Thursday, 19 April 2018
Monday, 25 April 2016
To add another layer to the debate, some people not only agree with some level of access to abortions, they also want the taxpayer to pay for it. If the taxpayer is to pay for abortions, does the taxpayer pay for all, or only ones performed for certain reasons? If the taxpayer pays for abortions, do we make doctors who have moral objections perform abortions, or only those who morally accept abortions? I see a lot of people blending a lot of these issues into one; I think they are separate (but related) issues. There are even people who call for mandatory abortions in some cases. Suffice to say there are lots of shades to this debate, and it is unlikely that two people on the ‘same side’ would see eye to eye on every issue.
A pro-lifer may have their views because they don’t like the idea of women who they see as having loose morals having access to a ‘get out of jail free card’; or they may be a pro-lifer because they truly think that the unborn child is a life worth protecting, and that the unborn child’s right to life trumps a woman’s right to choose.
Each side can also be sloppy when forming their arguments. I was in Fredericton a few years ago during a pro-life rally. The pro-life group plastered posters and banners down the main street containing images of aborted foetuses. Now I can understand using those sorts of images as a way to ensure the debate doesn’t remain solely in the abstract realm of the balancing of rights; when talking about a woman’s right to choose it can be easy to lose sight of the medical realities of the procedure. As an arguing tactic, I don’t find the use of images as offensive if they are used for that reason. In the case of the Fredericton rally, however, it seemed that the images were only used for their shock value – and there were no other points being made from what I could see. If your only argument is shock, you don’t have an argument.
Tuesday, 22 December 2015
|This is all very normal now. Completely normal and expected and standard. The guy on the left is known to acquire 160 proof shine, which helps with the normal-ness of everything.|
Finally, another way to look at it is that if you run into the ocean on January 1st, it can only be up hill for the rest of the year.
Saturday, 9 May 2015
Monday, 13 October 2014
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.
This is an emotional issue that cannot be decided emotionally. And while you are free to have a view on what you would like to see happen, this issue involves a balancing of Constitutional rights – something that is very nuanced, delicate, complicated, and powerful.
Saturday, 9 August 2014
I had hoped to be able to read the text of this new rule before writing this letter, but I have not been able to find it. I have talked with several producers, and they advised that I will not likely be able to find it. If it is available, I would like to know where to find it (and would stand corrected), but as it is I find it troubling that it is not easily obtainable. People should be easily able to find the rules to which they will be subject. Notwithstanding, I have discussed this rule with enough people 'in the know', and read enough articles on it, I think I can speak to it with some level of confidence that I understand the subject matter.
Sunday, 26 January 2014
As I wrote this I realized that lying is even more complicated than I originally thought. There are a lot of elements to it, and a lot of angles you have to look at to really judge one. Sometimes it is even hard to determine if an untruth is even a lie. I think it is safe to say that generally they are a bad thing, but I don't think it is appropriate to say they are always bad.