And do you mean this statement from the French Presidency?
"International cooperation cannot be dictated by fits of anger and throwaway remarks," the Elysee Palace said.
"Let's be serious and worthy of our people. We make commitments and keep them," the presidency said, adding that "France and Europe maintain their support for this statement."
I spent some time this morning looking at Trump's complaint about the 270% tariff charged by Canada on US dairy exports. Here's a couple of points of perspective:
US Census data for 2015 (most recent at 3-digit SITC level of detail) shows: - total dairy exports by US to Canada are $826m - total dairy imports by US from Canada are $336m Using Trump's standard deficit model for Trade wars therefore the US stands to lose nearly $500m by pursuing this dispute. {to get to dairy from the spreadsheet on that page I've added up the separate classifications for milk, butter and cheese}
Trump's tweet complaining about the tariffs said there should be no tariffs and no subsidies. Canada does not provide any subsidies to dairy farmers (instead fixing production quotas and prices to ensure they can make a living). The US (like the EU) heavily subsidizes production. This source reckons that's to the tune of over $20bn annually, though as that was a report commissioned by the Canadian dairy industry I would be very wary of the figures. However, the point is certainly valid that the US dairy industry receives considerable subsidy and produces far more than domestic consumption requires - and rather than reduce production incentives the Trump government sees increasing exports as the solution.
The Canadian system of supply management is popular in the country (which no doubt is why Trudeau defends it so vigorously). You could argue it's no surprise it's generally popular with farmers given that it provides a far more stable income than is the case for farmers operating in an unregulated market. You could also argue it's no surprise it's popular with politicians (given the influential farming lobby). However, on the face of it you would not expect this policy to be popular with the public and consumer groups as it effectively passes all the costs of supporting the industry onto the consumer through prices (as opposed to using taxes for subsidies as in the US and EU).
I'd be interested in the perspective of our Canadian posters. However, my impression is that the public also like the stability the current system provides, as well as believing that the system helps underpin high environmental and welfare standards.
You nailed it really. It does increase the cost of dairy products, but not drastically where it is unaffordable.
Removing it and opening the border to American dairy will only help the mega farms. If you think the lowly farmer who at this time was only able to import a milk biproduct before it got cut off would get new flow of revenue you are sadly mistaken.
This was highlighted a while back when Canada closed the biproduct loop hole and that is what it came down to in the US. Large corporations were no longer buying milk from the smaller guys because the US produced too much. They sent out letters explaining that it had to do with Canada closing this loophole, and instead of sharing the loss between everyone, the larger corporations just passed it to the smaller farmers.
Canada, and Canadians do not want to see that happen to our farmers. Saving 30 cents on a litre of milk is not worth it, in fact, I doubt price of milk or cheese would even lower as Canadians have already proved they’d pay that price for the stuff. It is just an attempt to get the public on the side of scrapping the supply management.
The dairy supply management by the way was a concession that had already been negotiated by NAFTA allegedly. It was being tweaked to give the US some leeway into the Canadian market but not fully. Trump bad mouthing it now just allows him to sell it all the easier tomorrow to the American people.
« Nous avons passé deux jours à avoir un texte et des engagements. Nous nous y tenons, et quiconque les quitterait le dos tourné montre son incohérence et son inconsistance ».
^^ this part: "We spent the last two days in order to get a text and commitments. We will stick to these and whoever turns his back on them just shows incoherence and inconsistency".
I guess someone was angry, this is not very diplomatic language.
I spent some time this morning looking at Trump's complaint about the 270% tariff charged by Canada on US dairy exports. Here's a couple of points of perspective:
US Census data for 2015 (most recent at 3-digit SITC level of detail) shows: - total dairy exports by US to Canada are $826m - total dairy imports by US from Canada are $336m Using Trump's standard deficit model for Trade wars therefore the US stands to lose nearly $500m by pursuing this dispute. {to get to dairy from the spreadsheet on that page I've added up the separate classifications for milk, butter and cheese}
Trump's tweet complaining about the tariffs said there should be no tariffs and no subsidies. Canada does not provide any subsidies to dairy farmers (instead fixing production quotas and prices to ensure they can make a living). The US (like the EU) heavily subsidizes production. This source reckons that's to the tune of over $20bn annually, though as that was a report commissioned by the Canadian dairy industry I would be very wary of the figures. However, the point is certainly valid that the US dairy industry receives considerable subsidy and produces far more than domestic consumption requires - and rather than reduce production incentives the Trump government sees increasing exports as the solution.
