babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » walking the talk   » environmental justice   » Abortion and the Earth

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Abortion and the Earth
Jerry West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1545

posted 29 January 2008 06:18 PM      Profile for Jerry West   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Thought that this might be of interest:

quote:

Abortion and the Earth
By Kelpie Wilson
t r u t h o u t | Environment Editor

Tuesday 29 January 2008

On this recent thirty-fifth anniversary of the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court
decision legalizing abortion, pro-choice activists are calling for a new
approach to the issue.

Frances Kissling, former president of Catholics for Free Choice, and Kate
Michelman, former president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, wrote in an OpEd
article in The Los Angeles Times: "Our vigorous defense of the right to choose
needs to be accompanied by greater openness regarding the real conflict between
life and choice, between rights and responsibility. It is time for a serious
reassessment of how to think about abortion in a world that is radically changed
from 1973."

Kissling and Michelman acknowledge that the anti-choice movement has made
great inroads into the consciousness of America, which now has some of the most
restrictive abortion laws in the developed world. Part of the success of the
anti-abortion message comes down to advances in technology, they say. The
ubiquitous ultrasound images of fetuses and the survival of premature babies at
earlier and earlier stages has established the unborn as a category of persons
with rights in the minds of many people.

As the specter of back alley abortions recedes and women no longer die by
the thousands from botched abortions, the old arguments about a woman's life and
her right to autonomy over her own body are holding less sway. Kissling and
Michelman warn: "If pro-choice values are to regain the moral high ground,
genuine discussion about these challenges needs to take place within the movement."

The moral arguments about abortion rarely consider the physical limits of
the planet, but if they did, and if abortion were put into the context of the
long history of human attempts to avoid starvation by regulating population
growth, we might come to a different conclusion about what "pro-life" really means.

An increased awareness of the fetus and its rights is not the only change
in the moral landscape of reproduction since 1973. The other change that must be
acknowledged is that we have far exceeded the capacity of the planet to sustain
our numbers, and that human life and civilization are now deeply threatened by
resource depletion, toxic pollution and climate catastrophe. Already, shortages
of food, fuel and water are making it difficult to meet the basic needs of the
6.5 billion people on the planet and no one has any idea how we will feed the
9.1 billion people projected to be here by 2050....

Link to full article



From: Gold River, BC | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 29 January 2008 06:40 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Very, very interesting Jerry, thanks for bringing it forward, but I am unsure of just where this topic should be located. Though, I can see why you have located it where you have, perhaps the mods can discuss where it should be.

When I was younger, I read this futuristic novel called "The Bingo Year", it depicted global society as having to impliment strict birth control measures, the men were sterilized. People were chosen to become parents by a form of lottery. And the chosen women were artifically inseminated from a bank of stored sperm.

Anyhow, in this one particular year, someone book into the sperm bank, and dumped them all into the women's public baths where they stayed viable long enough to impregnate all the women who were ovulating. And pregnancy anarchy reigned.

Something to think about in regards to overpopulation, men and the right to self-determine what happens with one's own body, though.

Let's say there will be strict population control in the future and men are told they have to have a vasectomy. It would not make sense, of course, to sterilize women, so it would have to be men who were forced to stop spreading their seed.


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Bubbles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3787

posted 29 January 2008 06:49 PM      Profile for Bubbles        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
George Monbiot has his ideas on what is the bigger problem.

quote:
In other words, if we accept the UN’s projection, the global population will grow by roughly 50% and then stop. This means it will become 50% harder to stop runaway climate change, 50% harder to feed the world, 50% harder to prevent the overuse of resources. But compare this rate of increase with the rate of economic growth.

Many economists predict that, occasional recessions notwithstanding, the global economy will grow by about 3% a year this century. Governments will do all they can to prove them right. A steady growth rate of 3% means a doubling of economic activity every 23 years. By 2100, in other words, global consumption will increase by about 1,600%. As the equations produced by Professor Roderick Smith of Imperial College have shown, this means that in the 21st century we will have used 16 times as many economic resources as human beings have consumed since we came down from the trees.

So economic growth this century could be 32 times as big an environmental issue as population growth. And if governments, banks and businesses have their way, it never stops. By 2115, the cumulative total rises to 3,200%, by 2138 to 6,400%. As resources are finite, this is of course impossible, but it is not hard to see that rising economic activity - not human numbers - is the immediate and overwhelming threat.



From: somewhere | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Jerry West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1545

posted 29 January 2008 06:57 PM      Profile for Jerry West   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
No time to dig into right now, but I suspect that rising economy and rising population are connected. We need to reduce consumption which means reducing economic activity.
From: Gold River, BC | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 29 January 2008 06:58 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, global consumption increasing at that rate is tied to increasing global population no? It would not increase at that rate if there were not increasing population numbers?
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 29 January 2008 06:59 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Is Wilson saying that the abortion rights movement has to move away from headlining the rights of women to autonomous control of their own bodies, towards more emphasis on abortion as an eco-friendly means of birth control?

