The Liberal Party’s version of Joe Lieberman has tabled an abortion bill.
Liberal MP Paul Steckle stood today in the House of Commons to introduce the first piece of pro-life legislation in the current parliament under the Conservative Government. In introducing Bill C-338, ‘An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (procuring a miscarriage after 20 weeks of gestation),’ Steckle called on the House to debate the issue noting that Canada was one of the only countries in the world with absolutely no protection for the unborn in law whatsoever. The bill would restrict abortion after twenty weeks gestation; currently in Canada abortions are performed at tax-payer expense up to birth.
The bill would make those who perform an abortion after twenty weeks gestation guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment of up to five years, or else jail for up to two years and/or a fine up to $100,000.
Exactly how is it the Liberals are progressive?
Update: Here’s a few abortion stats.
104,000: The number of induced abortions conducted in Canada.
65,000: The number of therapeutic (for health reasons) induced abortions conducted in Canada.
4,500: The number of induced abortions conducted in Canada after 16 weeks of pregnancy.
1,600,000: The number of induced abortions conducted in the US.
100: The number of third trimester induced abortions conducted in the US.
Extrapolated statistics based on the above stats.
7-10: The number of third trimester induced abortions conducted in Canada.
So basically this legislation has been introduced to prevent 7-10 abortions per year. Or most likely none since those 7-10 are probably being conducted for health reasons.
For a country to have no abortion legislation is barbaric.
I would think there is a pretty large majority of Canadians who:
- Believes abortion should be legal.
- But that there should be some limitations (such only during the first N weeks).
Bringing in some sort of abortion legislation would raise Canada to the ‘normal’ standard in civilized countries.
It is certainly not progressive to argue that abortion on demand, for any reason, all the way up to birth, is a women’s rights issue. (Whatever Robert might think.)
Johan I am to sure if a majority believe abortion should be legal. The majority don’t want to revisit the issue.
The Liberals are only Progressive for the first 3 days of the week. You caught them on the Conservative day. Not the LPC fault.
Johan, instead of bashing Canadians (who you obviously hate…so why are you still i Kanada?)…make yourself useful and dig up the statistics on the occurence of abortion within the first 20 weeks of gestation. If memory serves, the vast majority of abortions occur during that period.
So why regulate something that doesn’t need to be regulated? I thought you libertarians/Randroids frowned on that kind of thing?
Johan…statistics, please…
Well, well, well, and all along the left has been telling us that it would be Harper and his men to do away with abortion rights. Quelle surprise!
When did “the Left” say that, Werner? Or are you lying again?
Please tell me why aborting a 9 month old unborn baby (at taxpayer expense) that could live on its own is progressive? I think Paul Steckle’s bill is very reasonable.
Nobody in Canada is terminating pregnacies at 9 months except for medical reasons. In fact, there are very few third trimester abortions that aren’t for medical reasons taking place in Canada. So there’s no need for this law and no reason to give the anti-abortion crowd an inroad into making all abortions and even contraception illegal; which is where the regressives ultimately want to go.
I love how lil’ Blogging Whories are always demanding answers. It’s even more amusing coming from a 12-year old like Andrew Smith.
I don’t think late-term abortion is progressive, Andrew. The idea of re-opening this issue for the sake of some grand-standing arsehole backbencher is probably not.
You’re the expert on lying, Ti-Guy, you tell me.
Do you remember the last two election campaigns, Ti-Guy, when the left lied to Canadians and said that Harper was going to do all that? How quickly you pinkos forget.
No, I don’t remember. I know most progressives know the so-cons want outlaw abortion, but ever since the CPC decided abortion wasn’t going to be in its immediate platform, I think most progressives stopped thinking about it.
Now, the Liberals…well, that’s a whole different issue, isn’t it?
Now, stop trolling, Werner. It’s really age-innapropriate for you.
A troll is an anonymous joker who nobody takes seriously, Ti-Guy. Get your own blog and reveal your real name, bloody coward.
Yawohl!
That such procedures are rare does not negate the need for regulation. Poisoning someone is extremely rare, yet we still need a law against it. As for abortion, I think even 20 weeks is a little too strict. But I would definitely like to see a ban on late term abortions (i.e. those being done in the third trimester), the only exception being if the woman’s life is in jeopardy.
It’s because of the extremists in both camps that we do need to revisit the issue. Thanks to a tie vote in the unelected Senate back in 1990, when both pro-life nutters and pro-choice fanatics rejected a very reasonable legislative compromise, we currently have no law at all. And all because we don’t wish to “revisit the issue”? Because it’s become untouchable among certain segments of the population? Too fucking bad. Even sacred cows die eventually. May as well slaughter ‘em when they’re still good eatin’.
In any case, don’t think the Liberals are being stupid over this. First of all, it’s no secret that they do have about a dozen or so “social conservatives” in their ranks. This is just another chance for them to demonstrate that this is but a small rump of an otherwise “progressive” party caucus. At the same time, it provides a golden opportunity to flush out some of the more ardent pro-life religious kooks on the Tory side of the House.
I’m not saying they put Steckle up to it; he’s always been vitriolic in his pro-life stance. But you can bet the Liberal caucus is more than happy to let him introduce this stnk bomb and toss it over to the other side of the House. This is the type of thing that can drive a wedge between different Conservative factions, and set them bickering once again. Why do you think they were so keen to bring up abortion in the last election?
Boy, even when you’re being sensible, Raging, you sound off your rocker. How do you manage to equate abortion with poisoning? And pro-choice is not an extreme position.
Again, why is it that people (especially people for whom the whole question of abortion is moot, since they don’t have uteruses) refuse to produce evidence on how prevalent late term abortions are and, importantly, why do they suspect they are being done for non-medical reasons? I’m sure there’s no reliable infomration on that question.
This is a non-problem. It only interests people who have nothing better to do than to try and dictate how other people live their lives. And the few (like ol’ Raggy here) who think everything is political and thus, fascinating for that reason alone.
Arrggh.
This is one of the few times I have any sympathy for the arguments of the Conservatives among us. It is not a good idea to have unregulated abortion on demand, while we may not currently be seeing abuse within our abortions to date the vulnerability is there and so plugging that is a reasonable position to take. At the same time there isn’t a problem in this country with abortions in the third trimesters aside from medical ones anyway so where is the need, and then there is the potential for this to regulation to be used as a basis to reduce the rights of a woman over her own body. I really have a hard time with this issue because there is merit to the position of many that want regulation and there is merit that see the status quo as the best protection against use of such laws to restrict women’s rights (which since they are still something that were not always there in living memory is no small concern) by social activist groups which feel it is a necessity to legislate their moral beliefs in these areas.
So I have no solid position on this one, I can live with a set of reasonable regulations that simply acknowledge the de facto reality, but I would be opposed to anything significantly restrictive from that point. I also can live with the way things are now since there does not appear to be any problem with late term abortions outside of genuine medical need cases in this country, at least so that anyone has documented that I have seen presented.
However RR does raise a very interesting point about how this can be used by the Libs as a wedge issue in the CPC to highlight some of the divisions in the CPC to offset the visible divisions the Lib leadership race is currently displaying. That this can also be used to help paint the CPC as underneath it all the intolerant party of social conservatism its opponents have claimed it was since its birth. It will be interesting to see how this all falls out over the next several months.
You can be as extreme as a pro-choicer as you can as a pro-lifer. Ever watch abortion protesters on opposite sides of the issue? Not much to choose between the two of them.