The Canadian system of supply management is popular in the country (which no doubt is why Trudeau defends it so vigorously). You could argue it's no surprise it's generally popular with farmers given that it provides a far more stable income than is the case for farmers operating in an unregulated market. You could also argue it's no surprise it's popular with politicians (given the influential farming lobby). However, on the face of it you would not expect this policy to be popular with the public and consumer groups as it effectively passes all the costs of supporting the industry onto the consumer through prices (as opposed to using taxes for subsidies as in the US and EU).
I'd be interested in the perspective of our Canadian posters. However, my impression is that the public also like the stability the current system provides, as well as believing that the system helps underpin high environmental and welfare standards.
You nailed it really. It does increase the cost of dairy products, but not drastically where it is unaffordable.
Removing it and opening the border to American dairy will only help the mega farms. If you think the lowly farmer who at this time was only able to import a milk biproduct before it got cut off would get new flow of revenue you are sadly mistaken.
This was highlighted a while back when Canada closed the biproduct loop hole and that is what it came down to in the US. Large corporations were no longer buying milk from the smaller guys because the US produced too much. They sent out letters explaining that it had to do with Canada closing this loophole, and instead of sharing the loss between everyone, the larger corporations just passed it to the smaller farmers.
Canada, and Canadians do not want to see that happen to our farmers. Saving 30 cents on a litre of milk is not worth it, in fact, I doubt price of milk or cheese would even lower as Canadians have already proved they’d pay that price for the stuff. It is just an attempt to get the public on the side of scrapping the supply management.
The dairy supply management by the way was a concession that had already been negotiated by NAFTA allegedly. It was being tweaked to give the US some leeway into the Canadian market but not fully. Trump bad mouthing it now just allows him to sell it all the easier tomorrow to the American people.
Milk prices in the US have been static for years. I doubt there was a single person who even had this on their radar who isn't a dairy farmer, and even then, as I said, a gallon of milk has cost essentially the same thing it has for half a decade, maybe even longer. Depending on where you buy it, it's $3-4, depending on the brand. Milk prices are not something that is being discussed as a problem anywhere. The price has been set in stone for as long as anyone can remember. Any Trump supporter who is claiming to care about it now is only doing so because they are prompted to by the Dear Leader. If you had asked 10,000 of them what their top-10 issues going into the 2016 election were, high milk prices as a result of getting screwed by Canada probably wouldn't have been mentioned one time.
Even if we specifically talk about how it affects dairy farmers, good god, some of these farms are receiving more subsidies in a month's time than a person could get in a lifetime of food stamps. Almost 75% of their return comes from the government. And they also need a trade-war with Canada to boot?? Who are the REAL welfare queens in this country?? These farms would be out of business if it wasn't for "liberal" programs like SNAP.
Trump trade adviser: ‘Special place in hell’ for Trudeau
but seriously it's time to reconquer the breakaway us territory of "canada"
The last time the US tried that, the White House burnt down.
Actually they were threatening to do it in the mid 1800 (a reason why the separate British colonies became one nation as Canadians at the time feared Britain would not come to our aid as the fur trade was depleting at the time and our worth was diminishing) and it was stopped by us building a railroad across the continent as a way to quickly (for the time) deploy troops anywhere at the border.
Again, he's going to see Kim Jong Un who will play nice for an hour, then Trump will be like "this guy is the most best person in the world. But that Justin Trudeau is going to hell."
This guy is crazy. Republican voters brought this on us along with the boot lickers that prop him up. And you still find people defending this guy.
Okay, awhile back I promised to bring a source to better explain my comments on "When a life can be considered human in a pregnancy." Some people exressed confusion when I tried ot clarify my stance, and I promised to try and link a source to explain better than I could. Left in spoilers to try not to derail current discussion. You can safely ignore if you don't care.
