You can't be diplomatic when you are trying to force other people to do what your morality dictates.
That's it. Period.
Just bringing up the question of trying to get political advantage to impose a morality law is antagonistic. You can't sugar coat that.
As such, you are blind to the trauma and struggle that women go through with unwanted pregnancy.
Find some compassion and care. Focus on reducing poverty and homelessness and assault and rape and improving eduction and medical care.
That would be truly moral.
That's not democratic. Majority rules is democracy for grade 3.
So you get 50% + 1 vote and you can tell everyone else what to do? Or worse yet, under FPTP get a majority government with 40% of the popular vote * 60% turnout = 24% of the population telling everyone what to do.
Do it by riding instead. More democratic.
Or by municipality.
Or, how about this... Do it by household. Or, most radical, by person. That's the most democratic you can get.
Ahhh. The tyranny of the majority.
Why should you get to tell anyone else what to do with their body?
If you don't want an abortion. Don't get one.
just move to another province.
Leave your family. Your work. Your friends. At a most vulnerable moment in your life.
So much for your compassion. The plank is still firmly stuck in your eye.
Come on, I am sure there are some folks getting richer. Everyone just has to wait for it all to come trickling down.
I think this is a bottom-up solution,in many ways. The feds trying to invite foreign grocery chains to increase competition is a disaster waiting to happen IMHO. Either they will fail like Target by not understand the market or they will gobble up more local business and offshore the profits like Walmart and Costco.
We can make choices to support small, local, businesses. Hard to do with radio and TV and might cost a bit more but these are choices that count.
For example I skip Tim's and Starbucks and choose local coffee shops wherever I can. I subscribe to a local and regional newspaper and to a national news organization. I seek out local farmers and stores that sell local eggs, meats, cheeses, grains. I just switched from that big pharmacy to a small independent one (and got my Rx in 10 minutes where the corporate giant can't do that in under an hour)
I'd love to hear more ideas on how others have made similar choices.
Oh my. I am so sorry you went through all this. You didn't deserve any of this.
100% no contact. Someone who can injure and kill a kitten is not safe to be anywhere near.
Try to put the guilt down. You didn't do it. And the best way to make amends is to cut that horrible person out of your life.
I'd suggest sending a text, "we are finished", and immediately block him. You don't have to explain and you certainly don't want to let him cajole or argue or convince you that you don't have a choice (you do) or that you owe him another chance (you don't).
Hugs (from a dad figure) if you want 'em and best of luck with that kiddo.
I certainly would never treat anyone badly because of being gay.
I just want to expand on this thought in two ways.
I appreciate that you feel this way. It is so important.
There are still people, however, who DO treat LGBT people very poorly. Right up to and including murder. This is why Pride and rainbow flags are so necessary - because straight people don't get murdered for being straight.
Go back and take a look at some of your comments and read them as if you are a gay person who has been shunned by family, beat up in school, threatened on the street, and is feeling hurt and scared and rather alone, and see if your words really do align with "I certainly would never treat anyone badly". Because allying yourself with anti-gay rhetoric is kinda treating them badly.
Interesting story of my own: I kinda thought the same way you did, not as Christian motivated, but just "why does this need to be such a big deal?" And then one of my absolute best friends, a women, came out to me as being gay. And she told me about how scary it was to go out with a girlfriend and being afraid of being assaulted in public, or beaten, or raped by men who were going to somehow force them to be straight.
That was a huge eye opener for me. Life changing. Here was someone I loved to bits, would never wish any harm on, and she needed allies in her life to change this awful narrative that gay people are evil.
My experience isn't huge but it may be more than yours: I know gay and trans people. I have volunteered at a number of Pride events. I have done some volunteer work providing support to victims of emotional and verbal abuse. I have a good friend, who was a devout Christian, who was shunned by her church after escaping an abusive husband. I know a fellow who was ejected from his Hutterite community - his only home - for being gay. An incredibly harmful thing to have happen to someone.
So I have experience in these communities, to some degree.