Doesn't sound like a very promising strategy to me.

Did I misread her?


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Bubbles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3787

posted 29 January 2008 07:10 PM      Profile for Bubbles        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
remind,

look at western Europe, its population is pretty well static and the economy keeps growing none the less.


From: somewhere | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 29 January 2008 07:27 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
Is Wilson saying that the abortion rights movement has to move away from headlining the rights of women to autonomous control of their own bodies, towards more emphasis on abortion as an eco-friendly means of birth control?

Doesn't sound like a very promising strategy to me.

Did I misread her?


No, I do not think you did, as that is how I read it as well, and I concur.

There is no need for a such a strategy, it is a matter of human rights, and the ability to self determine, in respect to everything to do with your own body, no matter the gender.


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 29 January 2008 07:29 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bubbles:
look at western Europe, its population is pretty well static and the economy keeps growing none the less.

What areas keep on growing? exports to the developing world, trade deal exports, economic growth for weapons and war?


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Bubbles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3787

posted 29 January 2008 07:41 PM      Profile for Bubbles        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
remind,

I suspect all that, plus the houses get bigger, the cars fancier, the holidays more extravagant, the food more processes, the hospitals more complex, the spas more visited, more electronics, more marketing/branding....you want me to go on?


From: somewhere | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 29 January 2008 08:50 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
Is Wilson saying that the abortion rights movement has to move away from headlining the rights of women to autonomous control of their own bodies, towards more emphasis on abortion as an eco-friendly means of birth control?

Doesn't sound like a very promising strategy to me.

Did I misread her?


You should read Kate Michelman's piece from the LA Times (as reprinted on truthout.org. It's very provocative. And, given Michelman's long history of fighting for choice, worth reading.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 29 January 2008 09:02 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yes, I read that because it was linked to in the article that was quoted in the OP.

Michelman and Kissling seem to have thrown in the towel on the primacy of women's reproductive freedom as the central thrust of the abortion rights movement in the US. They think that makes it impossible to keep the "moral high ground".

I'm not familiar enough with the current state of the abortion debate in the US to have a definitive position, but their position definitely has me scratching my head.


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 29 January 2008 09:10 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
MSpector in the USA, women, do not have Charter Rights that protect their Freedom to be Self Determining. Or in otherwards, the state has supremacy over their body, unlike Canada, where the person has supremacy, not the state.

[ 29 January 2008: Message edited by: remind ]


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Martha (but not Stewart)
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12335

posted 29 January 2008 09:19 PM      Profile for Martha (but not Stewart)     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
MSpector in the USA, women, do not have Charter Rights that protect their Freedom to be Self Determining. Or in otherwards, gives them supremacy over their own body, unlike Canada.

In the US, women and men have the Bill of Rights (the first ten ammendments of the Constitution) as well as other ammendments and constitutional provisions to protect their freedoms. The US Bill of Rights predates the Canadian Charter by 191 years. And the fourteenth ammendment -- which gave people the right to privacy cited in Roe v. Wade -- predates the Canadian Charter by 114 years.

I might note that no provision in either the Canadian Constitution nor the US Constitution explicitly guarantees women the right to abortion. I might also note that the US Bill of Rights, the other rights-enshrining ammendments of the US Constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms are all human-made, and therefore imperfect, documents subject to revision.


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 29 January 2008 09:51 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I appreciate what you are saying Martha, but the truth is, we have NO abortion laws in Canada, a far more advanced human rights acknowlegement than Roe vs Wade.

The SCC determined that women have the right to own their own body and that the state has NO business making laws determining what they can, or cannot, do with them.

There is only one type of law and that is human made laws, unless ones speaks of scientific laws governing motion, energy and the Cosmos. Infering that there are other "non-human" laws, that are indeed perfect, is disengenuous, misleading and untrue, at least within this plane of existence.

One would hope that humans would not allow their state to change human rights acknowlegements. After all, the state is supposed to be of the citizens, for the citizens, and not an entity unto itself.


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Martha (but not Stewart)
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12335

posted 29 January 2008 10:09 PM      Profile for Martha (but not Stewart)     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
The SCC determined that women have the right to own their own body and that the state has NO business making laws determining what they can, or cannot, do with them.

Actually, the Supreme Court's decision was not quite that sweeping. It struck down the law as it stood in 1988, but the decision did leave open the possibility of an abortion law as long as the new abortion law "could overcome the 'manifest unfairness' created the administrative procedure." (OK, I'm quoting Wikipedia here.) In fact, the House of Commons passed Bill C-43, an amendment to the Criminal Code that would prohibit abortion unless a doctor finds the pregnancy is a threat to the woman's physical, mental, or psychological health. This bill was defeated by the Senate in a tie vote. The Supreme Court's decision in Morgentaler v. Her Majest The Queen does not seem to have ruled out a bill like C-33.

quote:
Originally posted by remind:
There is only one type of law and that is human made laws, unless ones speaks of scientific laws governing motion, energy and the Cosmos. Infering that there are other "non-human" laws, that are indeed perfect, is disengenuous, misleading and untrue, at least within this plane of existence.

