“I don’t think my troops are shooting at me,” he said… (Retitled and bumped.) Ouuuuuuch!
h/t Orville
90 Replies to “Gentlemen Prefer Knives”
“T”, you never cease to amaze me. I guess the old saying, “once a dummy always a dummy” is true.
Grow up, come out of mom’s basement and get a job. Maybe a real life experience is all you need.
the bear you flunked reading. I never said that eggs and sperm weren’t living I said they do not have enough DNA on their own to develop beyond being a short lived egg or sperm.
I apologize if someone has already pointed this out: if Ignatieff does not know the minds of his own MPs, why would any sane person trust him to know the will of the country?
better reread your quote Joe.
Looking at the DNA contained in each, neither the egg nor the sperm is a full cell. A fertilized egg has a complete DNA structure and left in its native environment (the womb) will develop into what we recognize as a human being.
eggs are full cells, sperm are full cells. they are not yet 46 chromosomes ,but they are cells.
and they can be stored for a long long time and be viable. meaning perhaps that they are living.
Is Ralph Goodale now going by the name of Rodger Goodale?
What can we expect next from him – a sex change?
Fun Fact
chimps have 48 chromosomes. human chromosome number 2 ,is twice the length and appears to be a fused version of two equivalent chimp chromosomes.
oh ee oh ahah
You’ve got to admire “T”. As wrong as “T” always is it takes allot of guts to come on a conservative web site and put his head on the chopping block every time. You have to admire it.
T they have birth control but we tend to call it genocide. Is it your intent to help them out?
I had to put the fun fact up before T claimed he had more chromosomes than the rightwingconspirators.
covering for you T , covering for ya.
You can cut back on the flamewars, please.
Indy @6:29 – so true; T just says the most contrary thing he can think of, and then everyone on the thread calls him an idiot for ages. He probably goes on HuffPo and types “Sarah Palin is a genius” and leans back to watch their threads melt down. He just likes the attention. Probably needed a hobby after he forgot to feed his goldfish and it died.
And I also agree that there is some eerie parallel with Quisling Stupak here. Good show, Homez!
I’m absolutely delighted that the Liberal$ got whipped — not by their leader but by Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his party — and that Ralphie Badbeer has made such an impression on CTV that they got his name wrong: ROGER Goodale!!!! Ouch, indeed.
I don’t imagine he’s feeling too good that his name got aborted. LOL! Maybe that’ll take some of the wind out of his sails, some of the head off his beer.
I watched the Julie Van Dusen report on this latest fiasco by “the Clown Party. She looked sad and frazzled: sad face, frazzled hair: So what else is new? (I wonder what we’re paying this CBC retainer? Whatever it is, it’s too much …)
T- again, you simply provide your opinions. Without evidence for why you arrived at that particular conclusion.
The FACT that human life begins at conception is not an opinion but a scientific fact. It doesn’t begin prior to conception. It doesn’t begin at birth, for the embryonic stage is a necessary phase of biological development prior to birth.
Therefore, that this fact doesn’t change your opinion is irrelevant. This just shows that your opinions are not based on facts, on scientific reality, but..are just your personal views. So, who cares?
As for the Supreme Court of Canada, the facts are that it has no opinion on the issue of abortion except that it doesn’t want to deal with it, either to come out in favour or against it. The conflict between article 7 of the charter (right to life) with regard to the fetus hasn’t been considered. So, the court has no definition of life of the fetus. There is no constitutional right to abortion and all the courts will say is ‘do it and justify it on your own’.
Joe, both the egg and the sperm are full living cells; when merged, they form an embryo.
Compare two atoms of hydrogen and one of oxygen; each is existent on their own. When merged, the form a molecule of water.
Some things to contemplate in regard to Canadian Law and the Fetus. This is from the perspective of a physician.
In the middle ages, our English ancestors decided due to the fact that science at that time had no way of determining whether a fetus was alive in the womb, and while they understood children could be stillborn, determining criminal culpability in the death of a mother and fetus was based on whether the fetus had lived outside the womb. If the fetus lived outside the womb and then died then the murderer was found guilty of two deaths instead of one. The reason is because the murderer’s defence could argue that the fetus may have been dead before the mother was killed. (didn’t matter much as murderers were hung anyway).