Why do I suspect they’re being done for non-medical reasons? The reaction from the pro-choice extremists (see above if you still have trouble with that term) when anyone brings up restricting late term abortions is all the evidence I need. As for actual data, well that’s pretty hard to get isn’t it? I don’t need a sociologist to do a study to tell me if something is wrong or not. If it just isn’t done, why is the right to do it so important? Civilized countries restrict access to late term abortions. Are we civilized or not?
And it isn’t a moot point for those of us who are without uteruses. What is it about liberal males that they run and hide behind the nearest skirt at the first hint of an argument that they perceive as a “women’s issue”?
You can be as extreme as a pro-choicer as you can as a pro-lifer. Ever watch abortion protesters on opposite sides of the issue? Not much to choose between the two of them.
What’s extreme pro-choicer? If you’re talking about the vitriol in demonstrations, well, what do you expect? Many women believe this is an issue of control over their own bodies and don’t take too kindly to a bunch of other people (especially men) staking a claim to their uteruses. You can’t understand that because no one’s staking a claim to any part of your body (for obvious reasons). And really, what’s the burning compromise between having an abortion and not having one? Having half of one? I know you’re trying to argue the compromise is term limitations, but I see that as a non-problem. You hear that…A NON-PROBLEM.
Why do I suspect they’re being done for non-medical reasons? The reaction from the pro-choice extremists (see above if you still have trouble with that term) when anyone brings up restricting late term abortions is all the evidence I need.
This is so stupid. All the evidence you need for a decision you’ll never have to make? As if it matters what you think in any material sense at all. The only thing you have is a vote, Ranty. That’s it.
As for actual data, well that’s pretty hard to get isn’t it? I don’t need a sociologist to do a study to tell me if something is wrong or not. If it just isn’t done, why is the right to do it so important? Civilized countries restrict access to late term abortions. Are we civilized or not?
This argument is irrelevant.
And it isn’t a moot point for those of us who are without uteruses. What is it about liberal males that they run and hide behind the nearest skirt at the first hint of an argument that they perceive as a “women’s issue”?
Uh oh…Lil’ Ranty’s calling my masculinity into question. What a fucking fool you are. I happen to believe women’s issues are human rights issues, nothing more, nothing less.
I used to be pretty anti-abortion (because of my Catholic upbringing and respect for life) when I realised, because of all the men involved in it and all the organisations who were at once anti-abortion, pro-death penalty, homophobic and anti-feminist that abortion is really about social control of individuals, and has nothing to do with respect for life at all.
…oh and with the coupling of anti-abortion and anti-contraception, along with abstinence only sex education, the anti-abortion movement is also, overwhelmingly, anti-fucking.
*sigh*
A bunch of men talking about women’s issues..
What a surprise.
Ti-Guy, your arguments are so frivelousas to constitute avoidance. You’ve descended into platitudes.
…women’s issues are human rights issues…
…abortion is really about social control…
Many women believe this is an issue of control over their own bodies…
I just love that last one. If both pro-lifers and pro-choicers become hysterical, then of course the pro-choicers have the better excuse, as they believe their rights are under attack, and are thus the true victims. The stupid pro-life cro-magnons just believe it’s murder. Why should they be so upset? I’m surprised you didn’t use the “a woman’s right to choose” euphemism. That’s one of my favourites. Keep repeating the comforting little cliches and maybe no one will realize you’ve side-stepped the argument completely.
The issue is, just to remind you: Should it be legal to destroy a completely functioning human being, one that may well be capable of living on his/her own if delivered premature? And if it isn’t, why is it legal? And do we, as a civilized society, have an obligation to protect said fully functional human beings?
I’m not telling you you’re wrong. I’m telling you you’re avoiding the argument. That is your right of course, but don’t pretend it’s anything else. Scotian addressed the issue head on and admitted that he sturggles with it. I see some sort of term limit as a workable, though highly imperfect approach. I am not sold on six months, 7 months, or any particular amount, but I think some limit is reasonable. However, both Scotian and I have recognized that it is a moral dilemma that we can’t necessarily just run away from. You, on the other hand, are telling us that as men, we should do just that.
Note to Scotian: I’m not trying to claim you as an ally on this issue. Just pointing out an area both of us seem to “get”, that Ti-Guy is avoiding.
Ever notice how everyone who favours abortion on demand has already been born?
I think Raging and Scotian have taken the more balanced view in this thread. The question of when a fetis becomes a human life is sufficiently unclear that few people would subscribe to the idea that the life of an unborn child can be terminated up to the point of birth. Political fear of the ensuing debate does not mean that politicians should shrink from their responsibilities to introduce appropriate legislation.
Well, I’m not a fetus, so I don’t think I can really comment on that.
Ti-Guy, your arguments are so frivelousas to constitute avoidance. You’ve descended into platitudes.
…women’s issues are human rights issues…
…abortion is really about social control…
…..Many women believe this is an issue of control over their own bodies…
Once again, you attempt to make a substantive point by lying. Those three issues are not frivolous nor are the statements platitudes. Ask anyone for whom this issue is a real concern.
I just love that last one.
Were you rolling your eyes when you wrote that? God, it’s like I’m dealing with a (melon-faced, very creepy) 12 year-old here.
If both pro-lifers and pro-choicers become hysterical, then of course the pro-choicers have the better excuse, as they believe their rights are under attack, and are thus the true victims.
What is this hysteria you keep talking about, anyway? You keep mentionning it as if it’s central to this issue. It really isn’t.
The stupid pro-life cro-magnons just believe it’s murder. Why should they be so upset? I’m surprised you didn’t use the “a woman’s right to choose” euphemism. That’s one of my favourites. Keep repeating the comforting little cliches and maybe no one will realize you’ve side-stepped the argument completely.
What, the murder one? That argument is unresolvable…unresolvable. That you don’t know this means you have never really thought about this very carefully.
The issue is, just to remind you: Should it be legal to destroy a completely functioning human being, one that may well be capable of living on his/her own if delivered premature? And if it isn’t, why is it legal? And do we, as a civilized society, have an obligation to protect said fully functional human beings?
Again, because you’re slow: that issue is unresolvable. The unborn are not considered persons under the law (and never should be), so terminating their existence falls outside any clearly enforceable definition of moral action. Some people will think it’s murder, some won’t. Most women believe it’s an issue that concerns them and their bodies, and is no one else’s business.
I’m not telling you you’re wrong. I’m telling you you’re avoiding the argument.
Sorry. The next time I’ll bring up every facet of an issue, even those that have been settled to my own satisfaction just to make sure I’ve lived up to your standards for completeness and to avoid accusations of avoidance.
That is your right of course, but don’t pretend it’s anything else.
You really are a bad writer. Pretend it’s anything other than…what, exactly? I wasn’t pretending at all.
Scotian addressed the issue head on and admitted that he sturggles with it.
And? That’s what Scotian feels. I don’t struggle with it, personally, because mainly, I’ll never have to have an abortion and the murder issue is, as I said, unresolvable.
I see some sort of term limit as a workable, though highly imperfect approach. I am not sold on six months, 7 months, or any particular amount, but I think some limit is reasonable.
What you think counts for exactly one vote.
However, both Scotian and I have recognized that it is a moral dilemma that we can’t necessarily just run away from. You, on the other hand, are telling us that as men, we should do just that.
You and Scotian can do what ever you want. I can’t stop you. But I have to say that both of your “feelings” about this don’t count for much. You have a right to your beliefs, but they have limited relevance to people for whom this is an actual issue
Note to Scotian: I’m not trying to claim you as an ally on this issue. Just pointing out an area both of us seem to “get”, that Ti-Guy is avoiding.