Nothing I said implies that there is a perfect non-human law anywhere. I merely said that the Charter of Right and Freedoms and other similar documents are human-made, and therefore imperfect, and subject to revision. This does not imply that there's a perfect document out there waiting to be written.

(Saying that Xs are imperfect and subject to revision does not imply that there's a perfect X.)


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 29 January 2008 10:19 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Wilson J. wrote her own concurring opinion taking a significantly different approach. In it she decided that section 251 violates all three rights: life, liberty, and security of person. She emphasized how section 251 violated a woman's personal autonomy by preventing her from making decisions affecting her and her fetus' life. To Wilson, the women's decision to abort her fetus is one that is so profound on so many levels that goes beyond being a medical decision and becomes a social and ethical one as well. By removing the women's ability to make the decision and giving it to a committee would be a clear violation of their liberty and security of person. Wilson scathingly noted that the state is effectively taking control of a woman's capacity to reproduce.

Wilson goes on to agree with the other Justices that section 7 (prohibiting the performance of an abortion except under certain circumstances) is procedurally unfair, adding that the violation of section 7 also has the effect of violating section 2(a) of the Charter (freedom of conscience) in that the requirements for a woman to be permitted to obtain an abortion legally (or for a doctor to legally perform one) were in many cases so onerous or effectively impossible that they were "resulting in a failure to comply with the principles of fundamental justice." The decision to abort is primarily a moral one, she notes, and thus by preventing her from doing so violate a woman's right to conscientiously-held beliefs. With the abortion law, the government is supporting one conscientiously-held belief at the expense of another, and in effect, treats women as a means to an end, depriving them of their "essential humanity".

She also stated that

“ The decision whether to terminate a pregnancy is essentially a moral decision, a matter of conscience. I do not think there is or can be any dispute about that. The question is: whose conscience? Is the conscience of the woman to be paramount or the conscience of the state? I believe, for the reasons I gave in discussing the right to liberty, that in a free and democratic society it must be the conscience of the individual. ”

In her analysis of section 1, Wilson notes that the value placed on the fetus is proportional to its stage of gestation and the legislation must take that into account. However, here, the law cannot be justified as the law takes the decision-making power away from the woman absolutely, thus cannot pass the proportionality test....While the Morgentaler decisions failed to resolve the issue, in the later case of Daigle v. Tremblay (1989), it was found that the fetus is not legally a person in common law or in Quebec statutes.



From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 29 January 2008 11:14 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The Daigle VS Tremblay SCC case, sealed the no need abortion laws fact, as women quite clearly have the right to the freedoms of: conscience, safety, and personal autonomy, and those rights have supremacy, as there are no legal fetal rights, and any potential father has no right to have their future progenity protected.

quote:
the issue of fetal rights would suffice to solve this particular dispute and prevent similar legal incidents in the future. The fetal rights were said to be anchored in the rights to life in the Canadian Charter, the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, and the Civil Code of Quebec. Moreover, it was argued Tremblay had a right to protect his "potential progeny." The Supreme Court considered and rejected all these arguments. As the Court noted, its role was to consider the fetus's legal status; it would not rule on its biological status, nor would it enter "philosophical and theological debates." As far as the Court could tell, there was no legal precedent for fetal rights under the Quebec Charter,..Regarding the Civil Code, the Court considered the argument that since the Code deals with fetuses as "juridical" persons, fetuses must legally be human beings. Human beings, under the Code, have rights. Once again, the Court expressed skepticism as to the nature of the term "human being", noting the linguistic nature of the argument. While the Code does give fetuses some similar treatment to legal persons, the Court replied that this does not necessarily imply other fetal rights exist. In the places where fetuses are recognized as juridical persons, the Court claimed this is a "fiction of the civil law".

The case next turned to Canadian law and common law... a fetus is not a person under common law...Some scholars have noted that along with Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General) (1989), Tremblay v. Daigle "closed off litigation opportunities by pro-life opponents" of pro-choice Canadians.[1] Another scholar notes that this case, along with the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal's Borowski decision and the Supreme Court case R. v. Sullivan (1991), all probably indicate the fetus is not a person under the Canadian Charter.[2] A comparable result to Daigle occurred in 1999 in Dobson (Litigation Guardian of) v. Dobson.[3]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daigle_v._Tremblay


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Martha (but not Stewart)
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12335

posted 29 January 2008 11:43 PM      Profile for Martha (but not Stewart)     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
The Daigle VS Tremblay SCC case, sealed the no need abortion laws fact,

In Daigle v. Tremblay, the Court only ruled on the question of whether a fetus has a right to life under the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms or under the Civil Code of Quebec: an alleged fetal right to life allegedly in the Quebec Charter and Civil Code was the underpinning of the injunction Tremblay had won against Daigle from having an abortion. The Court ruled that the answer to the question at issue is no. The decision "closed off litigation opportunities by pro-life opponents of pro-choice Canadians": that is, it closed off the opportunity to get injunctions against so-and-so from having an abortion. It closed off litigation opportunities for opponents of pro-choice Canadians, but it did not close off all legislative opportunities. Most, but not all, legislative opportunities were closed off by Morgenataler v. Her Majesty The Queen.