Later civil and common law decided that a child could sue, and someone could be charged with assault and battery, if the fetus was damaged while inside the womb and then suffered defect or injury due to that action. This is important to physicians as we could potentially be sued for negligence should we cause damage to a fetus that later lived outside the womb.
The only person who cannot be charged with negligence, or criminal charges is the mother even if the child suffered later defect or injury due to a mother’s actions while the child was a fetus.
This important case was tried in Manitoba. Basically a physician had incarcerated a drug addicted mother during her pregnancy to prevent damage to a child she intented to keep. The courts held that we could not prevent a mother from harming her infant because this would place the fetus and State above the rights of the mother. Moreover abortionists were worried that this could challenge the decriminization of abortion.
So fetus’ do have rights in Canadian law to a degree. In the more educated U.S. where they understand science of the 21st century that can perform ultrasound to determine the viability of a fetus, they have made the logical leap that our medieval ancestors could not, that murder of a childbearing mother consisted of two crimes and not one.
While not necessarily for or against abortion, the rights of a fetus in Canada are based on medieval law and medieval science.
Ahh, T, if only your mother had practiced what you preach. If only she had insisted on the use of a condom. If only abortion had been available to her. It truly is lamentable. And we are the ones who must suffer because of her failure.
Warren Z – No, I don’t have to admire T. I could go to a left-dorky site and play troll; I have more concern in learning from my own kind, and trying to come to some sort of unity in our thoughts. The more we discuss these life questions the more we come to understand their profundity; you learn little causing turmoil with heretics. (Actually,there’s enough turmoil among like minds)
Roger Goodale , I think thats a good name if you use the rude english meaning of roger.
Goodale rogered us all at one point.
Langmann: as I understand the cdn law – or rather lack of it – a fetus can be legally aborted right up until it is in the birth canal with its skull showing. Until it takes it’s first breath it is perfectly okay to pith it’s spinal cord and evacuate it’s brain from the head.
In the US this is known as a partial birth abortion and very very few politicians think it legal. One notable exception being Barack Obama.
This surely belongs in the pantheon of great headlines:
“The Liberals defeat their own motion in the House of Commons.”
As for the politics of the vote in question; the libs were very silly on two points:
1. It should never have been a whipped vote. Anything relating to social issues (as opposed to fiscal ones) should be votes of conscience. The CP has long had this policy.
2. If they really felt that abortion s were not part of the funding they could have easily modified the language to make that clear. They didn’t because they wanted it to include abortion funding.
That the MSM seems to have not noted either of the above is due to ignorance or complicity either of which proves them to be incompetent.
Larben I don’t admire what “T” has to say. I think it’s sick, twisted and heavily misguided and at times just plain evil. I was merely trying to make a humorous observation on his tenacity. So relax will ya.
Larben: Besides hearing from the extreme left positions such as the sputum “T” espouses only helps strengthen our opposition and position. Not that it’s needed arguing against “T”.
@ Gord Tulk:
Yes, a fetus can be aborted up until it is delivered in Canada and the United States. This is a medieval definition of life and has to do with medieval understanding of science at that time as I ahve described above.
The important thing to note is that once a child, the child can sue for damage done to it as a fetus by anyone other than its mother. Attempts to hold mothers culpable for damage to a child due to abuse of a fetus have been tried in Canada. One I described above. The other notable one is the Drummond case in 1996 where a mother shot her fetus in the head with a pellot gun to kill it and it was born later with a bullet in its brain. While she could not be convicted with the heinous act commited against what was essentially a viable child, ironically she was charged with failure to provide for the necessities of life after child was born because she failed to inform physicians about the bullet in the now child’s brain.
Anyone else who damages a fetus inside the womb which then goes on to become a child can be held accountable for the injury caused against the child while it was a fetus.
There is no place in Canada that I am aware of that performs abortions later than 20 weeks. This is because Canadian physicians hold that a fetus at 24 weeks has the potential to survive outside the womb and is in essence a child.
