does: It forces lib-left-fem “solutions” to social problems on all of us, solutions that many of us have moral and spiritual objections to. We all are forced to pay for them, despite our divergent values from those who champion abortion as a solution to a “problem pregnancy.”

Let's have a look, then. No-one is forcing you or anyone to have an abortion; but you would prefer to FORCE women with unwanted pregnancies to carry to term and go through the equally hard decision of putting the child up for adoption or trying to raise it. Then the right's “values” make people all hissy about paying for daycare or child support for the single mother. That's some set of values.

The 3rd-world botched abortions you're carrying on about come about when medically safe, compassionate abortion services aren't available. This used to happen in Canada, til abortion became legal.

Is that the ulterior motive for the AGW-, One World Government-sensitive lefties? They think the world is already overpopulated, so third world women not being able to have any more children from post-abortion complications might not really bother them. There are circles within circles when you begin talking about the “therapeutic benefits” of abortion to women.

Another “you've got to be kidding”. This population-control meme is real tin-foil hat stuff.

I would be quite happy if there was never another elective abortion performed. That requires real sex education, which the right opposes. That requires support for single moms, which the right opposes. Why?

Finally, I always find it curious how the right can focus in on the issue of terminating a tiny days-old embryo, but when it comes to invading Afghanistan or Iraq (even Stephen Taylor agrees that Harper would have got us into Iraq) they're all for it, regardless if it means the death of hundreds of thousands of people. Embryos are worth more than grown-up brown people. Or the lives and souls of the troops we sent in there to kill them. Interesting.

Those were caused by the Chretien/Martin “cutbacks to the provinces” years. Funny how Liberals seem to forget that.

They’re only LIVING when they’re wanted. How sad is that?

Well, Short Temper, I have lived in a “developing” country, not quite third world, and I know that the people there neither want nor need the “solution” to their problems of abortion. Like you say, they need clean water, food, education, and consistent medical care. It would also be very helpful if their governments weren't so corrupt and didn't scrape off 80 to 90 per cent of foreign aid meant to help the people, not the elites living in palatial splendour.

Even Germaine Greer, a rather fierce — but thoughtful — feminist has noted how arrogant it is of Westerners to foist their “solutions” on people in third world countries, often with completely different values and norms from our own. She acknowledges that what Western feminists see as solutions to “women's problems” in third world countries is often way off the mark. One example: third world women WANT their babies, as difficult as their lives are, whereas radical feminists tend to see children as burdens and as impediments to self-fulfillment.

People in your mind-set are wallowing in fact-free ignorance.

said: “It's not the public's responsibility to bail out women who've been promiscuous and have 'got into trouble.'”

Funny, I thought we only punished crimes, not mistakes. Would you have a trial to see if there was promiscuity on the night in question.? “Yer honner, she had a purty dress, and smelt real nice” “Guilty!! No funding for youuuuu…you slut!”

I think that religions I don't agree with shouldn't get tax-breaks or non-profit status. But we have to compromise somewhere…

“after a few too many martinis” I'm loving that. Affluent women have the birth-control thing sorted out. It's the poor and the young (whom you don't want to educate properly) who get into trouble.

Abortions have always been with us, btw. When they weren't legal, they were often performed in Canada, by many if not most doctors, under euphemisms like “D&C” . For the poor, ignorant or underage, they were performed in back alleys. It won't go away. As a society the best we can do is to ensure that all possible assistance is available for the mother who chooses to carry to term, and for those who still choose abortion, that it is legally available as a proper medical procedure.

Are you saying that all “unwanted” children, if not aborted, will end up being neglected?
Of course not. But forcing a mother to raise an unwanted child when they are unprepared or incapable of taking proper care of them is hardly a great start.

Kenn2… your opinion is one of open thinking that allows for humans to have some latitude in their lives. Its called freedom. The people you are debating with are narrow minded and mean spirited types typically very conservative and always cranky.

women need to have the freedom to decide on their own about their bodies. I grew up in quebec and before Morgentaler there were scuzzy types doing abortions in lane ways and flop houses. That's exactly where the naysayers here want to to see happen again. Of course the government could also supply chastity belts to all umarried women…….LOL

You'd love to know who I am over there wouldn't you. I've left you some direct hints to make it simple.

The iberals are slowly winning back the vote of Canadians from all segments of our society. They don't run on religious grounds.

kenn2: “People in your mind-set are wallowing in fact-free ignorance.”