I actually ran into a complication trying to find a lear explanation. Turns out that, depending on who you ask, the pricess I mentoned may or may not be considered miscarriage. "Spontaneous Abortion" was probably the best example I could find for a name. Basically, my stance was that if a fertilizd egg reached proper implantation, and survived the intial development period, it should be considered human life. This is not a simple process and less than 70% of fertilized eggs even implant properly. After that point, there is somewhere between a 25-50% chance of the body deeming it unviable and aborting at that point. There is a simple chart here. Basically if it survives this full process outlined here, I think its reasonable to consider it human life. Only about 30-48% of fertilized eggs reach this point (about 1.5 months development). Its also worth nothing that nearly 50% of eggs that successfully fuse with the sperm don't successfully fertilize, which lowers the percentage even more.
Aleman-Bendiks, the public defender, said several of her clients have told her their children were taken from them by Border Patrol agents who said they were going to give them a bath. As the hours passed, it dawned on the mothers the kids were not coming back.
“It’s incredible,” she said. “I just can’t believe what’s happening here.”
In late May, separated parents in McAllen were given a number to call HHS and try to locate their children. It was the wrong number. Last week, parents were given a handwritten note telling them to call ICE — not HHS — if they wanted information about how to reunite with their children. But parents did not have access to phones at the time, rendering the number useless.
Taken away to be given a bath. Everyone can connect the dots here.
Many of these people are simply asylum seekers being treated as criminals. Beyond that even if you think these heinous acts are deterrent to people attempting to come here, that would require that the people making this hike fleeing whatever they are fleeing in their own country would actually know about this. How are they going to find out, by pulling out their smart phone or watching it on the news on their 50-inch HD TV?? These people likely only have the clothes on their backs.
In the end, not enough people are going to give a shit about this because they aren't actually US citizens and thus not deemed worthy of having humanity. It's a steep, slippery slope from here folks. This policy is a conscience choice by this Administration. There is no justifiable reason for this. As I've said many times before, fascism doesn't start at gas chambers, it comes along in phases (obvious in hindsight), and once enough people realize it, it is too late. The only way to prevent it is to stop it before it can gain enough of a grip. Every aspect of on the ground law enforcement in this country is SCREAMING that we have a problem, with an administration that will willfully back them no matter the abuses (or even encourage them). If push came to shove, I know they wouldn't be on my side.
And on another note....White House trade adviser Peter Navarro has now flat-out said there is a "special place in hell" for Justin Trudeau and ANY world leader who opposes Donald Trump. I'm sure plenty of our Canadian posters have plenty of issues with Mr. Trudeau, but this is absurd language aimed at a country that has been NOTHING but a wonderful neighbor to us as long as any of us can remember. The right keeps trumpeting these "false statements" Trudeau made yet no one can seem to point to what they actually are.
Okay, awhile back I promised to bring a source to better explain my comments on "When a life can be considered human in a pregnancy." Some people exressed confusion when I tried ot clarify my stance, and I promised to try and link a source to explain better than I could. Left in spoilers to try not to derail current discussion. You can safely ignore if you don't care.
I actually ran into a complication trying to find a lear explanation. Turns out that, depending on who you ask, the pricess I mentoned may or may not be considered miscarriage. "Spontaneous Abortion" was probably the best example I could find for a name. Basically, my stance was that if a fertilizd egg reached proper implantation, and survived the intial development period, it should be considered human life. This is not a simple process and less than 70% of fertilized eggs even implant properly. After that point, there is somewhere between a 25-50% chance of the body deeming it unviable and aborting at that point. There is a simple chart here. Basically if it survives this full process outlined here, I think its reasonable to consider it human life. Only about 30-48% of fertilized eggs reach this point (about 1.5 months development). Its also worth nothing that nearly 50% of eggs that successfully fuse with the sperm don't successfully fertilize, which lowers the percentage even more.
Thanks for the clarification @ThacoBell, though I'm struggling to see in those articles any specific developmental threshold to point to after implantation. Six weeks after fertilization would be around the time when electrical brain activity first begins, so that might be a potential trigger to tie in with the timeframe you suggest. After 8 weeks the potential child is defined as a fetus rather than an embryo. Although that's just a terminology change it does match the period when much (though not all) of the differentiation of the embryonic cells has occurred and the fetus (just over 1 inch long at that stage) is starting to look more human. By this stage the risk of natural miscarriage is substantially lower, though some risk remains throughout the pregnancy. This Wikipedia article has an overview of development during pregnancy, including illustrations of the developing child.