In the US there are places that will perfrom abortions later than 20 weeks.
It is frustrating to physicians, regardless of their position on abortion, to see a mother who intends to keep her fetus, causing damage to it by doing drugs or other idiotic acts – fully knowing what she is doing to another human being.
Rodger?
Is that Ralph’s brother.Wink wink LOL
Langmann in Illinois they do partial birth abortions. In some cases the baby survives the procedure. if so It is then wrapped in a towel and put in a warm closet until it dies.
This is legal – a law permitting it was voted for (or did he vote present? – either way he did not vote Against it) by Harack Obama.
If the US was to ever outlaw PBAs I can guarantee you they would be making arrangements to do so somewhere in Canada the very next day.
And regardless of the 20 week protocol, the point remains that in Canada that PBAs are LEGAL – that anyone – doctor or otherwise would not bs charged with murder even if the baby was seconds away from being naturally delivered. That is scandalous in my opinion and a damnation of our society.
Actually, regardless of your position on abortion, the argument is moot, as both sperm and unfertilized egg are living cells prior to conception. At that point, you can call it independent life, or new life or something, but not “beginning” life.
Kate, I have long been making this same point. Nothing about a fertilized egg was ever not alive, at least not since the first self-replicating molecules, several billion years ago. The abortion debate is a legal one – if or when the developing fetus gains the same legal rights as a born human, and killing it is murder.
Gord Tulk,
B. Hussien has voted for (not “present”) legislation not allowing assistance in “live birth abortions” 3 times. Preventing assistance.
“On the Illinois Senate floor, Obama was the only senator to speak against the baby-protecting bills.” http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2060118/posts
Kate et al :
there is a big difference between a fertilized egg and a sperm
or egg on their own:
given proper sustenance a fertilized egg will develop into a human. That is not the case for an egg or sperm. Thus destroying either is not a crime whereas to destroy a fertilized egg can be argued to be destroying a living human.
The dilema many face is the intersect of preserving that life versus violating the rights of the impregnated future mother. And it is what the SCOTUS tried to do in writing rowevwade (wrongly IMO – the idea they put forward has merit but they should have left it to the politicians to write it into law rather than be activist and write it themselves – they are unelected and have no made to write laws only to rule on a law’s
constitutionality) .
M in C:
it is proof like that which you cite that makes the argument by many who voted for BO claiming he was a moderate – that they didn’t know he was a radical – ring hollow.
“Ummm …. You know that Canada is not in Europe don’t you?
Posted by: Karl at March 24, 2010 5:21 PM”
Hhhhhhmmmm. I wonder where T is posting from?
Langmann 10:32
Your quick survey of medieval foetus law is useful, but not entirely correct. In the 18th century (not medieval, I admit) the female pirates Mary Read and Ann Bonny “pleaded their bellies” to avoid being hanged (not ‘hung’). This plea of pregnancy got their executions delayed, and the result was inconclusive: Mary Read died of fever in jail and Ann Bonny was retrieved from prison somehow by her father and was whisked off to another colony, where she lived to a fine old age.
Are sperm and egg living cells? It depends on your definition of living. If you consider that living means that the cell is respiring (using oxygen, ADP, ATP, etc.. to break down glucose to relase energy and give off CO2 ), then I guess it is living. As a biology teacher, I do not consider that life. I consider something to be alive when it is capable of independent replication (this would include dna replication). Sperm and egg cells are gametes, the end product of meiosis, a cellular division process that is similar to mitosis but includes an extra reduction division to reduce the number of chromosomes from 2n to n (46 to 23 in the case of humans). A human embryo can only develop and grow normally when it has two copies of all 23 chromosomes in every cell, one from the egg and one from the sperm (I would not call monosomy or trisomy normal development). A gamete does not have the ability undergo mitosis and, unless it merges with another gamete to form a zygote (fertilization, the point at which life begins), it is doomed.
Life goes on within you and without you.
Maybe Ignatieff allowed this vote to go down to discredit Dosanj and Rae. Or, am I giving Iggy too much credit?
T: “Doesn’t change a damn thing on my position on abortion.”