I’m sorry…I “get it” far better than either of you do. You think your beliefs and your feelings matter, when…they don’t.
Sorry. My response has always been…don’t like abortion? Don’t have one. And term limits are a non-problem, being exploited here for political purposes.
I think Raging and Scotian have taken the more balanced view in this thread.
I’m sorry Cycles, but I don’t think men struggling and agonising over this is a balanced view. In fact, as a man, I find it embarrassing.
This is so obviously an exploitation of a wedge issue for political purposes to address a non-problem.
According to the ethicist Margaret Somerville, in the year 2001, there were 243 abortions past 20 weeks that were NOTED in Canada. In Canada, there is no obligation to register these abortions.
If 243 newborns were deliberately killed in Canada, you can be sure there’d be a law against it.
We also know that about a year ago, the Province of Quebec was looking for a late-term abortionist so that it wouldn’t have to send people to Kansas or other American states. Quebec had found its abortionist, but I never found out whether he actually began to perform late-term abortions.
Robert, if you could let me know your source for the notion that late-term abortions are mostly done for medical reasons, I’d be very grateful.
I also note that late-term abortions are so gory that Henry Morgentaler will not do them, and if confronted with a woman who has a late term fetus, he will try to convince her to keep the baby.
I would also like to point out that even the judges who struck down Canada’s abortion law said it was reasonable for the state to protect the fetus; the later the stage, the more right the state had to do this.
The issue of whether a fetus deserves protection is not a “women’s issue”. It is a philosophical issue, and men and women have the right to have an opinion on it. But if it’s a women’s only issue, I would like any future unborn children I may have to have legal rights, and this abortion issue is stopping that.
Ummm, and how many women do you see waiting 8 months to decide to have an abortion?
Ridiculous.
Some men and some cultures allow a pregnancy to go long enough to be sure they know the sex of the fetus before they “make” the woman have an abortion, or not. Women die from these often failed attempts at selective breeding and often at the hand of black market abortionists. Sometimes women are forced to bear children of incest or rape only to see their child defiled or enslaved.
Here now we find some Canadians all lathered up because so far in Canada a woman and her doctor can make hard decisions without government input, and in a timely manner. It is a grave consideration for any woman and/or doctor and ultimately it is their own business.
Canada must protect it’s people, not “possible” people; if you disagree then Harper should be offering Head Tax money to all the extended families of the hapless people deprived of the life of uncles and aunts and their own progeny by heartless laws.
To say nothing of our First Nations people, who our government in its wisdom of the day felt fit to sterilize. But that’s another chapter.
Are these people determined to make us all participate in the pretend world they live in where all their decisions are made for them?
Oh, God…Sister Suzanne has shown up and she’s brought up Margaret Summerville.
Lucid discussion is over.
So your problem is you find it embarassing? So that means that we insensitive men should just drop the discussion right now, I guess. Tough shit. Your inability to address the issue and examine it in a mature manner without getting “embarassed” is your problem. If you feel your lack of a uterus leaves you unqualified to discuss abortion, then clearly you are unqualified, but not for the reason you think.
Feminist, in her own scattered and infantile way, is trying to say the same thing; that we men shouldn’t even be talking about this “non-issue”. Her arguments are too silly and irrelevant to address here, so I won’t. I will just point out that both Feminist and Ti-Guy believe the only “appropriate” response is to try and shut down the debate.
Debate all you want RR.
The facts are that Canadian women and Canadian doctors have had a healthy, reasonable relationship on this issue, probably since before you were an issue.
little joke there, but then you said i was infantile…
I said nothing about men being unable to speak on this issue. You dreamed that up somehow, perhaps identifying too closely with the men(tality) of those men I spoke of who insist on their right to dictate what a woman shall and shall not do with her body.
This IS still Canada, and the member is entitled to put forth his bill; doesn’t mean we have to sit back and agree though.
“I’m sorry Cycles, but I don’t think men struggling and agonising over this is a balanced view. In fact, as a man, I find it embarrassing.”
Ti, I think you got one thing right there. It is an issue that most of us agonize over. Polls about abortion are inconsistent because people respond according to the question.
- Wikipedia
I wonder if many Canadians realize that we are one of the few nations that allows unrestricted abortion on demand. In fact a fetus has no inherent right to life in Canadian law, and no legal protection as a person until born alive.
According to a physician speaker in one of my classes, there is, apparently, an unlegislated understanding in the medical community that abortions performed after 18 weeks *are* only done for medical reasons.
They happen so late because some genetic tests, determining some of the most devestating genetic illnesses (some conditions are not compatible with life at all) can only happen at 18 weeks. By the time the results are known, it is sometimes outside the usual 18 week window, and some docs will perform the abortion.
Sorry I don’t have the specifics of which tests are performed when (time constraints), but I thought what this doc said was relevant to this discussion. He was speaking to a class where some were under the (as it turned out, mistaken) impression that women could go around demanding abortions any time up until they gave birth. That’s not true at all.
Following that class, I did have a patient who discovered her baby’s father carried one such illness. She had to ask for the test specifically b/c the disease was rare and not routinely screened for. It was positive and it was her decision to terminate rather than carry a baby just to watch him/her die. She was at 19 weeks when she found out and had to travel half a day to find a doc willing to perform the procedure, and only if she brought the test results - no local doc would/could do it - and she lived in an urban center.
A woman’s choice is already heavily restricted by her own sense of right and that of the medical community. I think the notion of a woman seeking to have an elective abortion late in pregnancy is really an urban legend. I’ve had to be educated as to the details of the procedure, and any woman who looks at all her options and decides going through an abortion in the first place, let alone a late one, is her best choice, has to be facing some pretty awful circumstances (like my patient was). We don’t need the gov’t involved here - unless they’d like to legislate themselves out of the equation.
I just find a huge contradiction here in men like Ranty who argue practically every problem as an issue of individual choice and then become indignant (and insulting) at the suggestion that, on abortion, their views about limiting the options of other people are irrelevant.
Egomania and power. Nothing ever changes.
“…some genetic tests”
Should read …”some congenital tests”. Sorry about that. I knew something was off when I typed the sentance.
That’s some very interesting information Nightingale. I was not aware of any such consensus and I’d be interested in learning more about it. Certainly a self-regulating, peer oversight type of set up would suffice, and might even be superior to legislation. The one concern I would have is with practitioners like Dr. Henry Morgantaler (sp?) who might not feel bound by such “peer pressure”.
gee. state control over the womb. great idea. it worked in romania. anyway, while feminists and other sane people were resting on their laurels, access to abortion services has become an issue for many women. and men, of course. since most men are not morons.
Yikes:
Ti-guy: Your disasterous quotes include:
- “that issue (whether it should be illegal to kill a fully functioning human being) is unresolvable. The unborn are not considered persons under the law (and never should be), so terminating their existence falls outside any clearly enforceable definition of moral action.”
You say the issue is unresolvable, and yet you’ve resolved it in your own head (without telling us why)? Are you saying that it’s resolved because the unborn are not considered persons “under the law”? Is this a natural law, or the law of Canada? And if it’s a law of Canada, is it not subject to revision? How could someone so self-righteous miss the point so completely?
- “Oh, God…Sister Suzanne has shown up and she’s brought up Margaret Summerville.” How, dear God, is quoting a world renowned academic a bad thing, and a sign that the discussion has lost its lucidity? I mean seriously, how can you criticize someone for bringing informed opinions and “facts” to an argument?