It would seem, rather, that it's people in r&t's and your mindset that have problems with facts:

r&t: ” … women need to have the freedom to decide on their own about their bodies.”

You seem to be totally unaware, r&t, that when a woman becomes pregnant, it's not just her body she's dealing with. I know. I have children. Almost the minute of conception — and certainly within hours — you start feeling quite different, almost weird, as the hormones begin to kick in. All through your pregnancy, you are totally aware that you are carrying another human being within you, so that any decision you make about your pregnancy involves another, not just you. Then, there's the father of the child. Of course, in Canadian law, biological fathers have been airbrushed out of the equation but just because the law is an ass doesn't mean that fathers shouldn't have some say in what happens to their child if they are willing to take responsibility for him/her.

And, another thing: Morgentaler was a scuzzy type, not even an ob/gyn, who many times was disciplined by the Quebec Medical Association for botched procedures and yet proceeded to become a multi-millionaire from the proceeds of abortion.

kenn2: “Affluent women have the birth-control thing sorted out … It's the poor and the young (whom you don't want to educate properly) who get into trouble.”

What planet are you living on? I know a ton of affluent women who've had abortions and who, BTW, were the recipients of plenty of sex ed, quite likely doled out by Planned Parenthood.

As for the churches' tax breaks: Churches have always been providers of social services totally free of charge because of parishioners volunteering untold hours of labour which, if the government had to provide them would cost many times more. Your taxes, in fact, would be higher if the government began taxing churches because the government — that's us — would have to provide soup kitchens, food banks, in and out of the cold/heat programs, clothing depots, etc.

The invincible ignorance of the liberal mindset is breathtaking. One hardly knows where to start to try to part lib-lefties from their entrenched stereotypes and downright misrepresentations.

Sigh.

I don't know what you're talking about when you say that “the right” opposes support for single moms. What has the CPC done that “opposes support for single moms?” And if you say they don't support state-run, universal daycare, then include the LPC in there. They had 13 years to institute universal daycare, with majority governments, and they did nothing.

And, now, Ignatieff is pulling this scruffy rabbit out of the Liberal hat, vowing to bankrupt Canada — if that's what it takes — to provide universal, state-run, taxpayer-funded daycare for Canada's kids. How does that help parents who choose to care for their own kids while they try to live on one, stretched-to-the-limit, income? When Canadian women who have children are surveyed, the majority of them say they would prefer to stay home with their pre-school children rather than work outside the home. Ignatieff and his party are not listening to them.

I have always been supportive of single moms — which would include my own mother and one of my sisters. Because I have problems with abortion as “a solution” to stressful pregnancies that makes me opposed to support for single moms?

Go back to the drawing board, kenn2. Divest yourself of the liberal talking points which are far off the mark. Their thinking — your thinking — is stuck in the Canada of 20 years ago. We've moved on.

batb…when a women becomes pregnant is obvious. What is more obvious is that there is not real life until sometime later which is why there are limits as to when abortions can be performed. Not that a fact like that would enter your cranium.

Morgentaler did more for women in pregnancy trouble in this Country than anyone else ever thought to. He opened up the debate on abortion, on womens' rights and the lack of safety in so called illegal ones.
He did receive the order of Canada which you probably called some Liberal trick.

It would appear that some religious reasoning is behind your thinking when in fact its a SECULAR world that causes the issues some women have to face. I was responsible, administratively, for a
Catholic women's shelter that took in single pregnant women and nurtured them financially and pshyologically through the pregnancy. Every women has that choice as well in our society but in some cultures here in Canada it is unthinkable to be single and pregnant. Abortions thus potentially save the woman's life. What about pregnancies that occur from rape and incest for example?

Your intolerant responses are very typical of the narrow minded old white conservative types.

Parnel aka 20 aliases. The Liberals were polling 30% 3 pts above their worst results in 150 years for most of 2009. The only significant gap occured when Iffy made his I have no clothes on statement in sudbury. So for 1/12 did the gap exist of 10-15 pts. The Liberals were in fact ahead for few months in 2009. So your point about a significant change because of (a), (b), (c) is just silly.

But again like most people who have to deal with the math in 200 189 seats in 2010 77. Two general election and 2 byelections demostrating Canadians have abandoned the Liberals for other parties.
If you can prove Elections Canada is counting the results incorrectly, let me know.

Bec,
Parnel does not care about the $ 25 billion gutted in Healthcare, Education and Social Services. The Supreme Court ruling 7-0 against the illegal tax by the Liberal cabinet is okay because Liberal supporters believe they are above the law.

