Richards

Some dipshit bought a large plot of land right next to Fraser Valley Skydiving and he built a large mega-house literally right in line with the end of the runway. You would think this genius might have figured out the implications of that, yet the first time the plane went down the runway straight at his house and took off right over it he came running over to the hangar screeching at the top of his lungs "demanding" that they not do that ever again. Not sure what happened to this brain donor in the end. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

OK. Sounds like we are in agreement there. I must have not phrased the question well because I was not asking in terms of drawing a line in a temporal sense. My question for was more based on what activities are considered the mothers choice. For example Champu said that while he accepts a womans right to choose to abort, he does not accept her right to affect the fetus with hormones to dictate the childs orientation. His argument was that opposing that activity did not qualify as being anti-choice. So my question was "Are there actions (designer baby, heavy drug abuse...etc) that a woman should not be allowed to take when pregnant even though she has the right to abort?". A good case example might be the woman I mentioned earlier who was placed into a drug treatment center. What would be your take on that? My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

But as I understand it, the term "pro-choice" does not neccessarily mean you support it or even like it. It just means that you recognize that it is ultimately her body and her decision. Where is the line drawn between something that is her decision with her own body and societies decision to make for her? My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

What kind of sinister evil mind conjures up such a weapon? My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

This is impressive. I would never have imagined that our defence department could have conjured up something like this. http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/B/moab.jpg If this is a repost I apologise My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

I agree with you but all too often people will try to polarize these issues. It is going to be fought at extremes unfortunately. I do not like this idea one bit but I concede that it is ultimately not my call. You have posed an interesting question with respect to religious groups though. I do not know what to say about that but I am interested in some of the other views on that. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

Give that man a cigar. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

So is allowing people to have children who are incapable of supporting children. Oh don't get me wrong. I do see your point, I just don't know if I would have the balls to openly promote such an idea. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

Humungous can of worms. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

...out comes the author's misunderstanding of the pro-choice viewpoint. Can you please elaborate/clarify. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

Can I take that to mean that the woman in my example should not have been held in a drug treatment facility? I am curious because this was a huge issue up here in canada at the time. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

I agree. My personal preference would be that as a society we do not design custom babies. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

So long as it is a personal choice it can be a solution. If it's views are enforced on people then it becomes a problem. Many people mistake the problems and wars that have been caused by certain religious people for problems and wars that are caused by religion itself. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

Now should that be enforced by law or merely encouraged? My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

Sorry, let me clarify. basically some people who are on the pro-choice side of abortion do feel that if a woman does decide to keep a baby she then does have some obligations even though it is her body. An example of this happened in Winnepeg about 5-10 years ago. In Canada at the time if a woman was basically a career welfare consumer then it was in her best interest to squeeze out as many pups as she could as the additional welfare support per extra child exceeded the incremental cost of having that child. So if you were more interested in having extra disposable income than you were in any ethical obligations to a child then you would breed beyond your means. Anyway there was an aboriginal woman who was an addict and as a result of her addiction her first 4 or 5 kids had severe birth defects since she used drugs from conception to delivery. Child services got a court order (upon her latest pregnancy) to have her committed to a drug treatment center during her pregnancy so the next child might have a chance of being born healthy. Feminist groups responded to this with outrage saying it was an example of a patriarchal society trying to control womens bodies and found themselves embattled in a huge debate about the rights of the fetus vs the rights of the mother. Anyway my question to you was based on this. If a woman chooses to keep a baby does she bear any moral responsibility to not do things to her body that would (negatively) affect the childs well being? My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

Bilvon has already posed this question. As I said above, I personally do not like the idea of manipulating the orientation be it to make the child either straight or gay, but felt it was ultimately a womans choice. If it is to be allowed to make a child straight then I cannot see how you could argue against someone making a child gay. It is a two way street. I am not sure how I would feel about my parents making such a choice for me before I was born be it one way or the other. Is it ethical to decide what your child is going to be rather than allowing him/her to be what fate meant for him/her to be? Personally all I would want is for my kid to be born healthy. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

So this brings in to question the parental obligations of a mother after she decides to choose not to abort. I am not sure about that one. Do you have a take on it? My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