Not one of those people blamed God. They blame the church, and usually the specific church - the earth-bound people in the church who caused the harm. And that harm causes a mistrust in the church. So if you perceive people hating on the church, maybe look at the church, and what it is doing to people who don't perfectly fit in to the dogma.
I think you may have attached yourself to a narrative here that isn't accurate. I'm sorry to hear that, because if you engage with these communities, with an open mind, and with God in your heart, you would find so much love and care.
It happens in southern Manitoba, for sure. I'd like to believe it doesn't. I used to believe it doesn't. But it does.
I'd be careful with blanket statements. Until you engage with the LGBT community, and sit and listen (this is really important! - listen, instead of making pronouncements), you probably won't hear those stories. Those folks disappear and need really safe spaces to talk because they've been told they are evil and sinners and satanic.
This is where I think you could learn a bit of compassion, if you are willing. When you make suggestions that gay people hate the church or intersex people are pushing satanic symbolism, you're contributing to drawing lines of hate. Maybe you don't hate the people but you are making it very clear, perhaps unwittingly, that you are not an ally.
There isn't a campaign against Christianity. However, when a Christian comes along equating a Pride flag with Satanism or a Christian comes along trying to force their morality on women and LGBT people, that person will experience considerable pushback.
When Christian churches shun people who come out as gay...
When Christian sects like Hutterites eject people from their communities for being gay...
When Christian women go to their pastor looking for help escaping their abusive husband and are told to keep quiet and submit to his leadership...
When Christian pastors abuse women or youth and the victims are told to keep quiet...
I know these people personally. It happens. Please take a closer look at how your church judges and treats people who it should be treating with care and compassion.
Are you referring to the intersex flag? The purple circle on yellow background? That's to represent being whole for people have been told their whole lives that they are broken. The trans flag is blue, pink, and white stripes.
Finding some compassion for that would go a long way to relating to your Christianity. But here you are, looking at other people with that plank in your eye. That whole layer of satanic symbolism doesn't exist unless you're listening people who are encouraging you to hate.
https://www.ait.org.tw/the-intersex-inclusive-pride-progress-flag/
Putting your original post here for when you dirty delete:
Abortion is immoral, funny how some think the murder of unborn ok but snowflake out about politicians saying something they and the central committtee disagree with.
Abortion is immoral
This is your opinion.
Here's mine: rape is immoral. incest is immoral, forcing women to bear children they don't want is immoral, stealthing (removing a condom, in case you don't know) is immoral, underage marriage is immoral, forcing women to face health risks to bear children is immoral, forcing women to go to back alley coat-hanger abortions is immoral, men abandoning women and children is immoral, not paying people enough to support a family is immoral, withholding sex education from young women and men is immoral, not teaching men to seek explicit consent is immoral, withholding birth control from teenagers is immoral, victimizing women over and over again is immoral, men enforcing a patriarchy on women what to do is immoral.
Should I go on? Dealing with these real issues will go a lot further in dealing with abortion than your moralizing.
Hmmm, let's see "All fires are started by arson" vs "14 out of hundreds of wildfires are started by arson" Yup, real minor difference there in message and interpretation.
Take your ad hominem attacks and your sunk cost fallacy (because you seem determined to die on this hill that somehow smoke from arson travels differently than other smoke) and go do some actual reading. Despite me actually spending some time doing the work of getting data to talk to you, you're stuck on this inexplicable idea. I don't understand why you don't just say thanks for the clarification and move on.
Oh, you again. Another new user ID, another dirty delete coming up? I'm just going to copy your original post here for folks to see.
Nothing could be further from the truth. I am certainly not one of those Christians who goes around looking for everyone’s sins and ignoring the plank in my eye.
No, my issue is nothing to do with that, my issue is the way it is designed to troll Christians and mock the Bible, Christ, and foundations of our country. You see, on the Bible we have the story of the flood and of the rainbow. In this story we learn that God loves is despite our sin and it connects with this idea that if we repent and put our trust in Jesus then we are forgiven of our sinful nature. Jesus is what reconciles us with God. God is pure love and there’s no way for humans to be with pure love if we are sinful, that’s why it’s so important to have that mediator in Jesus. Only the blood of Christ is actually powerful enough to clean us to stand before God in his presence.