What planet are you living on? I know a ton of affluent women who've had abortions and who, BTW, were the recipients of plenty of sex ed, quite likely doled out by Planned Parenthood.

PP mainly provides counseling and services to the young poor and teens, so forgive me if I think that whole argument is suspect.

Social policies are generally chosen to give the greatest social benefit with least harm. The current (idealized) scenario to manage unwanted pregnancies is education on birth control plus options for the full-term child (support for mothers, adoption), and finally abortion when there's no other acceptable solution.

Your solution is to ignore human nature, refuse proper education on birth control, impose a moral code that's not completely observed even within your peer group, and to ignore the hardships your absolutist stand might impose on others.

I still don't understand why the right is against proper sex ed in high schools.

[re the funding of religious groups, I actually have no disagreement with that, I just needed a rhetorical example of an area where not everyone agrees with funding]

Tory party? Are you talking about the one running against the labor party?

Make up your mind Parnel, this is not the PC party (never voted for) was a Liberal until my Liberal MP stood up to the goons at Lib HQ who lied about the GST. Sheila Copps resigned because she was ashamed for lying and she won so was honourable. The others not so much.
It took two tries and a great deal a Mayor to push out John Nunziata as a Liberal in york south weston.
Like most Canadians after 2000 the Liberals corruption, ignoring the environment, fake daycare plan, ignoring human right abuses, torture of our Canadians citizen abroad, refusing to provide clean and safe drinking water for our aboriginals, brown envelopes, insulting Americans, attending racist conferences : we sent your party packing.

Kenn2,

Big deal, I don't agree with everything our PM does. When Barbie dumped you did you agree?

I don't know what you're talking about when you say that “the right” opposes support for single moms. What has the CPC done that “opposes support for single moms?”

I didn't mention the CPC, I said the right, as represented by your able self not feeling obligated to support “promiscuous women 'getting into trouble' ” and by others in this thread. Nor have I myself been plumping for universal state-run daycare. We call these “straw men”.

Still dying to hear your take on sex ed in high school, or the lack thereof.

“Still dying to hear your take on sex ed in high school, or the lack thereof.”

Don't get me started. Life's too short. 'Simply that there are so many faulty assumptions made — and risky, “safer sex” (sic) propaganda spread — by the multi-million dollar sex-ed industry and all of its cheerleaders and monetary recipients, that it's almost impossible to have an intelligent discussion about this issue.

Follow the money. The pharmaceuticals are cleaning up.

r&t: “What is more obvious is that there is not real life until sometime later …”

Simply a lie. Simply not factual. Simply not scientific.

IF there's “no real life,” why the necessity for an abortion? IF there's “no real life,” then there's no problem for a woman who's pregnant, is there? There's no real life there, so there's no real need for an intervention.

Absolutely unbelievable ignorance.

There ARE limits in Canada to when a woman can abort?

Check out Canada's abortion law, r&t. You, obviously, have no idea what it is. Unbelievable. In Canada, there are absolutely no limits to when a woman can abort. Canada is the only industrialized country that has unrestricted legal abortion, where a woman can lawfully abort her baby until just before she goes into labour.

The fact that you don't know this makes me wonder if there's any point in responding to your arguments. One thing you've proven, however, is just how flimsy a foundation your arguments rest upon.

Kenn2,

The tin-foil hat club? That would be someone who ignores history and facts on the ground. Did you attend the Penn State on Climate Science how to make graphs?

Gosh. your detailed evidence and inescapable logic have persuaded me. Better tell Harper next, he's still with the tin-foil hat club on climate change.

Now that you've helped clear that up, maybe now you can tell me about why evolution is a crock.

You have a conspiracy for everything…

“the multi-million dollar sex-ed industry”
That earns a LOL. Hey college grads – can you put a condom on a banana? Then you have what it takes to be a sex-ed tycoon! Seriously, WHAT industry? WHAT money? This is where you should have followed the money… oh wait, there is none! Sue Johansen does not drive a BMW.

Without really wanting to get into the whole big pharma thing, it seems to me that a years' supply of birth-control pills, or a few boxes of condoms and some spermicidal foam, compare quite favourably against the cost of an abortion, or of raising a kid. Just saying.

As for the safer sex options… try it, you'll like it. The missionary position is for missionaries.

brusmit, er, CS,er informed one,etc………..