The Wikipedia article you cite notes, "The Court also declined to address the question of fetal rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, noting that the Charter applies to government; it has no force in legal disputes between private citizens, which was the case in Tremblay v. Daigle."

In particular, Tremblay v. Daigle did not rule out the introduction of an abortion law similar to C-43: the law, cited above, introduced after Tremblay v. Daigle, and defeated legisltatively (in the Senate) and not in the court.

It seems to me that no Supreme Court decision so far rules out the introduction of a bill like C-43.

Presumably, if a bill like C-43 were ever introduced, it would be brought before the Supreme Court. Their past rulings might suggest that something like C-43 would be defeated, but they do not rule it out from the outset.


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
Jerry West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1545

posted 30 January 2008 11:49 AM      Profile for Jerry West   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Does anyone have the right to destroy their society?

Either over or under population could do it. So, is there a moral obligation to prevent either if possible?


From: Gold River, BC | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
bliter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14536

posted 30 January 2008 12:24 PM      Profile for bliter   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
If truth be known, probably the best thing for this planet would be that the next species to disappear would be homo sapiens.

I believe the world can safely handle a much larger population, but it may take a revolution before it happens to the benefit of all - and only then under a Communist, Socialist or similarly "planned" system.

A system sustained by war or threat of war cannot be sustained.


From: delta | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 30 January 2008 12:40 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Martha (but not Stewart):The Court ruled that the answer to the question at issue is no. The decision "closed off litigation opportunities by pro-life opponents of pro-choice Canadians": that is, it closed off the opportunity to get injunctions against so-and-so from having an abortion. It closed off litigation opportunities for opponents of pro-choice Canadians, but it did not close off all legislative opportunities. Most, but not all, legislative opportunities were closed off by Morgenataler v. Her Majesty The Queen.

I disagree, as I perceive that R VS M and D vs T create the necessary framwork ensuring women's constitutional rights are upheld.

quote:
the full bench of the Supreme Court of Canada heard the appeal on 8 August 1989 and unanimously set aside the injunction. The reasons were delivered on 16 November 1989. The Court noted that there were three separate arguments for setting aside the injunction:

1. the substantive rights alleged to support the injunction, whether fetal rights or "father's" rights, either do not exist or cannot outweigh a woman's right to control her own body;

2. an injunction is an inappropriate remedy where abortions are concerned for technical, practical and constitutional reasons;

3. in the case of Ms. Daigle, the injunction effectively amounted to a prohibition, or an improper exercise of the federal criminal law power.

...In addition, the Court concluded its analysis of the substantive rights issue as follows:

It should be noted that because of the way we have decided the question of "foetal rights," it was unnecessary to consider the second aspect of the "substantive rights" argument, i.e., the claim that even if foetal rights do exist, they could not justify compelling a woman to carry a foetus to term.

The argument referred to was based on "the long-standing legal principle that a person may not be compelled to use his or her body at the service of another person, even if the other person's life is in danger." This seems to be a separate argument from a pregnant woman's right to security of the person under the Charter, and it is one that could play a role in future decisions.


Almost as interesting as what the Court did decide was its phrasing of the issues it was not deciding.

Please note, the legal principal bolded above that effectively states, even if a fetus is later found to have human rights at a certain stage of biological development a person may not be compelled to use his or her body at the service of another person, even if the other person's life is in danger

So bascially, that states; if someone fights to have a fetus declared a human, and if that right is acheived and individual human rights are granted to a fetus, the fetuses right to life still cannot override the rights, both Charter and legal, of the host woman, as a woman cannot be compelled (by the state or anyone else) to have her body used in the service of another person, even if that other "persons" life is in danger.

As such, it would be extremely doubtful, if not impossible, that any legislative, or even human rights conveying to a fetus, action can overturn a woman's individual charter rights, nor indeed legal right to autonomy over her body. Women would have to be stripped of their rights as a human first, or some equally implausible action.

[ 30 January 2008: Message edited by: remind ]


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Noise
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12603

posted 30 January 2008 12:45 PM      Profile for Noise     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
While reading this, I was reminded of the 'intense' stem cell research debate in the US and all them snowflake babies that Bush (in some fantasy world) wanted to give homes to.

Little excerpt from the article that deserves highlighting as it shows the roots of the Pro-Life groups beliefs (very well written article too, though I don't agree with all of it):

quote:
It's the remnant of this system that we see today in the extreme fundamentalist theologies that want to remove not only abortion from a woman's options, but birth control as well. It's a little-known fact that the leaders of today's pro-life movement are also very strongly against birth control, and they have a campaign they call the Quiver Full movement that is urging Christian woman, especially white Christian women, to have as many babies as they possibly can. The babies are a "quiver full of arrows" for the Army of God. They even connect this with the immigration debate, saying that the reason why we have so many immigrants is because white, native-born American women are not breeding enough.