I must ask, are you in favour of absolutely NO restrictions on abortion? That would mean that you are o.k. with the roughly 400 late-term abortions performed in Canada each year. Many doctors will not perform these, and when asked, a majority of Canadians are opposed to late term abortion. Just wondering what your view would be.
One cause of the Liberal slip-up here, I think, is the fact that we have never really “settled” the abortion question in Canada. Perhaps Iggy did not know this. What we did do was agree that the issue was too difficult to decide and look the other way. I think it is inappropriate to be “exporting” positions based on moral questions that we have not managed to solve in Canada. Introducing the abortion issue was a sleezy political move by Liberals and they have got exactly what they deserve. Good article in the Citizen today by Margaret Sommerville re the abortion question.
I like having T around … although it may be better if his IQ to tooth-count ratio was a bit higher.
Without his ilk, this site gets a bit like an echo chamber where someone makes an observation and then bunches of people chime in with various versions of “Yeah … what he said.”
We need the Ts of the world even if only for canon fodder.
“I don’t think my troops are shooting at me,” he said
True enough … they’re going AWOL.
The shooting starts when you say something like “Maybe the coalition is a good idea.”
Oh, wait … you did say that didn’t you or did someone forge your signature?
Shamrock: “Or, am I giving Iggy too much credit?”
Shamrock, you’re giving Iggy too much credit!
The guy’s an idiot, a political-Canadian-citizen-“leader”-of-the-LPC, idiot. OK. So, maybe he can write, but he’s got no street smarts.
I’m actually trying to figure out what the HELL is going on with Ignatieff and his “leadership”? I’m still leaning on the Desmarais/Rae partnership’s giving him enough rope to hang himself, in order for Rae to take over as leader without any blood on his hands — at least, none that will be able to be detected.
What I’m hoping, of course, is that by the time Iggy ends his junket as Librano leader, the Liberal$ will be in such disarray that no Rae/Desmarais alliance will be able to save the LPC, especially as the “natural governing party.”
It’s ageism I say! CHUM Radios Michael Harris says Ralph Goodall and CTVs Craig Oliver says John McCullum.
Roger, over and out.
“T”, you never cease to amaze me. I guess the old saying, “once a dummy always a dummy” is true.
Grow up, come out of mom’s basement and get a job. Maybe a real life experience is all you need.
the bear you flunked reading. I never said that eggs and sperm weren’t living I said they do not have enough DNA on their own to develop beyond being a short lived egg or sperm.
I apologize if someone has already pointed this out: if Ignatieff does not know the minds of his own MPs, why would any sane person trust him to know the will of the country?
better reread your quote Joe.
Looking at the DNA contained in each, neither the egg nor the sperm is a full cell. A fertilized egg has a complete DNA structure and left in its native environment (the womb) will develop into what we recognize as a human being.
eggs are full cells, sperm are full cells. they are not yet 46 chromosomes ,but they are cells.
and they can be stored for a long long time and be viable. meaning perhaps that they are living.
Is Ralph Goodale now going by the name of Rodger Goodale?
What can we expect next from him – a sex change?
Fun Fact
chimps have 48 chromosomes. human chromosome number 2 ,is twice the length and appears to be a fused version of two equivalent chimp chromosomes.
oh ee oh ahah
You’ve got to admire “T”. As wrong as “T” always is it takes allot of guts to come on a conservative web site and put his head on the chopping block every time. You have to admire it.
T they have birth control but we tend to call it genocide. Is it your intent to help them out?
I had to put the fun fact up before T claimed he had more chromosomes than the rightwingconspirators.
covering for you T , covering for ya.
You can cut back on the flamewars, please.
Indy @6:29 – so true; T just says the most contrary thing he can think of, and then everyone on the thread calls him an idiot for ages. He probably goes on HuffPo and types “Sarah Palin is a genius” and leans back to watch their threads melt down. He just likes the attention. Probably needed a hobby after he forgot to feed his goldfish and it died.
And I also agree that there is some eerie parallel with Quisling Stupak here. Good show, Homez!