-”I just find a huge contradiction here in men like Ranty who argue practically every problem as an issue of individual choice and then become indignant (and insulting) at the suggestion that, on abortion, their views about limiting the options of other people are irrelevant.”
You’re ridiculous. The very point of legislation is to limit the options of other people. We limit the options of other people constantly, when we see it as something morally wrong. Which is why it isn’t just a woman’s issue to pro-Lifers, because they see it as murder. (To clarify, despite the critical tone of my post, I am truly not equating abortions with murder - just agreeing with Suzanne that it is a philosophical or societal issue. Just because it disproportionately affects women doesn’t mean men can have no opinion on the morality of the situation, any more than women should be restricted from having an opinion on the morality of war (a disproportionately male phenomenon), for example. (My logic on this one may be a bit off-base, so if someone could explain to me how these two situations are different I’d appreciate it)
Feminist: You’re completely out to lunch, as evidenced by:
- “Some men and some cultures allow a pregnancy to go long enough to be sure they know the sex of the fetus before they “make” the woman have an abortion, or not. ” What does this have to do with an abortion debate in Canada, other than to conjure up feelings of female victimhood which don’t apply in this context?
-”Here now we find some Canadians all lathered up because so far in Canada a woman and her doctor can make hard decisions without government input, and in a timely manner”. If it were made in a timely manner, than legislation affecting late-term abortion would have no effect on said woman, so what’s your beef?
Nightengale: - “A woman’s choice is already heavily restricted by her own sense of right and that of the medical community. I think the notion of a woman seeking to have an elective abortion late in pregnancy is really an urban legend. ” First, non-therapeutic late term abortions are not just urban legends (look up the Brenda Drummond case).
Second, that “it is not common” is not an argument against late term abortion legislation (as McClelland was implying in his original post) . As pointed out by Raging “That such procedures are rare does not negate the need for regulation. Poisoning someone is extremely rare, yet we still need a law against it. ” .
The frequency of a crime does not determine its criminality. Despite Ti-guy’s attempt to construe Raging’s point as equating poisoning to abortion (which, as has become a pattern in Ti-guy’s posts, completely missed the point), Raging is completely correct.
I just don’t see how late term abortions, except of course based on the health of the mother, is different than killing a new born. No one has yet to explain this to me.
For further reading, check out Mary Ann Warren, probably the most well known pro-choice philosopher, who suggests that a newborn (until it acquires certain faculties, about 3-6 months into life) can not be considered a full person, in the same way a fetus can’t. She tries to suggest that it is wrong to kill a newborn on (shaky) grounds, other than because it bears the same rights as an adult person.
If someone could explain to me how killing a late-term fetus for non-therapeutical reasons is different from killing a newborn I would be eternally grateful.
i repeat: gee. state control over the womb. great idea. it worked in romania. anyway, while feminists and other sane people were resting on their laurels, access to abortion services has become an issue for many women. and men, of course. since most men are not morons.
“However, both Scotian and I have recognized that it is a moral dilemma that we can’t necessarily just run away from. You, on the other hand, are telling us that as men, we should do just that.
Note to Scotian: I’m not trying to claim you as an ally on this issue. Just pointing out an area both of us seem to “get”, that Ti-Guy is avoiding. ” Raging Ranter at
June 21st, 2006 at 11:34 pm
I’m sorry but you read more into my writing than I actually meant. The sole reason why I have any sympathy for undesirability of unregulated abortion is because it leaves the potential for abuse without repercussion, in short my problem with it as it is relates solely to legal and not moral difficulties. I “struggle” as you put it only because one of the main arguments I hear from the more rational conservatives that want abortion regulation is the inherent risk in leaving it unregulated, which is a fair and valid argument. However, while I can see the merit in that argument I am not and never have been convinced it is necessary to do so when there has never been any data to prove such abuses were/are occurring in last trimester abortions for anything other than legitimate medical issues.
However, the other arguments I hear from conservatives, especially social conservatives regarding abortion comes down to either religious zealotry and/or the desire to penalize all that choose to have sex outside of marriage. Too often I have seen underpinning arguments regarding the need to regulate abortion coming down to attempting to reduce the rights and privileges of women to have equal rights across the board to men in our society. Now, if I saw these social conservatives being as interested in helping out those babies born into poorer families (whatever the reason for the poverty, if one truly loves life and believes in the need to bring children into this world no matter what, especially if one believes children are a gift from God as many anti-abortionists claim they do) with assistance and social programs to level the playing field for these children with those that are in a stable and well off enough family to maintain their children then maybe I would not be so distrustful of the underlying aims of these voices.
However too often the anti-abortionists are not pro-life so much as they are pro-birth. Once the child is brought into the world then it is all up to the parents and any “handouts” to those in need of assistance gets slammed as social engineering, as promoting immorality, and so forth. What there is not is the same reverence for the life of the post birth child as there is for the pre born child. Then we come to the fact that many of the anti-abortionists also do not want sex ed taught in schools, indeed they believe sex ed to be immoral and will encourage sexual acts and only create more unwanted babies. This is where so many women get the idea that this is about controlling them far more than it is about any reverence for life and I cannot fault them for a moment in thinking/feeling so. It is also disturbing that the voices that tend to be loudest about abortion are males faaaar more often then females, whereas those in favour of abortion tend to have women as their loudest voices more so then men. Given it is a woman’s body that has to take the strain of either childbirth or abortion/miscarriage then it seems only proper that since they are the ones taking all the risks that they are the ones to have final say IMHO.
I realize you were not trying to co-opt me into your argument and I appreciate that. However I do not appreciate so much your choosing to use my post to underpin your attack of the position of Ti-Guy, as in all honesty I am far closer to his position than I am likely to yours. All I said was that I saw a valid argument from some conservatives on this, that I recognized the merit of that argument , and that because of the recognition this is not a simple issue for me to simply say I am pro-choice and that any that oppose this have no valid arguments to be making outside the religious/morality ones. Throughout my life I have been in favour of abortion being the final decision of the mother. On the spiritual side even when I was still a devout RC I felt this way, after all if God is omnipotent, omniscient, omni-present and benevolent then he will know which fetuses are going to be aborted and not assign a soul to that fetus. To do otherwise is to cruelly punish the soul of the fetus for the actions of the parent, something the fetus has no control over, and the Christian God is not that kind of cruel being, at least not if one believes what the various major sects of Christianity all say about him.
So while I have always had some personal discomfort with abortion I have also never believed that this is something the State has any business determining for all. I have always believed that in the end it is up to the mother alone, and if God has issues with this action God will make that clear in His own way and in His own time. For any person to presume to know the mind of God is hubris incarnate and blasphemous to boot according to the teachings I was raised with. Not to mention that the Old Testament has in it the claim that the soul did not enter the body until a month or so after birth, which given the high rate of infant mortality in those days is an understandable belief to take. The Bible says nothing about abortion, that has always been the interpretations of men, and unfortunately too often men that claim to be men of God but too often turn out to be fraudsters and con artists using religion as a power base use this issue and others like opposing any rights for Gay people, especially to marry to advance their private agendas, usually on the backs of real believers. Spirituality and faith belongs in the world of Faith and Church, it does not belong in the laws of a country, especially a open society with a wide multicultural demographic makeup. That is just asking for trouble IMHO.
Sorry about the length of this comment but I wanted to try and make my position more clear, as I see I left too much room for misinterpretation in the first post.