You keep changing the tune as its obvious you are a fan of the host here. When was the last time a tory government was elected with a majority and more importantly when will the next time be?
They won't be in power by Q4 this year. No minority government has ever won a third term let alone a majority in Canada's history and Stephen (the liar) Harper won't be the first.

Try and keep up to the real world.

that were caused by the incredible Mulroney deficits………..almost all economists world wide give the Libs credit for saving Canada's fiscal reputation in the 90's. This is just another coverup for Harper's destruction of our good fiscal name.

We all know that Harper has yet to move those funds back to the EI fund. When will that happen?

The answer is never because they know Martin did the right thing and their current deficit would be over $100BB if they did.

batb……fully susbsidized day care is very popular in Quebec which totally debunks your theory.

Go back to your drawing board. Canadian women want the option to stay at home or work should that be their desire. Your story is a lie.

I missed this earlier.

There ARE limits in Canada to when a woman can abort?

Check out Canada's abortion law, r&t. You, obviously, have no idea what it is. Unbelievable. In Canada, there are absolutely no limits to when a woman can abort. Canada is the only industrialized country that has unrestricted legal abortion, where a woman can lawfully abort her baby until just before she goes into labour.

This is the Canadian version of the US furor over “partial live birth” abortions, right? In both cases, I believe this is something taken out of context.

In the US, pro-lifers whipped up the base with horror stories about babies being killed as they're being born, without any context of the very few times this has been done, and all the mitigating medical crises that made it necessary. Likewise, do you you have ANY evidence that women in Canada are getting voluntary abortions in the second and third trimester? Really? Cos if you could convince me, I'd help support a law against that.

But I suspect this “no limit” issue is just a Canadian pro-life talking point that assumes women and doctors are all going to be little Dr Mengeles. The only abortions done after the first x weeks are for medical necessity, and that it would violate the Hippocratic oath and established medical ethics to do on-demand abortions after the first trimester. I admit I don't have stats on this.

Great posst kenn2

It's a free country. I'll gladly defend your right to be willfully ignorant.

I wouldn't be so quick to crow about it in public though, if I was you…

And they can thank Alberta for that.

batb..”follow the money”.

Big Pharma is like any other business and they exist to make money which is the backbone of our culture, like it or not. Yes, sexuality is much more open than it was over 50 years ago. That being said our society does not keep things in the closet any longer. Communications are instant and freedom of expression go along with that ability to get a message out to wide audiences. That is where more explicit sexuality has come from, everywhere, except where its censored. Having just returned from a trip to Saudi Arabia I will take our lifetsyle and culture any day. Then again if I voted reform I could have a mini Saudi culture right here.

BIg Pharma has enabled us to live much longer which is a side you choose not to address as you want to stay on your right wing rant. We have been around much longer than the 6000 years your dear leader believes and are evolving much faster than ever and using our minds more and more to their real abilities.
Abortion is one of those societal issues that define our maturity as a culture and an open society that accepts the fact humans are imperfect creatures.

Try living in this age sometime. Its better than the past.

And Alberta can thank the ROC for opening up that part of Canada and enable it to get the infrastructure that enabled an eastern based oil industry to risk lkots of money and find that oil.

You are a typical red neck Albertan type with a short memory.

batb… maybe you should read the article by Jane Taber linked below. Here is a key excerpt:

Frank Graves of the polling company EKOS Research Associates said putting down markers, as Mr. Ignatieff did, is “not a bad idea if your political strategy is to try to say, ‘Okay, we have different visions of Canada.'”

“Maybe [Mr. Ignatieff] wants to remind Canada that the visions and ideology of the group which is currently running the country is incoherent in some cases with the dominant values and interests of the rest of the country,” Mr. Graves said.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blo…
………………………………………
Liberals are also moving ahead of the neanderthal Tories with more support from women.

Parnel you are famous for stating the Harper government is “running scared” since 2006, time is up and the Liberals have a plan. You have also been blame a single event and bad tv commercials for the loss of power by the Liberals. Too funny.
Elections Canada has a website and you can check how in EVERY riding across Canada the 2000 results have shifted to NDP, Green, Bloc and CPC. The fairytale blaming Dion, Greenshift, TV ads is a lovely fairytale. Too bad the shift was gradual and the result of many failures.
Iffy vision and trust are below Jack Layton. Iffy matches up to Dion as per Nik's Nanos Polling in Sept-Dec (leadership numbers) , you can also check with Angus 2008 vs 2009 how far Iffy has fallen from when he first was annointed by a small cabal of insiders.