That is my issue with the rainbow flag being used to say humans aren’t sinful and that we should be proud. That is making a mockery of the sacrifice God made in the form of Christ in order to reconcile with us- his creation.
That’s why I don’t like rainbow pride stuff, nothing to do with gay people. Just be respectful and choose another symbol that doesn’t mock Christianity.
So...
rainbow flag being used to say humans aren’t sinful
That's not what it is being used for. It is used as a symbol of inclusion. The fact that you are drawing that line suggests you might be thinking that being LGBT is sinful.
That is making a mockery of the sacrifice God made in the form of Christ
No, I don't think so. If the rainbow is a Christian symbol of forgiveness and love, then couldn't we view the LGBT flag, as a symbol if forgiveness and love, to be aligned with the Christian values it represents? That flag was developed at a time when good Christians people were active in refusing work to gays, not allowing gays to run for office, maybe even beating up gays, lynching them, killing them.
Some straight Christians mock God's message of love and forgiveness far more than that flag does.
And, honestly, if you are more worried about the flag than you are about the actions then you've got some work to do on what your own priorities are. Go look at that plank in your eye.
You claim I don't have good reading comprehension. I interpreted it exactly as you wrote it.
You're making a claim that is both not supported by well documented evidence and that sounds like conspiracy theory trash (all those fires were set by environmentalists!)
Precision in writing is very important.
And, as discussed elsewhere, your premise is incorrect.
On June 8, 137 fires were active in Quebec and 54 in Ontario
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Canadian_wildfires
The arson was May 31 but I think it is reasonably safe to assume that 123 fires did not start between May 31 and June 8.
So, again, there is no way to disentangle which smoke went to NYC.
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here. Wildfire smoke from Canada is going to impact American cities. Probably the new normal due to climate change
Even if it IS arson in some rare cases, some idiot with some gasoline and a box of matches will have an easier time setting large fire when conditions are hot and dry and there is more dead timber from stress. Climate change is going to be messy.
The wildfires last year were proven to be arson.
Literally your first sentence.
Agreed. I'm old enough to remember when the three Rs of "Reduce, Reuse, Recycle" was first promoted. We skipped the first two and went straight to recycle but, as you said, they (or we) never really tried.
Good reason to get on board with today's Rs: Refuse, Reduce, Reuse, Repair, Rot, Recycle
The science you are proposing here is fascinating.
How does a researcher (a chemist of some sort I'd guess) in NYC determine that the smoke in NYC is precisely from 14 out of hundreds of other fires burning in Quebec? I gather there would have to be some chemical traces in the smoke that would point to specific trees or areas of Quebec.
It would probably need some kind of meteorologist too, to explain the wind patterns that managed to take arson-created smoke and separate it out from all the other smoke and blow that smoke to NYC while keeping the other smoke in Quebec.
/s
It is relevant because of your claim that the fires were all started by arson. NO, they weren't 99.9% was lightning.
All that smoke mixes together in the atmosphere. You cannot possibly be suggesting that only the arson-caused smoke went to NYC? The articles here and the one you posted do not support that hypothesis in the least.
The headline of this post:
Canadian wildfire smoke likely to return to NYC and become 'a new norm,' experts sayCanadian wildfire smoke likely to return to NYC and become 'a new norm,' experts say
says nothing about arson. It says Canadian wildfire smoke likely to return to NYC and is a new norm. Arson is not mentioned anywhere in the entire article.
The CBC article you posted a link to about the guy being charged with arson, doesn't mention NYC or New York anywhere.
You made the connection between NYC smoke and fires started by arson. You made the leap that "all fires were started by arson". For us folks who read, the conclusion "NYC smoke is caused by fires started by arson" is not supported by any reading in these articles.
If one guy sets 14 fires out of hundreds burning in the forests of Quebec, how can you tell which smoke is from the arson and which is from the fires started by lightning or non-arson human activites?
The answer is, of course, you can't. The smoke from all the cumulative fires blows around and ends up covering NYC. You can't just say all the other fires are irrelevant.