One last thing to all…men may not have the same stake in this argument as women true but it is still appropriate for them to have their own opinions on the matter and express it. Indeed many of us solidly stand behind women in believing that even when it troubles our personal morality to allow abortion that it is an even greater wrong to take that choice away from the person that is most directly affected by such a decision or for that matter even the need to consider taking that option. I support a woman’s right to choose because of that, and while I will always have personal discomfort with abortion on demand I am very reluctant to open up that Pandora’s box, especially if it ends up being used to start restricting women’s equality in our society. Given that to this day women do not get the same pay for the same work in most jobs, that they are seen as tokens in some professions, that they are seen as somehow “destroying the traditional family” by wanting to have more than a husband taking care of her and kids to raise along with housekeeping as her total profession they have every reason to be suspicious. I wish it were otherwise but that is in a perfect world, I deal with the world as it actually is, warts and all, and difficult and murky ethical issues where there is no simple “right” answer.
You say the issue is unresolvable, and yet you’ve resolved it in your own head (without telling us why)? Are you saying that it’s resolved because the unborn are not considered persons “under the law”? Is this a natural law, or the law of Canada? And if it’s a law of Canada, is it not subject to revision? How could someone so self-righteous miss the point so completely?
I guess with some people, the concept of insolubility cannot be part of their word-view. And that’s just too bad, because you absolutely, positively cannot determine that the unborn are “persons” in the same way you can anyone who has achieved consciousness or self-awareness (by the age two or so). We make a legal distinction at the point of birth, and that’s the best we can do. Unless you’ve got a direct line to God, you cannot know this any better than anyone else.
I’m not being self-righteous. I’m just pointing out the flaws in some of the thinking of people who can’t, for whatever, get over the point that in a dilema like this, the only moral position is choice and women’s control over their own bodies and making decisions themselves in ways they see fit.
Otherwise, we will never, ever, ever stop talking about this and we will vacilate between freedom of choice and restrictions that cause people actual, material harm. Women will kill themselves to avoid a pregancy they do not want.
And that’s about as much as I want to deal with a rambling post like yours, Oliphant.
god, schmod.
Blasphemy! Repent, the end is nigh.
Ti-Guy, you say I hate Canadians, which is a lie. What does that make you?
it’s too late. i’m already a woman. it’s my fate to burn in hell. just ask john knox.
heaven sounds boring, anyway. sexist, too.
No one — not any one person living or dead — has the right to decide what a woman can do with her body, except the woman herself! What is the problem with that? It’s her body. It’s her choice. Why can’t people trust that a woman will do what is best? Is it that old Father knows best attitude or what?
Instead of whining about abortion, how about creating a world where every child is a wanted child? Or is that too contrary to your politics? Are women supposed to know their place? Since before the Supreme Court decision in 1988, I’ve listened to these right-wing bigots try to tell me and other women what we can and can not do with our bodies! I am so sick and tired of it. Get a life, already, will ya!?!
No passion here
In Canada, late term abortions are done by sucking the babies brains out of their skull whilst their lower extremeties have been partially delivered. Its pretty gruesome, but reality:
The reason; because if they did the procedure after the baby had been fully delivered it is considered murdered. Especially because these little people are developed enough to live outside the womb.
So please, explain to me why the positioning of the babies head, whether inside the womb, or outside, can determine whether this baby is a human being, or just an unconvenient peice of a womans body?
This debate hinges on three main points:
(A) When does a fetus become a person?
(B) When is it illegal to kill a person?
(C) What rights does an unborn person have, and when do they trump (or at least equal) the rights of the mother?
Link didnt work:
http://www.ohiolife.org/abortion/pba.asp
Instead of whining about abortion, how about creating a world where every child is a wanted child? Or is that too contrary to your politics?
No, it’s just really, really hard for the lazy moralisers. Much easier to sit around making judgements about what other people do.
RR: Like I said, the speaker did stipulate that it was an unlegislated “rule” (?). Caring for families who lose babies to either spontaneous abortion (miscarriage), elective, or stillbirth will be an important part of my job. This physician was speaking to all areas of that care, but several students did their best to highjack the class to the abortion debate, citing the fears here - that women can demand this service at any point during pregnancy, on an elective basis. He firmly told us that this was not the case at all.
I don’t think anyone wants to see late term abortions happening. It’s a terrible prospect all around. I do think that, as you say, with the right peer review and client/physician discussion, informed choice does not require legislation.
Amen.
This debate cannot be so easily reduced to absolutes on either side. It is as unfair to characterize people who are concerned about late term abortions as lazy moralisers as it is to call anyone who supports a woman’s right to choose a pro-abortionist who celebrates the termination of pregnancy.
We, as a society, have already determined that newborns are fully protected under the law. As Robtarded indicated the debate hinges on three main points:
(A) When does a fetus become a person?
(B) When is it illegal to kill a person?
(C) What rights does an unborn person have, and when do they trump (or at least equal) the rights of the mother?
We cannot know when a fetus becomes a human life so choosing the point of separation from the mother is as arbitrary as choosing the moment of conception. Nightingale has assured us that the medical community has dealt with this issue in a thoughful manner by choosing 18 weeks, and perhaps that is sufficient. Still the idea that Canada as a society is unwilling to tackle an issue that strikes at the very core of our respect for human life because it involves murky ethical issues is disturbing.
It is as unfair to characterize people who are concerned about late term abortions as lazy moralisers
Oh yes it is. Not that I think that applies to you, but grosso modo, it has been my experience that it far easier for people to pontificate on the behaviour of other people to deflect from doing something concrete about whatever it is they’re objecting to.
I’ve been guilty of it myself, but on those issues now, I tend to shut up. Which is why I’m not trolling up and down the Blogging Tories, whining about how uninformed they are, because the proper response would be to provide compelling evidence, and I’m far too lazy to do that.
Ti-guy:
“I guess with some people, the concept of insolubility cannot be part of their word-view.”
I have an understanding the concept of insolubility, and I agree this is a tough one, but just because something may be seen as insolvable doesn’t mean legislation is beyond debate and revision. Most political debates are insolvable - have we ever been able to solve the “most fair and efficient tax regime” issue? Does that mean you’d agree that the current system is the best, and should not be tampered with? It’s all about values, which differ amongst reasonable people, and just because we cannot “solve” it definitively doesn’t mean we shouldn’t argue our positions, nor that the current “solution” is the right one.
My point was that by saying that the current non-law is correct, you have made a decision, and, ipso facto, declared the issue solvable. Likewise, by saying that “you absolutely, positively cannot determine that the unborn are “persons” in the same way you can anyone who has achieved consciousness or self-awareness (by the age two or so)”, you are making a value judgment. You are saying what constitutes personhood is consciousness and self awareness, which others would disagree with. Do you see that it is these very things that you take for granted that people disagree on?
You have some sort of legal positivist view that tells you, at least on this issue, that because “we make a legal distinction at the point of birth… that’s the best we can do”. Because that is the current law, it is the right law. A terse “what is, ought to be” is not a defense for an argument, and is absolutely not progressive by any definition of the word.
p.s. gutless move to ignore the rest of my criticisms, they’re golden!
it’s like you can’t swing a cat for hitting a pregnant woman who’s just waiting so she can have a late term abortion. we’re all like “why not have it now?!” and they’re all like “nah. we’d rather wait.” what gets me are the ones who aren’t even pregnant yet and they’re planning their late term abortions.
Oliphant, we’re not in Parliament and no one has to debate proposed legislation here. I understand politicians will take different actions, but that’s not from where I’m coming.
I ignored most of your comment because its beginning was uncivil. You’ve probably guessed that that’s not really something that works with me. Also, you’re not making much sense. Just this example:
You are saying what constitutes personhood is consciousness and self awareness, which others would disagree with.