The Supreme Court of Canada in a decision rules 7-0 it was illegal and you call it the right thing!

How liberal of you.

Now the same liberals are complaining EI is fixed and an independent body will set the “new rates” ignoring how it was frozen for 2 years during this recession while the Liberals cuts thousands off the EI eligibility and raised it during the worst employment numbers. The Liberals paid for it by losing 2 high profile seats out East!

Actually the evidence points out the comunist loving PET who had Cubans lined up for his arrival compliments of Fidel Castro his buddy. Fidel was busy invading Anglo with his army and PET felt it was important to not cancel his trip to offend his buddy.
It is funny how much Liberals love communist dictators in China and Cuba and refer to them as role models for government.

Kenn2,
You are allowed to practice your religion AGWism, it is just not real science. Sorry the “russian” spies broke into the CRU and leaked/fabricated those email “meme” did not hold up to scrutiny.

Give my best to your pope Al Gore, and his cardinals David Suzuki, Michael Mann, Phil Jones, Phil Pachurri. A lovely bunch of coconuts!

Are those “carbon free” shorts? Wouldn't want a polar bear to die on my watch!

Parnel,

I don't give a fig about your multiple aliases on Nik's blog. Just like most sites they get eventually banned when you “lose it”. You lost Parnel and Terry1 already here too?

The significant lead, Catholic votes and visible minority vote were responsible for the 2000 majority. The 14 pt drop in visible minorites and 26% drop in Catholic voters is responsible for the 26% worst in 150 years finish in 2008. Sorry you missed the Report, study or “memo”.

Keep blaming other factors and suggest a quick fix like those Narnia Ads. Nice to see Rick Mercer poking fun at the financial dire straits of the LPOC. The Liberals were unable to mount a TV ad campaign, reduced to youtube, radio spots. Impressive reach.

Healthcare is a provincial file who was in power in Quebec and today? Nice to see the tinfoil hat is on display.

Parnel you claim “I was responsible, administratively, for a Catholic women's shelter that took in single pregnant women and nurtured them financially and pshyologically through the pregnancy.”

I doubt that very much. Nice story based on your attacks on the freedom of religion as per yor pattern of posting. It does not wash.

Liberals gutted $ 25 Billion from Health, Education and Social Services and left the provinces to enact massive cuts and downloads. Goodale cut inpectors citing duplication with provinces remember “mad cow” and walkerton?
Remember how Liberals abandoned Maple Reactors after sinking $ 1 Billion failing to replace the Chalk River Facility that was to be shut down in 2000. Leaving the mess today.
The human rights abuses of Canadians Omar Khadr 2002-2004 handing over testimony to Americans a violation of his “charter rights” going to cost taxpayer $ 10 million compliments of the Liberals. Arar already cost $ 10.5million.
The Liberals create many problems that other governments have to resolve.

You are not defending anything except your privilege to change topics when you fail to make any sense.
You are in support of population control through a Eugenics programs funded by our tax dollars. PP can go out and fundraise and those “religious groups” to their flock. I would remove all funding of all groups regardless of dogma/beliefs.
You are a fan of taxes to fund political parties and groups who share the same views. I want them to seek the support of their policies through voluntary donations.

Janey “Giggles” Taber is a media hack, an unabashed cheerleader for the Liberal$, and her take on anything is immediately suspect.

Holding her up as any kind of “expert” is laughable and demonstrates your desperation and lack of credibility.

Again, r&t, the fact that you had no idea what Canada's abortion law actually allows — unrestricted abortion until the moment labour begins — while weighing in as someone in the know on this issue totally blows any credibility to your arguments . Spouting the lib-left-feminist talking points, without any reference to reality, is pretty pathetic.

Follow the money, r&t; look who's getting rich off the abortion industry: abortionists (Henry Morgentaler became a multi-millionaire), abortionists who sell, and cosmetic companies who buy, the bodies of dead babies to use their collagen in skin creams and other makeup products, and pharmaceutical companies who sell abortionists products and then medications/drugs to women who experience complications after an abortion.

The furthest thing from their minds is women's “rights.” Abortion is a cash cow for them, it's a HUGE money-making industry at the cost of women's health. Do your homework — and I don't mean reading Jane Taber in the Probe and Fail.

You don't have a clue.