I’m absolutely delighted that the Liberal$ got whipped — not by their leader but by Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his party — and that Ralphie Badbeer has made such an impression on CTV that they got his name wrong: ROGER Goodale!!!! Ouch, indeed.
I don’t imagine he’s feeling too good that his name got aborted. LOL! Maybe that’ll take some of the wind out of his sails, some of the head off his beer.
I watched the Julie Van Dusen report on this latest fiasco by “the Clown Party. She looked sad and frazzled: sad face, frazzled hair: So what else is new? (I wonder what we’re paying this CBC retainer? Whatever it is, it’s too much …)
T- again, you simply provide your opinions. Without evidence for why you arrived at that particular conclusion.
The FACT that human life begins at conception is not an opinion but a scientific fact. It doesn’t begin prior to conception. It doesn’t begin at birth, for the embryonic stage is a necessary phase of biological development prior to birth.
Therefore, that this fact doesn’t change your opinion is irrelevant. This just shows that your opinions are not based on facts, on scientific reality, but..are just your personal views. So, who cares?
As for the Supreme Court of Canada, the facts are that it has no opinion on the issue of abortion except that it doesn’t want to deal with it, either to come out in favour or against it. The conflict between article 7 of the charter (right to life) with regard to the fetus hasn’t been considered. So, the court has no definition of life of the fetus. There is no constitutional right to abortion and all the courts will say is ‘do it and justify it on your own’.
Joe, both the egg and the sperm are full living cells; when merged, they form an embryo.
Compare two atoms of hydrogen and one of oxygen; each is existent on their own. When merged, the form a molecule of water.
Some things to contemplate in regard to Canadian Law and the Fetus. This is from the perspective of a physician.
In the middle ages, our English ancestors decided due to the fact that science at that time had no way of determining whether a fetus was alive in the womb, and while they understood children could be stillborn, determining criminal culpability in the death of a mother and fetus was based on whether the fetus had lived outside the womb. If the fetus lived outside the womb and then died then the murderer was found guilty of two deaths instead of one. The reason is because the murderer’s defence could argue that the fetus may have been dead before the mother was killed. (didn’t matter much as murderers were hung anyway).
Later civil and common law decided that a child could sue, and someone could be charged with assault and battery, if the fetus was damaged while inside the womb and then suffered defect or injury due to that action. This is important to physicians as we could potentially be sued for negligence should we cause damage to a fetus that later lived outside the womb.
The only person who cannot be charged with negligence, or criminal charges is the mother even if the child suffered later defect or injury due to a mother’s actions while the child was a fetus.
This important case was tried in Manitoba. Basically a physician had incarcerated a drug addicted mother during her pregnancy to prevent damage to a child she intented to keep. The courts held that we could not prevent a mother from harming her infant because this would place the fetus and State above the rights of the mother. Moreover abortionists were worried that this could challenge the decriminization of abortion.
So fetus’ do have rights in Canadian law to a degree. In the more educated U.S. where they understand science of the 21st century that can perform ultrasound to determine the viability of a fetus, they have made the logical leap that our medieval ancestors could not, that murder of a childbearing mother consisted of two crimes and not one.
While not necessarily for or against abortion, the rights of a fetus in Canada are based on medieval law and medieval science.
Ahh, T, if only your mother had practiced what you preach. If only she had insisted on the use of a condom. If only abortion had been available to her. It truly is lamentable. And we are the ones who must suffer because of her failure.
Warren Z – No, I don’t have to admire T. I could go to a left-dorky site and play troll; I have more concern in learning from my own kind, and trying to come to some sort of unity in our thoughts. The more we discuss these life questions the more we come to understand their profundity; you learn little causing turmoil with heretics. (Actually,there’s enough turmoil among like minds)
Roger Goodale , I think thats a good name if you use the rude english meaning of roger.
Goodale rogered us all at one point.
Langmann: as I understand the cdn law – or rather lack of it – a fetus can be legally aborted right up until it is in the birth canal with its skull showing. Until it takes it’s first breath it is perfectly okay to pith it’s spinal cord and evacuate it’s brain from the head.