I realise people can choose to “disagree” with just about everything, but on this issue, I’m on firm ground in relation to how personhood manifests itself in the real world. There is absolutely no way of determining personhood beyond a belief that the being we are dealing with is self-aware, and even then, that’s only a belief suggested by outward manifestations of sentience. It gets increasingly difficult to determine personhood as we retreat further back through the development of the child. Therefore, for legal reasons, we have to establish an arbitrary boundary. For secular law, that’s at birth, and I think it’s the only workable solution, because at that point, we are no longer debating the question of the fully realised person (the mother) and her body versus the ambiguously defined personhood of the baby.
People can believe whatever they want, but for laws that have to work in real life and applied to everyone equally, this is all we can do.
Does anyone care that this is a backbencher’s private bill that has a snowball’s chance in hell of moving off the individual MP’s desk, like the vast majority of private Member bills?
“…procuring a miscarriage after 20 weeks of gestation.” So…does that mean any woman reported as pregnant who loses her baby to miscarriage is immediately under police investigation? To make sure it was uhm, not induced..somehow? Does the bill go on to equate miscarriage with surgical abortion?
Some pretty odd work has been attempted at the private bill level. By all parties. I’m very unsurprised by “Blue” Liberal MPs. Several Liberals voted against marriage equalization. Vellacott found himself a Liberal shadow in Tom Wappel when it came to anti-abortion rhetoric dresed up in junk science concern for women’s health. They front pro-forced childbirth MPs from both parties.
So, despite the fact Harper stated revisiting abortion legislation isn’t on the table; Despite the fact most of the American evangelical anti-abortion organizations are not so secretly over the border and bringing their misleading language like “late term partial birth abortion” with them to channel through Canadian mouths; Despite the fact I see even in the comments here, Morgentaler is still demonized by the pro-forced childbirth crowd; Despite the fact access to abortion needs to go UP, not down from the actual low numbers of hospitals doing the procedure in this country; Despite the fact those against choice are also not for sexual education (in my warped mind, abstinence is not all there is)…
…a private Member’s bill has been tabled to re-criminalize abortion…or miscarriage…still not clear on that one, after a certain calendar date. With heavy fines, public humiliation for the offenders and jail time. Because, women and doctors are so gosh darn unaware of what they’re going through in the procedure that someone needs to rein them in. Someone with insight, wisdom and experience in what selfish, thoughtless wants (not needs) are driving patient and physician to make sausage meat of the unborn. Like MP backbenchers who tout as fact abortions cause cancer.
what gets me are the ones who aren’t even pregnant yet and they’re planning their late term abortions.
I understand left/lib scientists are even working on a way for men to get pregnant just so they can get in on the late term abortion game.
Does anyone care that this is a backbencher’s private bill that has a snowball’s chance in hell of moving off the individual MP’s desk, like the vast majority of private Member bills?‘
No, but it’s a contentious issue and if there’s one thing the blogosphere likes it’s contentious issues that we can all flog to death.
Ti-guy,
“Oliphant, we’re not in Parliament and no one has to debate proposed legislation here”
Do you remember the original post about proposed legislation? Is that not exactly why we are here?
I understand your position on personhood as self-awareness, and it’s perfectly reasonable. I take issue with the fact that you’re so sure that you’re right and everyone else is wrong that you take certain things for granted.
For example, some say the reason abortion is wrong is because it prevents the fetus from a “future of value”. This is why it is wrong to kill those who are sleeping, because although not self-aware at the time, they assumedly will be in the future. Same with someone in a coma, etc. If self awareness was the defining characteristic, that those adult humans not self aware for any number of reasons should be considered “ambiguous persons”, and their wellbeing sacrificed to those fully realised persons.
Personhood is not so easily defined, and your definition despite your personal conviction is not accepted by everyone.
Anyways, we’re beating a dead horse. Good luck.
Thank God a liberal has stood up for what is right. Let’s get this more and more in the open.
Do you remember the original post about proposed legislation? Is that not exactly why we are here?
That doesn’t mean I’m constrained to argue within those boundaries. But you can, as others have here.
I understand your position on personhood as self-awareness, and it’s perfectly reasonable. I take issue with the fact that you’re so sure that you’re right and everyone else is wrong that you take certain things for granted.
It’s not a question of right or wrong. It’s what can be determined by observation of the real world. Otherwise, we’re dealing with people’s beliefs and we know we’ll never get satisfactory agreement on that, especially when it comes to abortion.
For example, some say the reason abortion is wrong is because it prevents the fetus from a “future of value”. This is why it is wrong to kill those who are sleeping, because although not self-aware at the time, they assumedly will be in the future. Same with someone in a coma, etc. If self awareness was the defining characteristic, that those adult humans not self aware for any number of reasons should be considered “ambiguous persons”, and their wellbeing sacrificed to those fully realised persons.
Oh, you’re playing some awful tricks here. “Future value” is a completely meaningless (and dangerous) concept. And sleeping people are self-aware; most of us feel that upon waking, we haven’t actually stopped existing and then been re-immersed into our own self-awareness. I would assume the shock of that every morning would be pretty extreme. People in comas were fully realised people before they went into the coma, and if and when they emerge, re-assume some degree of of their former personhood. If you’re talking about “persistent vegetative states” with no hope of recovery…well, we’ve seen that before in the whole Terry Schiavo circus.
Personhood is not so easily defined, and your definition despite your personal conviction is not accepted by everyone.
Well, it would be have been nice for you to have offered alternatives to what I understand about legal definitions of personhood and tests for sentience that have developed, for example, with regards to artificial intelligence (such as the Turing test) but I guess that doesn’t interest you enough.
Anyways, we’re beating a dead horse. Good luck.
Same to you.
I’ve been reaming the Tories about this item on their secret agenda for months now, and then a Lib comes along and screws everything up. Where is the Rhino Party when you need it?
I’ve got an idea. Stop tax money from paying for abortions and let them have at’er.
nope. that’s what the debate is about - funding and access. feminists fought for it and we’ll keep fighting for it.
Oh, great plan, “Tommy.” “Let’s stop taxes to fund such-and-such.” It’s almost as touchingly naive and….stupid as Mickey Rooney and Judy Garland putting on a show in the garage to save the family farm….!!!
…or whatever it is they did. I admit, I’ve never seen one of those movies.
Ti-Guy;
Why do you feel it is alright for an arbitrary date (birth) to define whether or not a self aware creature has any rights?
Its quite easy to see babies in utero respond to and aknowledge outside stimulus much before birth, this they are self aware a long time before ever being ‘born’?
And again, what makes it alright to kill a baby with its head still inside its mother, versus it being murder once the heads position moves less than a foot?
If modern doctors and medicine ALREADY feel that 18 weeks is an acceptable date for introduction of protection for unborn life, then why are we, as canadains, afraid to put such things into law? We are we the only modern country in the world with limitless, free, no questions asked abortion right up until the second before birth?
why are we, as canadains, afraid to put such things into law?
Because the regressive agenda doesn’t end there. They want a ban on all abortions. This is fact, not simply a slippery slope argument. We’ve seen it happen in the US. So it’s best not to give them an inch. If socons don’t like that then they should deal with their regressive brethren before trying to negotiate a compromise on the issue.
Why do you feel it is alright for an arbitrary date (birth) to define whether or not a self aware creature has any rights?
It’s not alright. It’s not NOT alright. It’s just the best we can do.