Quit aborting the soldiers of God... Can't you see we have a crusade to win? For as much 'oh save a life!' angle that is spun, you know something like this rests closer to the true reason the 'Pro-Life' groups press as they do.

[ 30 January 2008: Message edited by: Noise ]


From: Protest is Patriotism | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Jerry West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1545

posted 30 January 2008 01:15 PM      Profile for Jerry West   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:

bliter:
I believe the world can safely handle a much larger population

Safe for who? If we consider the other species on the planet, plant and animal, one could argue that the surplus of humans is making it very unsafe for many of them.


From: Gold River, BC | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 30 January 2008 01:15 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Social conservatives are quick to argue that the rash of pregnancy-friendly movies signals a real sea change in American culture, or at least in the depiction of such culture by the titans of Hollywood.

"It's reflective of a larger social change," contends Wanda Franz, president of the national Right to Life Committee. "People are finally beginning to realize that (abortion) isn't something natural or normal or easy to do. It's gratifying to see life being respected more, and babies being valued as human beings and not throwaway objects."

Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League, says the pro-pregnancy trend reflects a new willingness in Hollywood to be seen as friendly to religion, given the success of Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ." It also flows from what he claims is a growing discomfort among younger women toward abortion....

What a difference a few decades make, says Thompson, who notes that abortion was addressed much more forthrightly in the entertainment of previous generations. From the special two-part episode on "Maude" in the '70s, in which the title character chose to end her pregnancy, to shows such as "St. Elsewhere" and "Chicago Hope" in the '80s and '90s, abortion was addressed head-on. He points to 1982, when the comedy "Fast Times at Ridgemont High" was a hit.

"There's an incredibly casual abortion in that movie," he says. "In one scene, the main character tells her boyfriend she's going to have an abortion. In the next scene, she has it and that's it. That kind of thing today would bring a movie to a screeching halt. I've been teaching this movie since it came out, and when I play it to a class of 18- to 22-year-olds today, the silence is palpable."


Yeesh!

From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 30 January 2008 01:23 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jerry West:
Safe for who? If we consider the other species on the planet, plant and animal, one could argue that the surplus of humans is making it very unsafe for many of them.

I translated bliter's comments to mean safe for "white" people to have more children.

However, I agree with you, it is not safe for other species of plants and animals, and if it is not safe for them, it cannot be safe for homo sapiens, no matter their colour of skin, as everything is interconnected and interdependant.

Do you remember the movie Soylent Green?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soylent_Green


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
1234567
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14443

posted 30 January 2008 01:34 PM      Profile for 1234567     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I remember the movie Soylent Green. People laughed and made fun of that movie when it came out and now....it's looking like something like that could happen.

Well, maybe people laughed because C. Heston was the main character.


From: speak up, even if your voice shakes | Registered: Aug 2007  |  IP: Logged
Martha (but not Stewart)
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12335

posted 30 January 2008 01:36 PM      Profile for Martha (but not Stewart)     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by remind:

Please note, the legal principal bolded above that effectively states, even if a fetus is later found to have human rights at a certain stage of biological development a person may not be compelled to use his or her body at the service of another person, even if the other person's life is in danger.

Interesting. Thanks.


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
bliter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14536

posted 30 January 2008 01:56 PM      Profile for bliter   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
remind:

quote:
I translated bliter's comments to mean safe for "white" people to have more children.

Is it your aim to be deliberately offensive?

My post made no reference race or color.


From: delta | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 30 January 2008 02:03 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Martha (but not Stewart):Interesting. Thanks.
You're welcome, hope that helps you to understand why Canada has no abortion laws, and why our not having them is the correct realization, and why clearly, women are more protected in the areas of personal autonomy in Canada than the US women are.

From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
bliter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14536

posted 30 January 2008 02:31 PM      Profile for bliter   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Jerry West,

quote:
Safe for who? If we consider the other species on the planet, plant and animal, one could argue that the surplus of humans is making it very unsafe for many of them.

My post should not be interpreted as shilling for anti-choice. I have never been against a woman's right to choose.

I was arguing for a saner system that could handle more population - a system without the built-in wastes and that met the basic human needs of shelter, food and health, before profits.

It was not that long ago that it was being predicted that we need work for others no more than two or three days weekly. Why has our technology not brought that about?

edited to remove typo

[ 30 January 2008: Message edited by: bliter ]


From: delta | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 30 January 2008 02:55 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by bliter:
My post should not be interpreted as shilling for anti-choice. I have never against been against a woman's right to choose.
Is this a typo? As it stands, it could be read as though you have never been against being against a woman's Right to choose.