My earlier comments on this topic were mainly from the legal perspective and I think providing the potential child with full human rights so early in the pregnancy does create huge legal problems. Even at 6-8 weeks it would be perfectly possible for a woman not to realize she was pregnant, but with the type of personhood legislation passed in Oklahoma there is a real risk that charges for manslaughter could result from a miscarriage. The tone of this article is clearly against this type of legislation, but the potential legal consequences referred to in it are genuine and have been seen elsewhere, e.g. El Salvador. For instance such a law would prevent an ectopic pregnancy being terminated, even though the chance of a baby surviving such a pregnancy is incredibly remote (there are a handful of such cases known, but NHS advice on this doesn't even recognize the possibility of such survival as it's so low compared to the risk of the mother dying).
Okay, awhile back I promised to bring a source to better explain my comments on "When a life can be considered human in a pregnancy." Some people exressed confusion when I tried ot clarify my stance, and I promised to try and link a source to explain better than I could. Left in spoilers to try not to derail current discussion. You can safely ignore if you don't care.
I would think the time when it would be considered human life is at the starting point of it's existence as a clear and distinct organism, which would be shortly after fertilization, which more or less goes in line with what you are saying here.
@Grond0 I don't think we can or should hold anyone responsible for a miscarriage or an accidental loss. My issue is specifically with elective abortions. I like the period after 1.5 months, because at that point, the human body has officially ok'ed the full development cycle.
@WarChiefZeke What happens when that fertilized embryo fails to transfer to the uterus? We have no control over that, and the body will intentionally abort it if that happens.
@Grond0 I don't think we can or should hold anyone responsible for a miscarriage or an accidental loss. My issue is specifically with elective abortions. I like the period after 1.5 months, because at that point, the human body has officially ok'ed the full development cycle.
@WarChiefZeke What happens when that fertilized embryo fails to transfer to the uterus? We have no control over that, and the body will intentionally abort it if that happens.
1.5 months is 6 weeks. Almost 40% of abortions occur during this period. Over 90% occur by the 12th week. Nearly 70% are taking place no later than the 8th week. I took these stats from an ANTI-abortion site. An overwhelming majority of them take place very early in the pregnancy. Statistically, almost none occur after 3 months, and well over half don't even reach month number 2.
@Grond0 I don't think we can or should hold anyone responsible for a miscarriage or an accidental loss. My issue is specifically with elective abortions. I like the period after 1.5 months, because at that point, the human body has officially ok'ed the full development cycle.
I agree no-one should be held responsible for an accidental loss, but defining what is meant by accidental early in a pregnancy is not easy. What if a woman smokes or drinks or takes drugs or eats poorly or exercises vigorously or has a stressful job? Presumably if some of those things are taken to extremes with the specific intention of causing a miscarriage, that's not an accident though. Also, what about if there's no specific intention, but just a reckless lack of concern?
The Oklahoma legislation states that a woman should not be held accountable under the Act if her child is indirectly harmed by virtue of failing to take proper care of herself. That's a long way short though of protecting the woman from charges that she deliberately or recklessly endangered her child. I realize that your proposed 6 week period reduces this danger as it's less likely that a woman won't know she's pregnant by then, but that would still be an issue.
Trump was warming up for the North Korea summit this morning by firing off another series of tweets. Those included: - describing trade with Canada as "Fair Trade now to be called Fool Trade" (the US actually has a trade surplus with Canada - in overall trade as well as specifically in dairy as I posted yesterday). - saying on NATO "And add to that the fact that the U.S. pays close to the entire cost of NATO-protecting many of these same countries that rip us off on Trade (they pay only a fraction of the cost-and laugh!)."
Either Trudeau really got under his skin or Trump is worried about the summit and is relieving his frustrations on everyone else. I've actually been surprised though he hasn't been criticizing NATO more recently given his dislike for multilateral treaties, but this tweet will no doubt raise fresh concerns about the future of that organization (the US contribution to the NATO budget is only 22%, though arguably the wider costs of defense are more important than the direct costs - see details here).
Putin must be sitting in Moscow rubbing his hands together and scarcely able to believe how good his luck (or planning) has been ...