Its quite easy to see babies in utero respond to and aknowledge outside stimulus much before birth, this they are self aware a long time before ever being ‘born’?
Responding to stimulus and self-awareness are two different things. The blastocyst responds to certain stimulus. Is it self-aware? Do you know that for sure? And if so, when so many pregnancies at such an early stage are naturally miscarried, what does that mean, exactly?
And again, what makes it alright to kill a baby with its head still inside its mother, versus it being murder once the heads position moves less than a foot?
Yep, the American myth of “partial birth abortions” (the Bristish do not recognise that procedure) has entered Canadian public discourse.
Answer me this…How many children were torn apart today by bombs, their little limbs flying across through the air? How many children today watched their mothers get knocked out cold? How many little children watched as their parents were murdered, died of AID, malnutrition, etc. etc.
Don’t play this stupid gory game with me, arsehole. I’ve seen it all.
If modern doctors and medicine ALREADY feel that 18 weeks is an acceptable date for introduction of protection for unborn life, then why are we, as canadains, afraid to put such things into law? We are we the only modern country in the world with limitless, free, no questions asked abortion right up until the second before birth?
You are lying. Re-read Nightengale’s comments. And stop being such a jerk.
There have been some fabulous posts from all sides of the issue on this thread. Thank you all for this thought-provoking exchange.
Do we as a society find late-term abortions morally-unacceptable? If so, then Steckle’s bill is good. If not, then it’s bad.
To say that it does not occur very often (based on Robert’s questionable inference) does not make a whit of difference. We find roasting babies over open fires to be reprehensible, so there is a law against doing it. The fact that it (hopefully) doesn’t occur that often doesn’t convince us that there shouldn’t be a law against it.
*sigh* Why do certain people think every issue boils down to a binary decision?
We find roasting babies over open fires to be reprehensible, so there is a law against doing it.
Specious argument, Rempel. There is no specific law against roasting babies over open fires. What there is, are laws against murder/manslaughter, battery and a few others that make roasting babies over an open fire illegal.
*sigh* Why do certain people constantly indulge their cowardice by constantly avoiding taking sides on difficult issues?
Is taking an equally inflexible opposite position any better? All that does is add to the perception that the left is a gathering ground for angry lunatics. Hopefully being progressive means more than just opposing the right wing fringe on every single issue.
Perhaps naively, I like to think that the progressive movement reflects the belief that Canadian is a better society when we take care of people who cannot take care of themselves. If we refuse to entertain the argument that protection should be extended to an unborn child in the late stages of development then we have introduced a rigidity that betrays our fundamental principles.
“Specious argument, Rempel. There is no specific law against roasting babies over open fires. What there is, are laws against murder/manslaughter, battery and a few others that make roasting babies over an open fire illegal.”
True. But the point remains that no one thinks there shouldn’t be a law against baby-roasting because it doesn’t occur very often, which seems to be the point that you’re making with your statistics.
“because the regressive agenda doesn’t end there. They want a ban on all abortions. This is fact, not simply a slippery slope argument. We’ve seen it happen in the US. So it’s best not to give them an inch.”
I think this is the important point here. At least Robert is honest about the far left’s view of this. The point is to find a way to marginalize them and embrace the centre on the issue. Steckle’s bill will provide a real test of how this sort of legislation in the future will fare.
*sigh* Why do certain people constantly indulge their cowardice by constantly avoiding taking sides on difficult issues?
*sigh*…Why do certain people demand that others take sides on issues and dishonestly, aggressively and uncivily label such non-actions as “cowardice.”
J’t”avais y’a peut-être deux semaines, mon tchom. Si tu r’commences avec moé, tu vas en manger une viarge.
I only saw the one where Rooney & Garland shot an amateur porn video to raise money to save their grow op. And I believe it was shot in their garage as well. Figures. All those cheesey old movies were the same.
*shudder*
I used to argue a lot with the rabid pro-life Catholics I grew up with. I always used to pose the question, “What about in cases where a woman was impregnated through rape or incest? Do you still oppose abortion in those circumstances?”
And the answer was always, “It is rare for a woman to become impregnated through rape or incest because they are under so much stress that conception is not possible.”
I’m not making that up, that’s exactly the answer they would give. It was the standard talking point for pro-lifers. It was bullshit then, and it’s bullshit now when applied to the fact that late term abortions are “rarely done.” It’s simply a means to avoid dealing with a fact which is highly inconvenient to one’s stance on the issue. It also allows the person to avoid answering a fairly simple question.
http://www.babycentre.co.uk/i/devel/diagram5.gif
Medically, a natural abortion >20 weeks is considered miscarriage,
Oops.
The image link is for no other reason than to illustrate just what 5 months pregnant looks like…
Medically, a nature abortion before 20 weeks is considered miscarriage, after 20 weeks it is considered still birth.
I am personally opposed to abortion, but recognize and support a woman’s right to choose.
Whether or not there needs to be a law in place to limit the window for a legal abortion, perhaps. But I find resonance in the arguments that this may be a slippery slope.
Yeah, funny eh? But I’m sure you, of the scientifically-minded would agree that debunking the “conception is not possible under duress” is much easier than deciding when a woman’s pregnancy is to be terminated when, and under what circumstances, no?
…oh, don’t bother answering. I can predict your response already….*ahem*…”My name is Raging Ranter, and I’m always right!”
Well, I never said it was an easy issue to make up one’s mind about did I? I would use the litmus test of “Is the woman’s life in jeopardy if this pregnancy is allowed to continue?” In any case, your assertion that I always think I’m right is has been proven wrong in this very thread, as I’ve already considered Nightingale’s post and whether or not self-regulating professional peer review might be the better option to legislation. In other words, I’ve already backed off my earlier suggestion that the practice of late term abortion be dealt with through legislation. Like Artie says…
Not all of us are omniscient, all-knowing academics who speak five languages like you. Some of us find that engaging in an actual debate over a contentious issue to be very helpful in improving our understanding of that issue.
*yawn*….Your posts are too long, Fatty.
You mean they’re too long because they’re not yours. We all know you’re the only one with an opinion that counts.
Oh, and if that upsets you, please feel free to complain about my and Art Decco’s web design skills on the blog of your choice.
*sigh* You just never know what little thing might hurt Ti-Guy’s feelings. Such a sensitive chap.
Oh, Fatty, you just don’t get it, do you? Unethical behaviour, Fatty. Here, in this anonymous, unmoderated matrix, that’s all we have…our ethics, or lack thereof.
You’ve behaved unethically so many times, I’ve lost count. That’s why I don’t like you, Fatty.
Deal with it, or shut up.
Well, looks like this thread is winding up.
Paladiea, Derrell, Arthur, Rob, Cyclesk2, Dino, Berlynn, sooey, Andrew, Balbulican, Stageleft, ..to name a few…they’ve never behaved unethically.
And let’s not forget how Fatty characterised my innocent foray into the snake-pit of The Shotgun as an “ass-raping.” He even chuckled. He thought that was hilarious.
I’m no more likely to listen to a pompous windbag like you lecture me on ethics than I am to listen to Clifford Olsen’s views on reforming the National Parole Board. But since you’re so insistent, I’ll bite. How have I been unethical? Show me some examples.
Blah, blah, blibbity blah…
I’ve mentionned two instances in this thread alone…Fatty.
Terrific discourse guys.
Thank you, Scott.
“*sigh*…Why do certain people demand that others take sides on issues and dishonestly, aggressively and uncivily label such non-actions as “cowardice.”