But anyway, I will accept that you were not shilling for anti-choice, and thank you for your clarification. I think I do anyway, at this point at least, depending upon your qualifying what you mean below.

quote:
I was arguing for a saner system that could handle more population - a system without the built-in wastes and that met the basic human needs of shelter, food and health, before profits.
As this thread IS about abortion and the earth, are you classifying abortion as being environmentally friendly, and thus insane, or abortion itself being insane, or the capitalist system being insane?

From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Jerry West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1545

posted 30 January 2008 03:33 PM      Profile for Jerry West   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:

bliter:
My post should not be interpreted as shilling for anti-choice.

I didn't see it that way either.

quote:

I was arguing for a saner system that could handle more population

If we value bio-diversity and the state of the ecosphere that we had prior to the industrial revolution and the huge increase in population to three or more times what would be comfortable for that system, then the only way to achieve a system both saner and with a larger population would be to have a bigger planet.


From: Gold River, BC | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
bliter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14536

posted 30 January 2008 05:37 PM      Profile for bliter   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Jerry West,

Despite Canada's sparse population, a bigger planet? That would be nice. I would hope that we would care for it better than this one, but in the interim....

We must work with what we have. Two quotes, and both questionable: "Buy land, they're not making any more" Mark Twain. "Where water's boss the land must obbey" Marleen

Much of Holland is testament to the creating of land by holding back the water. Then there are the Dubai Islands raised from the sea and regarded by some as worthy of the eighth wonder of the world designation. Evident in my own city, even, is the Deltaport, dredged from the sea:

Land where water was

I think Mark Twain and Marleen would be impressed - might even re-think those quotes.


From: delta | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged
Jerry West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1545

posted 30 January 2008 06:54 PM      Profile for Jerry West   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:

bliter:
Despite Canada's sparse population, a bigger planet?

GHGs aside, Canada is one of the few places on Earth that is living well within its environmental means, at least as far as sustainable ecology goes. The planet as a whole is not, however. As has been pointed out numerous times before, if the planet were to consume at a sustainable level and consumption were equalized globally, we would all be consuming the same amount as Jordanians or Uzbekis do currently.

Of course claiming sea bed for dry land does raise some problems for fish and mollusks and other marine flora and fauna, and terrestrial life forms that rely on it.

Wetlands and ocean conversion are just more examples of excessive consumption.


From: Gold River, BC | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 30 January 2008 08:51 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by 1234567:

Well, maybe people laughed because C. Heston was the main character.


I get the feeling it was just another movie role for hawks like Heston. It makes you wonder how they do think. Henry Fonda did Grapes of Wrath, and it didn't affect his political views either apparently.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Noise
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12603

posted 31 January 2008 06:19 AM      Profile for Noise     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Jerry:

quote:
GHGs aside, Canada is one of the few places on Earth that is living well within its environmental means, at least as far as sustainable ecology goes. The planet as a whole is not, however.

? We're no where near living within our environmental means (including or excluding GHG's)... Especially if you include what the impact people producing our consumables in other nations has.

The attitude that we somehow are living within sustainable/environmental means is the same attitude thats allowed us to critisize the US while allowing our own emmision growth to eclipse there(IE... it's all someone elses fault, we're fine).


From: Protest is Patriotism | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 31 January 2008 07:02 AM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jerry West:
Canada is one of the few places on Earth that is living well within its environmental means, at least as far as sustainable ecology goes.
You've got to be kidding, right?

BTW, how's your forest industry doing out there? Your salmon fishery? Your grizzly bear hunt? Seen any marmots lately?

[ 31 January 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ]


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Noise
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12603

posted 31 January 2008 07:10 AM      Profile for Noise     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Sadly the opinion is too commonplace for him to be kidding... You'll see a large majority of Canadians have a similar 'We're fine, its the US and other nations that have the trouble' attitude (infact, you could say the previous Liberal majorities ruled using that as a mantra). It's about the same feeling that allows people in SUV's to whine about oilsand emissions.

Then again, what can we expect from a society founded on pillaging it's own resources for sale elsewhere?

[ 31 January 2008: Message edited by: Noise ]


From: Protest is Patriotism | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
rural - Francesca
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14858

posted 31 January 2008 07:21 AM      Profile for rural - Francesca   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
Seen any marmots lately?

[ 31 January 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ]


Saturday


From: the backyard | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 31 January 2008 07:22 AM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I meant real marmots.
From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
rural - Francesca
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14858

posted 31 January 2008 07:38 AM      Profile for rural - Francesca   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Actually I got to visit the breeding program of the Vancouver Island Marmot, at the Metro Toronto Zoo, when I was looking after our little albino friend.

The colonies of albino marmots (groundhogs) that are fascinating here. The gene is in abundance and we would get reports of albino sightings from all over.

In terms of colour phase, Exeter has a colony of white squirrels, not true albinos - the squirrels have black eyes - but still an interesting observation of a specific biological population.

Don't discount the lowly wild agriculturally based marmot. When they do pit mining rehabilitation, when marmots move in, they declare the site 'finished' in terms of rehabilitation. They just go to a monitor stage.