In the US this is known as a partial birth abortion and very very few politicians think it legal. One notable exception being Barack Obama.
This surely belongs in the pantheon of great headlines:
“The Liberals defeat their own motion in the House of Commons.”
As for the politics of the vote in question; the libs were very silly on two points:
1. It should never have been a whipped vote. Anything relating to social issues (as opposed to fiscal ones) should be votes of conscience. The CP has long had this policy.
2. If they really felt that abortion s were not part of the funding they could have easily modified the language to make that clear. They didn’t because they wanted it to include abortion funding.
That the MSM seems to have not noted either of the above is due to ignorance or complicity either of which proves them to be incompetent.
Larben I don’t admire what “T” has to say. I think it’s sick, twisted and heavily misguided and at times just plain evil. I was merely trying to make a humorous observation on his tenacity. So relax will ya.
Larben: Besides hearing from the extreme left positions such as the sputum “T” espouses only helps strengthen our opposition and position. Not that it’s needed arguing against “T”.
@ Gord Tulk:
Yes, a fetus can be aborted up until it is delivered in Canada and the United States. This is a medieval definition of life and has to do with medieval understanding of science at that time as I ahve described above.
The important thing to note is that once a child, the child can sue for damage done to it as a fetus by anyone other than its mother. Attempts to hold mothers culpable for damage to a child due to abuse of a fetus have been tried in Canada. One I described above. The other notable one is the Drummond case in 1996 where a mother shot her fetus in the head with a pellot gun to kill it and it was born later with a bullet in its brain. While she could not be convicted with the heinous act commited against what was essentially a viable child, ironically she was charged with failure to provide for the necessities of life after child was born because she failed to inform physicians about the bullet in the now child’s brain.
Anyone else who damages a fetus inside the womb which then goes on to become a child can be held accountable for the injury caused against the child while it was a fetus.
There is no place in Canada that I am aware of that performs abortions later than 20 weeks. This is because Canadian physicians hold that a fetus at 24 weeks has the potential to survive outside the womb and is in essence a child.
In the US there are places that will perfrom abortions later than 20 weeks.
It is frustrating to physicians, regardless of their position on abortion, to see a mother who intends to keep her fetus, causing damage to it by doing drugs or other idiotic acts – fully knowing what she is doing to another human being.
Rodger?
Is that Ralph’s brother.Wink wink LOL
Langmann in Illinois they do partial birth abortions. In some cases the baby survives the procedure. if so It is then wrapped in a towel and put in a warm closet until it dies.
This is legal – a law permitting it was voted for (or did he vote present? – either way he did not vote Against it) by Harack Obama.
If the US was to ever outlaw PBAs I can guarantee you they would be making arrangements to do so somewhere in Canada the very next day.
And regardless of the 20 week protocol, the point remains that in Canada that PBAs are LEGAL – that anyone – doctor or otherwise would not bs charged with murder even if the baby was seconds away from being naturally delivered. That is scandalous in my opinion and a damnation of our society.
Actually, regardless of your position on abortion, the argument is moot, as both sperm and unfertilized egg are living cells prior to conception. At that point, you can call it independent life, or new life or something, but not “beginning” life.
Kate, I have long been making this same point. Nothing about a fertilized egg was ever not alive, at least not since the first self-replicating molecules, several billion years ago. The abortion debate is a legal one – if or when the developing fetus gains the same legal rights as a born human, and killing it is murder.
Gord Tulk,
B. Hussien has voted for (not “present”) legislation not allowing assistance in “live birth abortions” 3 times. Preventing assistance.
“On the Illinois Senate floor, Obama was the only senator to speak against the baby-protecting bills.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2060118/posts
Kate et al :
there is a big difference between a fertilized egg and a sperm
or egg on their own:
given proper sustenance a fertilized egg will develop into a human. That is not the case for an egg or sperm. Thus destroying either is not a crime whereas to destroy a fertilized egg can be argued to be destroying a living human.
The dilema many face is the intersect of preserving that life versus violating the rights of the impregnated future mother. And it is what the SCOTUS tried to do in writing rowevwade (wrongly IMO – the idea they put forward has merit but they should have left it to the politicians to write it into law rather than be activist and write it themselves – they are unelected and have no made to write laws only to rule on a law’s
constitutionality) .
M in C:
it is proof like that which you cite that makes the argument by many who voted for BO claiming he was a moderate – that they didn’t know he was a radical – ring hollow.
“Ummm …. You know that Canada is not in Europe don’t you?
Posted by: Karl at March 24, 2010 5:21 PM”
Hhhhhhmmmm. I wonder where T is posting from?
Langmann 10:32
Your quick survey of medieval foetus law is useful, but not entirely correct. In the 18th century (not medieval, I admit) the female pirates Mary Read and Ann Bonny “pleaded their bellies” to avoid being hanged (not ‘hung’). This plea of pregnancy got their executions delayed, and the result was inconclusive: Mary Read died of fever in jail and Ann Bonny was retrieved from prison somehow by her father and was whisked off to another colony, where she lived to a fine old age.
Are sperm and egg living cells? It depends on your definition of living. If you consider that living means that the cell is respiring (using oxygen, ADP, ATP, etc.. to break down glucose to relase energy and give off CO2 ), then I guess it is living. As a biology teacher, I do not consider that life. I consider something to be alive when it is capable of independent replication (this would include dna replication). Sperm and egg cells are gametes, the end product of meiosis, a cellular division process that is similar to mitosis but includes an extra reduction division to reduce the number of chromosomes from 2n to n (46 to 23 in the case of humans). A human embryo can only develop and grow normally when it has two copies of all 23 chromosomes in every cell, one from the egg and one from the sperm (I would not call monosomy or trisomy normal development). A gamete does not have the ability undergo mitosis and, unless it merges with another gamete to form a zygote (fertilization, the point at which life begins), it is doomed.
Life goes on within you and without you.
Maybe Ignatieff allowed this vote to go down to discredit Dosanj and Rae. Or, am I giving Iggy too much credit?
T: “Doesn’t change a damn thing on my position on abortion.”
I must ask, are you in favour of absolutely NO restrictions on abortion? That would mean that you are o.k. with the roughly 400 late-term abortions performed in Canada each year. Many doctors will not perform these, and when asked, a majority of Canadians are opposed to late term abortion. Just wondering what your view would be.
One cause of the Liberal slip-up here, I think, is the fact that we have never really “settled” the abortion question in Canada. Perhaps Iggy did not know this. What we did do was agree that the issue was too difficult to decide and look the other way. I think it is inappropriate to be “exporting” positions based on moral questions that we have not managed to solve in Canada. Introducing the abortion issue was a sleezy political move by Liberals and they have got exactly what they deserve. Good article in the Citizen today by Margaret Sommerville re the abortion question.
I like having T around … although it may be better if his IQ to tooth-count ratio was a bit higher.
Without his ilk, this site gets a bit like an echo chamber where someone makes an observation and then bunches of people chime in with various versions of “Yeah … what he said.”
We need the Ts of the world even if only for canon fodder.
“I don’t think my troops are shooting at me,” he said
True enough … they’re going AWOL.
The shooting starts when you say something like “Maybe the coalition is a good idea.”
Oh, wait … you did say that didn’t you or did someone forge your signature?
Shamrock: “Or, am I giving Iggy too much credit?”
Shamrock, you’re giving Iggy too much credit!
The guy’s an idiot, a political-Canadian-citizen-“leader”-of-the-LPC, idiot. OK. So, maybe he can write, but he’s got no street smarts.
I’m actually trying to figure out what the HELL is going on with Ignatieff and his “leadership”? I’m still leaning on the Desmarais/Rae partnership’s giving him enough rope to hang himself, in order for Rae to take over as leader without any blood on his hands — at least, none that will be able to be detected.
What I’m hoping, of course, is that by the time Iggy ends his junket as Librano leader, the Liberal$ will be in such disarray that no Rae/Desmarais alliance will be able to save the LPC, especially as the “natural governing party.”
It’s ageism I say! CHUM Radios Michael Harris says Ralph Goodall and CTVs Craig Oliver says John McCullum.
Roger, over and out.