The cost of contraceptive pills and spermicidal foam, not to mention condoms, etc. is much higher than you think, because you don't look past the end of your nose.

Check out the epidemic of breast and cervical cancer, not to mention STDs, in sexually active women today: rates are astronomically higher than when chastity in young women was valued and practised — and, guess what, for some women, their sexual activity at a young age will cost them their lives. This is no laughing matter.

There are risks to taking the pill, which have to do with strokes (labelled as a risk in the U.S.) and with a surfeit of estrogen — a known trigger for cancer — in a woman's system. The Human Papilloma Virus (HPV), contracted by roughly 40% of sexually active women, is the main cause of cervical cancer. Well, you say, now there's a vaccine — yeah, and more cash for the pharmaceuticals.

The use of condoms in young people is highly ineffective due to their often using them while inebriated or on drugs (that's when a lot of sexual activity happens) and the fact that they're not that easy to use, even when you've got all of your faculties. And, just in case you're unaware of this fact, some STDs, most of them viral which means there's no cure only management (again pharmaceuticals clean up big-time), are spread skin-to-skin which makes condom use utterly useless.

Spermicidal foam does kill sperm, but as foam is a highly toxic chemical — which is what it takes to kill sperm, they're tough little bu**ers — it also breaks down the intrauterine lining of the uterus, making the woman more vulnerable to contracting STDs.

So, you see, kenn2, there's far more to this issue than meets the untrained, uneducated, invincibly ignorant, eye. As I said to r&t, do your homework. You're woefully ignorant about this issue and your lib-left-fem-media talking points are pathetic.

Like m123T says, of course Quebec likes fully subsidized daycare. They pay about $7.00/day, all at the expense of the ROC. They're leeches and always have been.

BTW, their kids also go to university for half the price that the ROC's kids go to university. My family has paid full-price for my children to get a university education, while our taxes have subsidized Quebecers' kids post-secondary education, with Alberta doing the heavy lifting. As a lib-leftie, you see no inequality here. As long as “your guys” aren't getting it in the jugular, everything's good. You live in a tiny, little world, r&t: It wouldn't be your mother's basement, would it?

Nice try, kenn2. DO YOUR FRIGGING HOMEWORK.

In 1988, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down Canada's existing abortion law that did put restrictions on when abortions could take be done. There are now NO restrictions in Canada, and the feminists were dancing in the streets that night — and still are, while the abortionists and pharmaceuticals rake in the bucks.

The “no limit” has nothing to do with pro-lifers and their talking points, nothing whatsoever to do with partial-birth abortions, as you allege, and you reveal your absolute ignorance when you state this. Do your homework.

brusmit, I agree with you. lets open the tap and have anyone donate any amount to political parties. that would immedialtely marginalize the religious right and set this country back on the right rack to civility.

And your party of do nothing except bankrupt the country both ethically and fiscally is next to go.

batb , one simple sentence to your nonsensical response.

Ask any doctor in Canada to perform an abortion after 8 weeks into any healthy pregnancy. they simply will not nor will Morgentaler's clinics if I recall their terms correctly.

Is everything you do and write have to be in the past tense……….catch up little woman and join the present.

Your stuff about past Liberal sins is garabge to boot. A $60BB structural defict and an unethical government that treats parliament as a toy is what we have at present.

batb….I suggest you do yours with the medical profession as a start. They control the abortion procedures and have standards they follow.

batb….I'm currently in the master bedroom retreat on the third floor of my house. sorry to disappoint.

The rest of your gibberish should be directed at Harper who gave charest around $1BB in pure bribe money just before the last provincial election. And harper's your boy.

sorry batb…I will go back to my 1950's cave and communicate with you. If that doesn't open up the communication channel for our sex talk I'll redial back to the victorian age.

If that doesn't work I'll jon a monestery and be pure of soul and whip myself everytime I get a sexual temptation.

What a joke you are.

And Harper is a bush wannabe….I'll take my chances with communists who are in a death spiral these days.

Brusmit, stayon topic if you can. when ar ethe Tories going to honour the SC judgement and return the money to the EI fund and manage it spearately from general funds.

I live in the present and currently the polls show the libs would win 121 seats to 110 fro the Tories if an election was held last week. A majority liberal government is possible later this year as the Harpercrites disintegrate into an unethical mess of their own doing.

Give me ONE example of an on-demand abortion of a healthy fetus in the 2nd or 3rd trimester that was performed in Canada.