?? My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

http://www.thestar.com/article/171938 Squeegee-kid ban upheld LANA SLEZIC FOR THE TORONTO STAR Paul Batuszkin, 36, is one of the people who challenged provincial legislation that banned solicitation of money on roadways. Eleven, convicted under the law in 2001, failed to get their convictions reversed. Email story Print Choose text size Report typo or correction Email the author iCopyright permissions Tag and save Speak Out: Panhandling banYour view on the banBegging ban sought in tourist districts City councillor Case Ootes wants Toronto to prohibit panhandling in officially designated tourist areas like Yonge and Dundas Sts. Ootes (Ward 29, Toronto-Danforth) has asked staff to report on the issue at the Feb. 21 meeting of the economic development committee, on which he sits. He wants to know how the city could work with police to implement and enforce such a bylaw. During last fall's municipal election campaign, losing mayoral candidate Jane Pitfield's platform included an anti-panhandling bylaw and a call for heavier enforcement of Ontario's Safe Streets Act. Any anti-panhandling bylaw would have little chance of passing at city council. Judges say crackdown on road panhandling violates Charter but upholds law because it reduces dangers on the street January 17, 2007 Tracey Tyler LEGAL AFFAIRS REPORTER Banning squeegee people from begging on public roadways violates their freedom of expression. But regulating pedestrians and traffic and reducing dangers on the streets is important enough to override that constitutional right, the Ontario Court of Appeal has ruled. In a unanimous decision yesterday, the court dismissed appeals from 11 homeless men who were convicted of provincial offences in 2001 for washing windshields or asking Toronto drivers for money. They argued that provisions in the Safe Streets Act and Highway Traffic Act that ban solicitation on roadways infringe their rights to freedom of expression and security of the person under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They also argued the legislation violates the Charter's equality provisions, aimed at preventing violation of human dignity. Writing for the three-judge panel, Justice Russell Juriansz said the appellants' dignity was not infringed by legislative provisions that stop them from stepping onto a street or approaching a vehicle to solicit. He also said that lawyers for the 11 men had not made their case that the Charter specifically prohibits discrimination against "the poor who beg." "While the appellants' conditions of economic disadvantage may be deserving of sympathy, they have not established they are entitled to a response that is constitutional in nature," Juriansz said, writing for the panel that included Justices Karen Weiler and Robert Armstrong. "I'm very disappointed in the decision and I'm going to be investigating the possibility of seeking leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada," Peter Rosenthal, a lawyer for the appellants, said in an interview yesterday. "Perhaps I didn't explain it properly to the Court of Appeal, but the people we're talking about are people so poor they have to beg ... who in our view are deserving of protection and should be considered among the groups of people against whom one can't discriminate," he said. But Charter protection is extended to those groups on the basis of personal characteristics, such as race, sex, ethnic origin, or age, Juriansz said. The poor who beg are not defined by personal characteristics, per se, but the activity in which they are engaged. While they "undoubtedly suffer from disadvantage," they're not easily defined, he added. "While it is common to speak of the `poor' collectively, the group is, in actuality, the statistical aggregation of all individuals who are economically disadvantaged ... for any reason." While the judgment found that the provisions infringed on the appellants' freedom of expression, it found those restrictions were justified. "The limits achieve the objective of promoting public safety, efficient circulation, and public enjoyment of public thoroughfares. The impairment of the appellant's rights is minimal." The court said the appellants had alternative means of expression, such as conveying their message from the sidewalk. "While the legislation does effectively ban squeegeeing on roadways, it does not prohibit the appelant from expressing their message that they are in need of help. "They cannot squeegee car windows, but to the extent that they may wish to provide a service in exchange for donation, there are other alternatives available."*** I have to agree with this one. The squeegee's drove everyone nuts. So glad they didn't cave into the hysterics by the anti-poverty activists. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

Why though does a woman have the right to choose to kill a fetus but not give it hormones to choose it's orientation. Do not get me wrong, I think people should be happy to accept whatever baby nature gives them, but again the argument is that it is not anyones place to say what a woman can do with her body. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

Don't eat lamb chops. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

I wouldn't mind losing my sense of smell. Most of the people that end up crammed into TTC buses with me (like sardines) have no fucking clue about basic hygeine. I often feel like I am going to be ill. SOAP AND FUCKING WATER!!! My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

If you are waiting for some sort of cosmic justice to take place and right all previous wrongs it usually isn't going to happen. But I can certainly relate to that vindictive desire. I have on occasion seen people who have hurt me end up having their lives take a bad turn to my great delight, but on average I have wasted far too much energy feeling hatred for people who have moved on with their lives and do not put any mental energy into thinking of me. As of late I have tried to remind myself of the fact that my feeling bitter towards them after the fact does them no harm. It simply distracts me from focusing on making my life better. I am not always capable of it but I do try to keep that in mind. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

All valid questions/points. Unfortunately I will have to wait for someone more knowledgable to address them . I agree that it might not be as simple as with an animal. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

Agreed. Like yourself though, all I wish is for my child (children) to be healthy and happy. My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.