Marmots are a keystone species (like frogs) and anything that affects them negatively is affecting the rest of the environment as well. They are an early warning sign of environmental issues.

(Five years of my life and what the hell do I do with head full of marmot trivia???)


From: the backyard | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 31 January 2008 07:43 AM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
BTW, how's your forest industry doing out there?
Bad, in 1998 there were around 60,000 people employed, last I read a couple of months back, there were around 24,000, and that was before Canfor and West Fraser did all their shutdowns and layoffs. Moreover, Gordo stopped any forest practise codes, and silviculture is just not happening in any significant amounts, and forest industry companies are deferring, if you can believe it, their planting of new trees. There are no reforestation investments being made now, for the future. But of course that was a planned thing.

quote:
Your salmon fishery?
Bad

quote:
Seen any marmots lately?
Well, not right now at this time of the year, but come spring I will be seeing hundreds across the course of the spring and summer, unless they die off over the winter.

Prince George is feeling the impact of no tress picking up water, because they are dead. People have been evacuated from their homes for weeks now, I think 90 homes have been flooded, and still are, and 90 more are on alert, and businesses are under water, and the ice jam causing the flooding, has now reached 22km in length. The ice jam has occured of course because of abnormally high water levels because of the 400% above normal snowpack last year, and billions of dead trees not picking up water in the Nechako watershed.

There are now trying to pour hot water into the Nechako where it feeds into the Fraser trying to get it to flow out more and keeping it flowing in any amount they can. But now with -30 temps, it is difficult. This is just the beginning of the impact upon BC from all the dead forests.

[ 31 January 2008: Message edited by: remind ]


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
saga
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13017

posted 31 January 2008 01:17 PM      Profile for saga   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote originally posted by Jerry West:
Canada is one of the few places on Earth that is living well within its environmental means, at least as far as sustainable ecology goes.
...............................................

quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
You've got to be kidding, right?

BTW, how's your forest industry doing out there? Your salmon fishery? Your grizzly bear hunt? Seen any marmots lately?

[ 31 January 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ]


M. Spector, I had the same response when I read this yesterday. It made me think of the hundreds of emails I have received detailing environmental disasters in Canada that we know little about because they occur in Indigenous communities, but they affect entire watersheds. Today I got a link to where they are all posted:
http://groups.google.ca/group/Friends-of-AGG?hl=en

The irony is that when the waters rise and we are all pushed to the 'pristine north', we are going to learn there is not much clean water there: It is all contaminated from industrial operations.

Take a look through them, Jerry West. You will see where Canada dumps its environmental toxins, and whose lives are affected.

Canada has no plan for sustainable environments. Canada's plan is "dump it, bury it and if we are lucky no one will complain ... before the next election"

[ 31 January 2008: Message edited by: saga ]


From: Canada | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Jerry West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1545

posted 31 January 2008 05:30 PM      Profile for Jerry West   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:

We're no where near living within our environmental means (including or excluding GHG's)... Especially if you include what the impact people producing our consumables in other nations has.

Actually if we have a far greater amount of global hectares to support us sustainably than we are using. Canada has a biocapacity of 14.5gha per person and is only using 7.6. Without exporting we would have a huge reserve.

Living within our means, however, is not the same as living in an environmentally sound manner and does not mean that our environmental practices are good ones. It does not mean that we are fine. It only means that currently we have more than we need.

I would agree that we are squandering it.

The US is certainly helping us. They have a biocapacity of 4.7gha per person and are using 9.6. Canada and the US combined have an average capacity of 5.7gha and an average consumption of 9.4. Add Mexico and it gets worse. Their biocapacity is 1.7 while they actually consume 2.6.

Since we are using total averages for biocapacity that does not tell us that some sectors such as fisheries and forests are severely over exploited, nor does it tell us the future effect of current practices. But on an average we are within our means north of the border, even if we may be racing towards the limit.

If every country was required to reduce its consumption to match its biocapacity Canada's main concern would be developing better practices and models of exploitation. The US, and much of the world would be looking at considerable consumption reduction.

Since total consumption is a function of the number of consumers times their individual consumption reductions can be made in two ways, reducing individual consumption and reducing the number of individuals consuming.

Saga and others have made good points about what is wrong, and with which I agree. However they do not negate the fact that currently we in Canada have more available than we are using domestically. Even if we may be destroying it by the way that we use it.

Unfortunately the world on average has less available than it is using which leads us to the biggest and most important issue of our new century: how to achieve sustainability and social justice and a high standard of living altogether.


From: Gold River, BC | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 31 January 2008 07:39 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Nice try, Jerry, but there's no way you are going to weasel out of this statement:
quote:
GHGs aside, Canada is one of the few places on Earth that is living well within its environmental means, at least as far as sustainable ecology goes.
If you think Canada is operating at anything near a sustainable ecological level, you are seriously deluded.

Just because we haven't yet cut down every tree, polluted every stream, wiped out every endangered species, and depleted every hectare of arable land doesn't mean we have a sustainable ecology.