And as I've said previously, this is why Russia preferred to have Trump as POTUS. Not because he was friendly to Russia, but because he is unfriendly to everyone else.
Just to reiterate a point made before about how far and how quickly relations with the US have changed, here's a BBC summary of front page coverage on this issue from today's UK papers - I haven't looked elsewhere, but my guess is the reaction is likely to be as bad or worse in other G7 countries.
The Financial Times says that this weekend showed a world in disarray, where the US had abdicated its responsibilities. President Donald Trump went rogue at the G7 - according its lead editorial - saying he clearly has no regard for the group as a club of advanced-economy democracies.
It says it would have been better if the US president had carried out his threat and declined to attend the G7 summit at all. A forum that used to act as the steering committee for the world economy is now merely another theatre of combat for the president's misguided trade war.
Writing in the Times, Alex Massie draws similarly bleak conclusions: the US is no longer a reliable partner, no longer a country that can be trusted. It is a time for dispassionate realism, he states, and acknowledgment that when it comes to dealing with the United States the default position must now be verify, then trust. Above all, he says, we have to confront the fact that these people - meaning Mr Trump and his administration - are not our friends.
The Daily Telegraph believes Donald Trump's somewhat petulant and disruptive behaviour in Quebec calls into question whether the concept of "the West" based on a shared outlook and values frame can be said to exist any longer.
Describing the tectonic plates of world diplomacy as shifting - and not necessarily in a good way - it notes that greater harmony was shown at a different international meeting, one at which the Russian President Vladimir Putin met the China leader, Xi Jinping.
A human is the sum total of their memories and experiences. Ergo, something that has no memories and experiences (and is incapable of forming them) is not human.
Only if the loss is permanent and there is no way to form new ones. In most cases of memory loss the memory is still there, it's just that there are problems accessing it.
It's a fairly meaningless debate anyway. Humans are animals, and animals are killed all the time. The planet has far to many humans on it.
A human is the sum total of their memories and experiences. Ergo, something that has no memories and experiences (and is incapable of forming them) is not human.
Just to reiterate a point made before about how far and how quickly relations with the US have changed, here's a BBC summary of front page coverage on this issue from today's UK papers - I haven't looked elsewhere, but my guess is the reaction is likely to be as bad or worse in other G7 countries.
The Financial Times says that this weekend showed a world in disarray, where the US had abdicated its responsibilities. President Donald Trump went rogue at the G7 - according its lead editorial - saying he clearly has no regard for the group as a club of advanced-economy democracies.
It says it would have been better if the US president had carried out his threat and declined to attend the G7 summit at all. A forum that used to act as the steering committee for the world economy is now merely another theatre of combat for the president's misguided trade war.
Writing in the Times, Alex Massie draws similarly bleak conclusions: the US is no longer a reliable partner, no longer a country that can be trusted. It is a time for dispassionate realism, he states, and acknowledgment that when it comes to dealing with the United States the default position must now be verify, then trust. Above all, he says, we have to confront the fact that these people - meaning Mr Trump and his administration - are not our friends.
The Daily Telegraph believes Donald Trump's somewhat petulant and disruptive behaviour in Quebec calls into question whether the concept of "the West" based on a shared outlook and values frame can be said to exist any longer.
Describing the tectonic plates of world diplomacy as shifting - and not necessarily in a good way - it notes that greater harmony was shown at a different international meeting, one at which the Russian President Vladimir Putin met the China leader, Xi Jinping.
People in the US generally have no concept of how badly this is playing outside of it. And frankly, his supporters do not care, because this isn't about a political ideology or policy anymore. Read this 10-part thread from a writer at The Federalist (obviously not a liberal publication):
... Either Trudeau really got under his skin or...
Trump seems easy to anger, I doubt that Trudeau did anything to get under his skin, Trump is a just a hothead.
Blaming Trudeau is close to blaming a rape victim for being raped, it's not his fault. What has Merkel, Hillary, or a thousand other people who have "earned" Trump's wrath done? Nothing.
Comments
Who do "incoherence" and "inconsistency" mean?
And do you mean this statement from the French Presidency?
"International cooperation cannot be dictated by fits of anger and throwaway remarks," the Elysee Palace said.