Hi. Go easy on yourself. You've done great leaving him but this is the hardest moment because you're going to be diving right into grief and question yourself. You can do it!
remember she made me do it
Absolutely impossible. Even if he killed himself, he would be the one who did it. It is his responsibility to get help and get healing, therapy, help, whatever. And to NOT put it on other people. This is part of the martyr thing - "Oh look how awful and hopeless I am and all because of you!" If you think he might do it at some point in the future, now is the time to do the emotional and mental work of making this not your fault so you don't take it on should it happen.
But I doubt it will - it is his attempt to exert control over you, or over his ex wife. Next time he threatens, call emergency services and have them do a wellness check on it. Treat it very business-like and take the emotion out of it. I bet he stops when he has to explain it to the paramedics or police.
And then he goes and cheats. I suspect looking for someone else to supply his emotional crutch. If he were truly at the point of being suicidal, I doubt he'd be out chasing women.
I'd be inclined to block his ex too. She has no business putting that on you. I wonder what she hoped to accomplish? Help him? Hurt you? It sounds like she is wrapped up in his pain too. You don't need that.
Could you ask a friend, preferably one who isn't linked to him, to look at the emails to see if there is anything valuable?
Do you have any actual need to talk to him? Financial entanglements? Shared custody of kids? Shared property? If not, my absolutely best advice is to cut him off. Block his email address (you can usually find a way to blacklist email through your email program). If you do not need to communicate with him, you have zero responsibility to do so. In fact, your responsibility now is to honour yourself and your healing, finding growth, looking to the future, and loving yourself through all of it. Letting him in is destructive to that goal.
At one point with my ex I actually set up an autorespond on her email address that send a reply back saying "This email address is no longer active" and then it forwarded her email to my junk folder. It was kind of fun thinking she'd just get a message saying my email wasn't working. Tee hee.
So here's another idea:
Find yourself a comfy spot, with a nice cup of coffee or tea, light a candle, and write down a list of all the awful things he's done and said, including threatening suicide. The insults, the control, the cheating, the nasty words.
Tuck that list away and when you are feeling weak, wondering whether you did the right thing, pull it out and take a look. It will help fortify your resolve to move on. It sure helped me in the worst moments.
You got this. Stay strong. You got yourself this far and you've been so courageous to do so.
Hugs if you want 'em!
significantly lower energy cost to produce
Not doubting this at all, but this statement blows opens a whole pile of questions to me. I suspect essays could be written about it.
Consider that glass can be re-used as-is without recycling. I'm old enough to remember taking my Coke bottles back to the store and they were refilled, not thrown away.
Consider that aluminum cans can be infinitely recycled into aluminum cans at a fraction of the original cost and without more resource extraction.
Consider that plastic recycling has failed miserably. Little of our plastics make it to recycling and, even if it does, some just ends up in the landfill anyway, for a multitude of reasons. So we're constantly digging up new oil to make more plastics. We're not good at counting the externalities of costs on water and land for tailing ponds and subsidies for O&G, etc, etc, etc.
And, now, the environmental and health costs of plastics vs aluminum, steel, glass.
So it may be true that plastic costs less to produce but I suspect if we paid the full cost of plastics, it would be a lot less economical. Somehow we really have to change our economic models to reflect true cost.
This would be why I'm no longer a conservative.
Firesmoke.ca has a really good resource for tracking smoke from wildfires. It can really illustrate how far smoke travels.
Quebec has a huge amount of forest. If there are 100 fires burning there, they absolutely can cover NYC. Doesn't matter how the fire started.
I'm not sure about Alberta and BC fires, but it wouldn't surprise me if they could have some effect. I'm in SE Manitoba and some days last summer we couldn't go outside the smoke from BC and AB was so bad.
BTW: at the end of the article you posted a link to, it said that 99.9% of Quebec's fires to that point were started by lightning. Actual intentional arson is quite rare.
Thanks. I've had some back and forth with them over the last few days. Pushing for a theocracy. Says they are compassionate but I'm not sure they know what that word means.
Should the federal government leave abortion up to the provinces and stop trying to enforce such policies nationwide when healthcare is provincial jurisdiction?
CanadianPolitics