The problem is not that you’ve not taken a side. It’s that you take a side, refuse to acknowledge it, and then chastise everyone who is honest about their beliefs on the topic.
Typical dishonest liberal “impartiality.” I notice it in first-year undergrads. You must not have moved beyond that point yet.
This is what I left at the creepy Peter Rempel’s site”
Really? You’ve never admitted what it is you’re studying, you egregious liar.
Look, I’ve told you to stay the fuck away from me. I mean it. You stay the fuck away from me you fucking zitty little pedophilic creep or so God help me, I’ll sic the RCMP on your ass so bad you’ll be caught in mid-toss-off. And I mean it. You fuck around with me some more and I’ll make sure your ass is grass.
…You hear me, Petey? DO YOU FUCKING HEAR ME PETER REMPEL?
Needless to say, I don’t really like Peter Rempel. I think he’s an abominable creep.
Ti-Guy, would you sic the RCMP and CSIS on me? Give me all you got. You keep threatening but you never deliver. Why?
Huh?
ha ha ha
You know what I am saying Bi-Guy.
Of course, there is nothing unethical about suggesting someone is a pedophile.
Ti-Guy left a couple of similar outbursts on KOTR’s site the other day. It’s through comments like that one that we get a true glimpse of Net Stalker’s character. He demonstrates, at once, a sociopathic visciousness, and a delusional mindset that leads him to believe the RCMP (or, depending what day it is, CSIS, Surete du Quebec, the FBI, the Stasi, or whoever the fuck) will assist him in his efforts to escalate his cyber-campaign against his “enemies”.
Oh, fuck off.
I assume that Bi-Guy and his comrades dream of the day when legions of brave, loyal socialists march through the cities and towns, removing those of us who do not see the true wisdom of socialism and refuse to embrace it. The brave socialists will take us to a camp, similar to the camps Tommy Douglas wrote about in “The Problem of The Subnormal Family”, where we can be “re-educated”.
Perhaps these brave socialists could wear brown shirts…
Peter Says:
June 23rd, 2006 at 12:37 am
ha ha ha
The pedophilic zit king banned me, by the way.
Way to go, Petey.
I assume that Bi-Guy and his comrades dream of the day when legions of brave, loyal socialists march through the cities and towns, removing those of us who do not see the true wisdom of socialism and refuse to embrace it. The brave socialists will take us to a camp, similar to the camps Tommy Douglas wrote about in “The Problem of The Subnormal Family”, where we can be “re-educated”.
Perhaps these brave socialists could wear brown shirts…
Did you get moist when you wrote that, Aunty? C’mon…admit it. This whole thing for you is a big turn on. If not moist….
…tumescence?
This is the exact wording from my actual banning at Rempelia Prime:
Banned by webmaster. Your comments will not be added
At Rempelia Prime, we think you’re special!
Not special enough, obviously.
Well let’s face it Bi-Guy, “My Blahg” is nothing more than a troll site - I discovered that the first time I disagreed with the “group think” - and I have to admit that I am enjoying it. True Believers, that you all are.
I like to think that you are laughing at all of this also, but somehow I suspect you take it seriously.
I would never ban Ti-Guy. He’s the only one who comments on my blog.
What?
Um, I said “fuck off loser.”
Of course. Stephen Harper does it all the time!
Well let’s face it Bi-Guy, “My Blahg” is nothing more than a troll site - I discovered that the first time I disagreed with the “group think” - and I have to admit that I am enjoying it. True Believers, that you all are.
I like to think that you are laughing at all of this also, but somehow I suspect you take it seriously.
The only thing I take seriously, ogre, is the defamation I see being spewed by people like you that reflect, even indirectly, the sentiments of their political masters, for whom it’s simply impolitic to be more honest and direct.
Otherwise, I don’t give two shits what’s some anonymous, hateful and entirely humourless anger-management case study like you has to announce all over the Internets. I suspect most sensible people don’t.
I suspect most people who know you personally don’t take you seriously either. And that must really burn.
Bi-Guy,
I am so glad that the Canadian people keep you left-wingers in your place every federal election! Democracy: I love it! Hopefully Saskatchewan will join the rest of Canada very soon.
Robert, can you source the stats for me, please?
I am so glad that the Canadian people keep you left-wingers in your place every federal election! Democracy: I love it! Hopefully Saskatchewan will join the rest of Canada very soon.
Dream on, retard. The political governance in Canada since confederation has been overwhelmingly…liberal. Because that’s what Canadians, by nature…are Even the hicks are liberal.
You, my friend, are an abberation. And I’m sure most people who know you are well aware of that.
I don’t know if everyone’s done with this post, but I’m bored so here:
Ti-guy: “It’s not a question of right or wrong. It’s what can be determined by observation of the real world. Otherwise, we’re dealing with people’s beliefs and we know we’ll never get satisfactory agreement on that, especially when it comes to abortion.”
WTF? What about murder? Can we prove that it is “wrong” by observing it in the “real world”?
It’s always about values and beliefs. That’s the core of prohibatory laws. We, as a society, think a certain type of action is wrong, and therefore, we’ll make a law against it. There is nothing inherently wrong with murder or fraud or theft or whatever if you disassociate it with morals and values.
Therefore, making the argument that ‘because we can’t all agree’, or ‘because it can’t be definitively determined’ is completely irrelevant to the question and an affirmation of the status quo that you clearly agree with. Don’t try to make it sound like it’s an objective fact.
Further, for the other readers, I’d like to contrast two of Ti-guy’s comments, which will likely find me in a heap of fuck you’s, but here goes:
2:10 pm - “I ignored most of your comment because its beginning was uncivil. You’ve probably guessed that that’s not really something that works with me. ”
9:10 pm - “Oh, Fatty, you just don’t get it, do you? …
You’ve behaved unethically so many times, I’ve lost count. That’s why I don’t like you, Fatty.
Deal with it, or shut up. ”
Is that weird?
Oliphant, you’re really not understanding me (and you don’t know the history of the people I’m being rude to), so fuck the hell off. I’m not here to educate dumb people. Go the library or sign up for an evening class, or something.
O’s comment - “I’d like to contrast two of Ti-guy’s comments, which will likely find me in a heap of fuck you’s, but here goes”
Ti-guys response - “Oliphant, you’re really not understanding me (and you don’t know the history of the people I’m being rude to), so fuck the hell off”
Did I call it?
And finally, the classic, “I’m not here to educate dumb people.”
I’m pretty sure that’s exactly why you’re here and have a blog. Everyone thinks they’re right, and others are wrong, and are trying to persuade others to think their “right” way. Why else would you spend so much time doing this?
Give this man a medal! He predicted Ti-Guy would go all potty-mouth. Move over, Nostradamus…Oliphant has taken your place.
And by the way…this isn’t my blog.
Teenagers certainly tend to think that way. Mature people often engage in the exchange of ideas through debate.
If a pregnant woman has the right to do anything she wants with her body, then does she have a right to consume as much alcohol or drugs as she wants, knowing that she intends to give birth and the baby could have birth defects because of it?
Yes, which is why people don’t get arrested for having crack babies….
Paladiea, so it is legal, but is it moral? And we all have to pay for her actions with extra taxes for medical bills, therapy, etc. Why do we allow this? Thanks for being patient with my line of questioning.
You never asked me that, you asked me if it was legal, and I said yes…
Are you suggesting we legislate morality? And if so whose morality?
Well, I agree that it would be impossible to do so, Paladiea. I just wonder how this is fair to the child of that parent. But of course, life isn’t always fair.
“104,000: The number of induced abortions conducted in Canada.”
Holy shit.