If it's not happening, it would seem that adequate protections are already in place. You make a big deal about a person's ethics and self-control playing a part in their sexual behaviour, so why do you think people and doctors aren't able to behave ethically in terms of when an abortion is performed?

You couldn't tell science from a card trick.

Talk about a short memory, eastern money was not involved in opening up AB oil industry. When our Premier of the day went east to Bay Street and others he was laughed at and was refused any money. But, american investors jumped at the chance and made a lot of money. My memory is fine, and you have just proven to all you have no clue.
As usualy, Alberta had to do it alone, without the east, when Turner Valley started.
And yes, I am a typical Alberta redneck and proud of it.

Funny thing, the executive director of EKOS had a completely different take on the results of the same poll, and the seat distribution of same. And if libs are moving ahead with the women's vote we need a lot of help to save our country. Thinking of the female liberals in the HofC, we don't need more of them. I can't believe there are so many women voting liberal so they can have an abortion. They can get one without forcing us to pay for abortions in all the countries of the world.
Most of those women have probably never been or ever will get pregnant from the looks of them.
Liberalsl equal culture of death.

Speaking of changing topics… I think I counted 4 in the above ramble.

Eugenics. You do know what that means don't you? So if we have this eugenics program running, what are we breeding and selecting for then… Aryans? big knockers? polygamy? Our big (Liberal) urban centers are awash in people from all corners of the globe, all religions, all colours, all partying and sleeping together (oops, sorry, scratch that) and producing beautiful babies in all different hues. Pretty crappy eugenics, if that's the goal.

Only one thing really worth mentioning:
You are a fan of taxes to fund political parties and groups who share the same views.

I am a fan of public funding of ALL political parties, even ones with views as skewed as yours, so that elections can't be bought by special interest groups or corporations.

The cost of contraceptive pills and spermicidal foam, not to mention condoms, etc. is much higher than you think, because you don't look past the end of your nose.

Heh. Condoms. Bought'em and used'em. Even drunk. I know what they cost. Same with the pill (Ok I didn't use it, gf did, but I know what they cost. And, ever heard of drug plans?)

You totally dodged the main point that contraception is much less expensive than an abortion.

There are risks to taking the pill, which have to do with strokes (labelled as a risk in the U.S.) and with a surfeit of estrogen — a known trigger for cancer — in a woman's system. The Human Papilloma Virus (HPV), contracted by roughly 40% of sexually active women, is the main cause of cervical cancer. Well, you say, now there's a vaccine — yeah, and more cash for the pharmaceuticals.

HPV first – you would begrudge giving $20 an injection to “big pharma” to virtually eliminate the risk of cervical cancer in a girl's lifetime. Really?

Breast cancer is affected by estrogen use and possibly by vitamin D. Most women using “the pill” are off it by their 30's. Biggest source of that extra estrogen is HRT (hormone replacement therapy) given to alleviate menopausal symptoms. Are their risks to using the pill? yes, but they are acceptably low, and, frankly, childbirth has more risk than the pill.

Modern condoms are quite effective, and they are easy (and fun!) to put on, even drunk. And you know what, they do reduce the transmission of many STDs. Look it up.

There were (and are) times and places where public mores (eg sharia law), family discipline, and brute force kept the amount of out-of marriage sex down, but there was NEVER a time when underage or extramarital sex didn't go on. And, Bristol Palin… Sexual freedom is a right, and we have the experience, tools and knowledge to prevent unwanted pregnancy and reduce the harms, which benefits not only the individuals, but also the society.

You are free and welcome to practice and preach your values. But there's no excuse for withholding knowledge, or for forcing people to live as you dictate.

Poor Parnel,

Can't read or too lazy. The SCC did not rule on the return, they said it was illegal for the Liberals to raise the tax inside the cabinet and not putting it to vote in parliament. Try to keep up next time.

Parnel,
The just visiting annointed leader was rejected for his pro American Empire positions. His defence and statements calling our peacekeeping bogus is on tape. I accept your refuse to admit Iffy believe's in the Jefferson Empire of spreading democracy to those less developed world. Sadly the plain facts of declaring himself an American, support of torture is above your paygrade.

My family has paid full-price for my children to get a university education

What do you mean “full price”? No Canadian family pays full price for university. Unless you mean… (unspeakably horrid thought)

…with Alberta doing the heavy lifting.

What I admire most about Albertans is how they knew to bury all those dinosaurs in one place so that they could dig them up again 2 zillion years later. But why'd you have to go and mix in all that sand?