"Let's be serious and worthy of our people. We make commitments and keep them," the presidency said, adding that "France and Europe maintain their support for this statement."
Removing it and opening the border to American dairy will only help the mega farms. If you think the lowly farmer who at this time was only able to import a milk biproduct before it got cut off would get new flow of revenue you are sadly mistaken.
This was highlighted a while back when Canada closed the biproduct loop hole and that is what it came down to in the US. Large corporations were no longer buying milk from the smaller guys because the US produced too much. They sent out letters explaining that it had to do with Canada closing this loophole, and instead of sharing the loss between everyone, the larger corporations just passed it to the smaller farmers.
Canada, and Canadians do not want to see that happen to our farmers. Saving 30 cents on a litre of milk is not worth it, in fact, I doubt price of milk or cheese would even lower as Canadians have already proved they’d pay that price for the stuff. It is just an attempt to get the public on the side of scrapping the supply management.
The dairy supply management by the way was a concession that had already been negotiated by NAFTA allegedly. It was being tweaked to give the US some leeway into the Canadian market but not fully. Trump bad mouthing it now just allows him to sell it all the easier tomorrow to the American people.
^^ this part: "We spent the last two days in order to get a text and commitments. We will stick to these and whoever turns his back on them just shows incoherence and inconsistency".
I guess someone was angry, this is not very diplomatic language.
Even if we specifically talk about how it affects dairy farmers, good god, some of these farms are receiving more subsidies in a month's time than a person could get in a lifetime of food stamps. Almost 75% of their return comes from the government. And they also need a trade-war with Canada to boot?? Who are the REAL welfare queens in this country?? These farms would be out of business if it wasn't for "liberal" programs like SNAP.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/american-dairy-divided-some-want-canadas-supply-management-left-alone-in-nafta/article36024593/
This is a large American lobby group pushing what they want. It has nothing to do with what the average farmer wants.
but seriously it's time to reconquer the breakaway us territory of "canada"
Actually they were threatening to do it in the mid 1800 (a reason why the separate British colonies became one nation as Canadians at the time feared Britain would not come to our aid as the fur trade was depleting at the time and our worth was diminishing) and it was stopped by us building a railroad across the continent as a way to quickly (for the time) deploy troops anywhere at the border.
The Fox News/Alex Jones President.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/06/trump-threatens-to-end-all-trade-with-allies.html
Again, he's going to see Kim Jong Un who will play nice for an hour, then Trump will be like "this guy is the most best person in the world. But that Justin Trudeau is going to hell."
This guy is crazy. Republican voters brought this on us along with the boot lickers that prop him up. And you still find people defending this guy.
This is not a simple process and less than 70% of fertilized eggs even implant properly. After that point, there is somewhere between a 25-50% chance of the body deeming it unviable and aborting at that point. There is a simple chart here. Basically if it survives this full process outlined here, I think its reasonable to consider it human life. Only about 30-48% of fertilized eggs reach this point (about 1.5 months development). Its also worth nothing that nearly 50% of eggs that successfully fuse with the sperm don't successfully fertilize, which lowers the percentage even more.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2018/06/09/borderseparations/Z95z4eFZjyfqCLG9pyHjAO/story.html?event=event25
According to this story:
Aleman-Bendiks, the public defender, said several of her clients have told her their children were taken from them by Border Patrol agents who said they were going to give them a bath. As the hours passed, it dawned on the mothers the kids were not coming back.
“It’s incredible,” she said. “I just can’t believe what’s happening here.”
In late May, separated parents in McAllen were given a number to call HHS and try to locate their children. It was the wrong number. Last week, parents were given a handwritten note telling them to call ICE — not HHS — if they wanted information about how to reunite with their children. But parents did not have access to phones at the time, rendering the number useless.
Taken away to be given a bath. Everyone can connect the dots here.
Many of these people are simply asylum seekers being treated as criminals. Beyond that even if you think these heinous acts are deterrent to people attempting to come here, that would require that the people making this hike fleeing whatever they are fleeing in their own country would actually know about this. How are they going to find out, by pulling out their smart phone or watching it on the news on their 50-inch HD TV?? These people likely only have the clothes on their backs.