I don't know what statements like "we have more available than we are using" are meant to imply, but they certainly are not useful for anyone who is interested in sustainable ecology. Your concentration on statistics about population and land area is fuddling your brain and blinding you to the reality of the crisis we are facing.


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
saga
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13017

posted 31 January 2008 10:40 PM      Profile for saga   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I don't think your calculations take into account how much of it is already dangerously contaminated, jerry.

That is land and water that cannot support human life.


From: Canada | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Jerry West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1545

posted 01 February 2008 11:42 AM      Profile for Jerry West   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:

MS:
Just because we haven't yet cut down every tree, polluted every stream, wiped out every endangered species, and depleted every hectare of arable land doesn't mean we have a sustainable ecology.

You miss the point. We are consuming below our ability to replenish which means that we have enough resources to sustain us. That we are consuming foolishly and destroying our future ability to replenish is another issue.

If we had to rely only on our own resources we would do fine provided we did not squander them or increase our population to the point that we needed more than we could produce. Most of the world now, unlike Canada, can not sustainably support its consumption.

quote:

I don't know what statements like "we have more available than we are using" are meant to imply....

No hidden meaning there, they mean exactly what they say.

quote:

....they certainly are not useful for anyone who is interested in sustainable ecology.

They tell us that we have more of a cushion than most places when it comes to the effects of changing our system. They do not tell us that everything is fine.

quote:

saga:
I don't think your calculations take into account how much of it is already dangerously contaminated, jerry.

No, because that is irrelevant to the point I was making. Per capita what we can produce now is less than we are consuming domestically. That we are consuming it unwisely and destroying our ability for future production may be true (is true in my mind) but is a different issue.

Also, keep in mind that my point was about all resources in aggregate . If we look at individual sectors, fisheries comes to mind, there is no debate on my part that we have become unsustainable given current practices.

quote:

MS:
Your concentration on statistics about population and land area is fuddling your brain and blinding you to the reality of the crisis we are facing.

Actually, I think it lends more perspective to actually how serious it is. Most of the world is consuming more than it can produce. If one ignores the relationship between consumption and the ability to produce one divorces the crisis from its causes.

Keep in mind that the ability to produce in a sustainable manner involves maintaining an intricate web of symbiotic relationships throughout the environment, and in a certain way if we wish to maintain the world in the historic state with which we are familiar.

Going back to the beginning of this thread, population control is part of preserving that web.


From: Gold River, BC | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 01 February 2008 12:02 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
You're trying to present Canada as being in some kind of self-sufficient cocoon, which we're not. We are dependent on the whole world for much of our food and manufactured goods, and our fate is inextricably linked to the fate of the world.

It's completely meaningless to talk about Canada's having a "cushion" against global catastrophe. There is no cushion.

That kind of talk can only lead to smugness and inaction.

As for population control, Canada doesn't have a population control problem. Our birth rates are plenty low enough. Anybody who talks about population control in Canada is talking about restricting immigration.

[ 01 February 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ]


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Jerry West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1545

posted 01 February 2008 12:35 PM      Profile for Jerry West   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:

MS:
You're trying to present Canada as being in some kind of self-sufficient cocoon, which we're not.

We have the ability to sustainably produce more than we consume, that fact speaks for itself.

quote:

We are dependent on the whole world for much of our food and manufactured goods, and our fate is inextricably linked to the fate of the world.

That state is optional, depending upon how we want to live. Unlike most other countries we do not have to depend upon the rest of the world.

quote:

It's completely meaningless to talk about Canada's having a "cushion" against global catastrophe.

And I didn't talk about it either. If you read what I said I said a cushion when it comes to changing our system. Ergo, it is easier for us to make changes because of the resources that we have.

quote:

That kind of talk can only lead to smugness and inaction.

I dispute the word only. It could lead to that if one were ignorant, but it doesn't have to.

quote:

As for population control, Canada doesn't have a population control problem.

Certainly not according to the statistics that I have presented. Of course if one sees Canada as not "operating at anything near a sustainable ecological level" then population might be part of the problem.

Resource depletion is a function of individual consumption and the number of consumers. Changing either number affects it. The trick is to establish a limit on the population that is sustainable given the individual average level of consumption that is desired.

For Canada in isolation this isn't too difficult, for the world as a whole it is a nightmare.


From: Gold River, BC | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 01 February 2008 12:46 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jerry West:
Resource depletion is a function of individual consumption and the number of consumers.
Wrong.

Resource depletion is a function of exploitation for private profit, using unsustainable methods.


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Jerry West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1545

posted 01 February 2008 01:58 PM      Profile for Jerry West   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:

MS:
Wrong.

Resource depletion is a function of exploitation for private profit, using unsustainable methods.


Wrong? Say what?

Too much individual consumption and/or too many consumers is an unsustainable method of exploitation. Without consumption there would be no profit nor any reason for exploitation.

Profit is merely a form of consumption. Public profit as well as private profit could be destructive.


From: Gold River, BC | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca