Thankfully Canada doesn't have this expectation of free school meals... and everything works fine
My focus is on far more than kids, youre the one saying they dont need any help.
And I'm posting so others dont fall for your BS. Always have been.
Read my response again, try both links.
Where you live doesnt represent the whole country and vice versa
Many schools run their own programs, PTAs do as well.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/national-food-program-schools-explain-1.7160901
Has background on what exists already in addition to forward looking proposals
I agree that food banks are different than programs, again, read response in full
And finally, nice dodge. Should we (society) feed hungry kids yes/no.
Well thats an easily disprovable lie err... lets be generous, error through ignorance.
There are a number of food programs, including charities that recognize some kids starve over the summer when kids are not in school. E.g. the food banks Canada after the bell program.
foodbankscanada.ca/after-the-bell
So take the time to reflect on 1- your right to feed your kids is not impacted, these programs are for kids who have no food, but you can still provide your own meals
2- without these programs some children starve
3- is there any possible argument that supports the outcome where some kids starve.
Awesome, who was the true leftist (or whatever affiliation) thats been working on this and supporting the workers so we can support them! Missed it, or clearly the media has been biased and not promoting their great work.
Did they not initially choose the sites near where there were the most problems. Like they said, if there are users doing it around the school, would you want to build a site there and have it contained, or build a site 2km away that doesnt reduce users near the school as much?
Yes! Just posted about the redemption of althalus, but the belgariad, mallorean.. good memories burning through them
The Redemption of Althalus. Genre - fantasy. I don't know why it holds such a dear place in my heart, though I read it the first time as a kid.
Interesting... that feels awfully short, is their reproductive cycle really that short... let me double check.
Google: "Butterfly season UK" Answer from multiple sites: "March to October"
Edit: 2 spelling mistakes.
Bro you're gross. 21 year old travels to another country and has sex with a 12 year old. This was not a technicality.
Wut?
You keep repeating that the "scale of ethics" is incomparable but flip flop between "theyre not omnicient or omnipotent"... "but maybe they are"
And what does "balance" have to do with ethical behaviour without you begging the question.
"If we assume the existence of god, we have to assume a lot of other things too" and...........????
Ultimately you spent a lot of time stating the cop-out argument of "its beyond us mere mortals". To which I can fairly respond... no.
My man, raspberry jam is where it"s at. Perfect sweet/tart to PB ratio. No other spread has beaten it yet.
Living up to your name cro magnon
Is your position that sexual abuse cant occur to an adult, that when it occurs it can and should be laughed off (what other physical abuses should be treated the same) or a third position entirely?
I dont think that word means what you think it means..
Are you trolling, or just a fool?
Sure, but you have the logic backwards. Viability isnt used so that people can get an abortion even though the baby can survive, its so the physician can make the judgement to deliver a baby that can survive instead of attempting an abortion - when the mothers life is in danger.
There is no magic cut off date, where all babies are ready to deliver or will die. So basically the math goes like this: physician determines the mother will die if the baby does not come out. If they determine the baby is viable --> the baby comes out and is alive via medical procedure (not abortion). If they determine that the baby is not viable --> the baby comes out and cannot survive via medical procedure (abortion). Fyi, in case you think oh well, keep the baby in: the mom dies, the baby is not viable to survive and dies too. Thats it. No one is aborting babies that could be birthed and survive.
“Viability is reached when, in the judgment of the attending physician on the particular facts of the case before him, there is a reasonable likelihood of the fetus’ sustained survival outside the womb, with or without artificial support. Because this point may differ with each pregnancy, neither the legislature nor the courts may proclaim one of the elements entering into the ascertainment of viability – be it weeks of gestation or fetal weight or any other single factor – as the determinant of when the State has a compelling interest in the life or health of the fetus.” Colautti v. Franklin (1979)
This is a different situation than early pregnancy abortions. Different areas of focus, rights, benefits, ethics etc. Dont treat both rights as requiring the same logic to support.
It seems to me, at least, no matter what someones position is on early term terminations, late term is a slam dunk obvious answer. Leave the decision to the parents and their physicians, not lawyers and legislators.
Sorry but that's not true... either emergency c section at around 7 months onwards or regular delivery etc. No such thing as an abortion as far as Im aware. Is this what you think a "late term abortion" is?
What 9 month old baby has less rights than a newborn? Edit: or vice versa.