Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Canadian Political Free-for-All -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: marcos who wrote (243)	11/9/2000 11:27:48 PM
From: Gulo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36982

What's your point Marcos? The 1867 British North America Act was our constitution. That it wasn't written by us (and wasn't 'patriated') doesn't change the fact. The point he was making was that the division of jurisdictions outlined in the BNA was largely maintained in the Canada Act. >either you stand for state control of the bodies of women or you oppose it by standing for their right to individual choice Or you play politics and leave the question alone. Any politician would lose by making a stand one way or the other. Have you heard Chretien's position (he does have one)? I thought not. We all know Day is an evangelical christian. The question remains: does that disqualify him from office? Maybe it should, but I'm willing to risk it because I think his party's support is much broader than that. Even though I am vehemently anti-religion and pro-choice, I also try to avoid discrimination based on what may be irrelevant details. -g In fact, I'm still wavering on whether to support retroactive abortions for certain criminal classes. The libertarian in me shudders at the thought that the state would be involved in the killing of a person, however unfit for life that person might be.