I do know many proud Albertans. Most are Ontarians who moved out there before the housing prices shot up.

*ducks*

And most of those moving here from Ontario can't believe how stupid they were to vote liberal when in the east. Most are strong Conservatives now. But you do know that Fort Mac is the capitol of NFLD, due to all the NFLDers living there and making a great living.

A Nfld friend described Ft McMurray as a cat litter box. You jump in, you do your business, you jump out. Not much of a nice place to live, apparently.

But it sure is a great place to make money. For many years the workers from the east came, worked all summer, made lots of money and lived on EI the rest of the year, enjoying exotic places. The bottom dropped out a little when companies quit paying for flights back and forth. Over 1000 NFLDers got their pink slips during the Christmas holidays, when they would be back in their province, and away from AB health care, welfare, UI stats ect. Those that wanted to come back to work had to either live in Ft Mac or pay their own way back and forth. The sad fact is that they supported their families back home and spent little money in AB. And even at tax time, we didn't get their taxes as you pay provincial taxes in the province you are living in as of Dec 31.
Now, the majority of workers in Ft Mac work year round, and make mega bucks. And it stays in AB.
A lot of them have moved their families, bought homes in rural AB and still go back and forth every 2-3 wks. And again, most vote conservative after a year or so of living in AB.

What is Alberta's plan for when the oil runs out?

Talk about that in about 100 years. By that time maybe the liberals of Ont will have discovered some green jobs.

Energy is a provincial file, the Albertans have a provincial gov't. Alberta has more “windfarms” up than Ontario btw. Next ?

Sad how little information you actually know about women, Alberta but insist your leftist solution is best. Do you have a Mao, Fidel, PET poster above your bed?

Poor Parnel,

When you have to refer to Giggles for support and cherry picking a poll it's game over. Best of luck , don't forget to blame Iffy for the problems when he produces another “Dion” result.
It can't be simple fact voters have left for various other parties and have not returned for numerous reasons. Until the numbers return, you reform the Junta the cheapseats is the new normal.

Funny how all the poster boys are being investigated for their naughty behaviour. Looks India has dumped their poster boy and will be setting up their own Climate Change Agency. The AGWists at the UN-IPCC can't be trusted with real science any longer.

The left hate any religion that does not follow their dogma. If those “bible wavers” get uppity than they are labelled right wing extremists by the left.
The left have their religion and humanity is not an intergral part of the equation. It is about control.

Alberta has more “windfarms” up than Ontario btw.

…link? Not to argue, more out of genuine interest.

Sad how little information you actually know about women

… true. You are all wonderful, frustrating, bewitching creatures.

Politically, I know what most women have said they want in terms of reproductive rights.

Sorry cracker, after requesting I “eat your shorts”, Ken don't qualify for links.

No research for you!

I suppose I could call you a fibber and yell “prove it”. Would that be more in keeping with the spirit of our discussion?

(You've been pretty free with the insults yerself…)

Was also cool to see Rick Mercer nailing the CPC on cancelling new IED-resistant armoured vehicles for our troops.

http://www.rickmercer.com/blog/index.cfm/2010/1…

Abortion in the developed world shouldn't even be necessary. I suppose the would be medical exceptions but if people would rely more on natural mid-wives rather medically induced births you would see a lot loss complications to begin with.

Taking Charge
of Your Fertility

http://www.tcoyf.com/

“The Fertility Awareness Method as a means of natural pregnancy achievement and avoidance as well as basic gynecological health.”

Yep, its been working just fine for my wife and I. They should probably consider teaching it in schools.

Just throwing this into the topic since it should help people who don't want to get pregnant in the first place if they really don't want to. Thus eventually making abortion issue obsolete, as less and less people wouldn't even begin to consider such a thing given all the more responsible methods available to date. Wouldn't people prefer to be in control of where and when they want to have a baby ? as in REAL “emancipation”?

It should be no difficulty for anyone to become pro-life knowing that it really isn't all that difficult after all to avoid pregnancy if they so choose. Abortion itself should always be viewed as a tragic event… never a “stress” relieving one.

Sensitive issue, the termination of life in the womb. Good for the mother, bad for the fetus. Here's a thought. To prevent the use of abortion as a contraceptive, combine it with permanent sterilization.

Sensitive issue, the termination of life in the womb. Good for the mother, bad for the fetus. Here's a thought. To prevent the use of abortion as a contraceptive, combine it with permanent sterilization.