In the end, not enough people are going to give a shit about this because they aren't actually US citizens and thus not deemed worthy of having humanity. It's a steep, slippery slope from here folks. This policy is a conscience choice by this Administration. There is no justifiable reason for this. As I've said many times before, fascism doesn't start at gas chambers, it comes along in phases (obvious in hindsight), and once enough people realize it, it is too late. The only way to prevent it is to stop it before it can gain enough of a grip. Every aspect of on the ground law enforcement in this country is SCREAMING that we have a problem, with an administration that will willfully back them no matter the abuses (or even encourage them). If push came to shove, I know they wouldn't be on my side.
My earlier comments on this topic were mainly from the legal perspective and I think providing the potential child with full human rights so early in the pregnancy does create huge legal problems. Even at 6-8 weeks it would be perfectly possible for a woman not to realize she was pregnant, but with the type of personhood legislation passed in Oklahoma there is a real risk that charges for manslaughter could result from a miscarriage. The tone of this article is clearly against this type of legislation, but the potential legal consequences referred to in it are genuine and have been seen elsewhere, e.g. El Salvador. For instance such a law would prevent an ectopic pregnancy being terminated, even though the chance of a baby surviving such a pregnancy is incredibly remote (there are a handful of such cases known, but NHS advice on this doesn't even recognize the possibility of such survival as it's so low compared to the risk of the mother dying).
https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html
After that I feel like to kill that organism intentionally is, in effect, ending a human life.
@WarChiefZeke What happens when that fertilized embryo fails to transfer to the uterus? We have no control over that, and the body will intentionally abort it if that happens.
The Oklahoma legislation states that a woman should not be held accountable under the Act if her child is indirectly harmed by virtue of failing to take proper care of herself. That's a long way short though of protecting the woman from charges that she deliberately or recklessly endangered her child. I realize that your proposed 6 week period reduces this danger as it's less likely that a woman won't know she's pregnant by then, but that would still be an issue.
- describing trade with Canada as "Fair Trade now to be called Fool Trade" (the US actually has a trade surplus with Canada - in overall trade as well as specifically in dairy as I posted yesterday).
- saying on NATO "And add to that the fact that the U.S. pays close to the entire cost of NATO-protecting many of these same countries that rip us off on Trade (they pay only a fraction of the cost-and laugh!)."
Either Trudeau really got under his skin or Trump is worried about the summit and is relieving his frustrations on everyone else. I've actually been surprised though he hasn't been criticizing NATO more recently given his dislike for multilateral treaties, but this tweet will no doubt raise fresh concerns about the future of that organization (the US contribution to the NATO budget is only 22%, though arguably the wider costs of defense are more important than the direct costs - see details here).
Putin must be sitting in Moscow rubbing his hands together and scarcely able to believe how good his luck (or planning) has been ...
The Financial Times says that this weekend showed a world in disarray, where the US had abdicated its responsibilities. President Donald Trump went rogue at the G7 - according its lead editorial - saying he clearly has no regard for the group as a club of advanced-economy democracies.
It says it would have been better if the US president had carried out his threat and declined to attend the G7 summit at all. A forum that used to act as the steering committee for the world economy is now merely another theatre of combat for the president's misguided trade war.
Writing in the Times, Alex Massie draws similarly bleak conclusions: the US is no longer a reliable partner, no longer a country that can be trusted. It is a time for dispassionate realism, he states, and acknowledgment that when it comes to dealing with the United States the default position must now be verify, then trust. Above all, he says, we have to confront the fact that these people - meaning Mr Trump and his administration - are not our friends.
The Daily Telegraph believes Donald Trump's somewhat petulant and disruptive behaviour in Quebec calls into question whether the concept of "the West" based on a shared outlook and values frame can be said to exist any longer.
Describing the tectonic plates of world diplomacy as shifting - and not necessarily in a good way - it notes that greater harmony was shown at a different international meeting, one at which the Russian President Vladimir Putin met the China leader, Xi Jinping.
It's a fairly meaningless debate anyway. Humans are animals, and animals are killed all the time. The planet has far to many humans on it.
Fox host calls Trump a "dictator".
Blaming Trudeau is close to blaming a rape victim for being raped, it's not his fault. What has Merkel, Hillary, or a thousand other people who have "earned" Trump's wrath done? Nothing.