I was listening to this stunned ‘pro-life’ woman on talk radio this afternoon. She said there was no valid reason for a woman to have an abortion. Doesn’t matter that you were brutally raped or poorer than cockroach shit, you should still pop out your sprog. O.K., bitch, let’s level the playing field. Why not adopt these little mistakes if you’re so hyped to save a ‘life’? Put your money where your mouth is, you stupid conservative bovine. —Pro-Choice All The Way
This article appears in May 9-15, 2013.
testify bitcher, they don’t care about them once they’re born. so i guess you could call them pro-cells, or just plain old wingnuts
I hate the term “Pro-Life” I was actually going to write a bitch about the ridiculousness of this term.
Really, who isn’t “Pro Life?” Everyone agrees that life is better than death right? I mean besides suicidal people.
These people should call themselves what they are: anti-abortion.
It’s my theory that conservative politicians could give a crap if some woman gets an abortion. Their interest is in keeping the gap between rich an poor as wide as possible, but use the guise of moral integrity. They make me actually sick.
South of the border it’s even more ridiculous.
“ABSOLUTE FREEDOM…… unless you’re gay.. or poor.. or non-white.. or a woman… or any combination of those things..This is America darn it!”
pro-abortion is a foolish term too. conservative is okay…*waves at the commander*. religious right-wingnuts, anywhere, make me all kinds of squirrelly. looking your way, southern neighbours
How dare a woman think she can make her own life choices!!! Stupid women, don’t they know they are the property of the church and government.
I made it so this won’t happen to my cat.
you are a good man, charlie brown
Hay Painey *waves back*
I daresay there are Pro-Life and Pro-Choice people among the sexes, races, religion (or not), and political stripes. This issue is very personal to some and everyone has their right to their opinion. Contrary to what some believe (you know that secret agenda) the laws we have now will not be changing any time soon, if at all.
I used to mediate debates years ago in high school. This is the debate I avoided having been brought up at all. Waay too heated. Outside of that I’ll stay out of it.
I hear you there, Daniel. Pro-choice is my personal belief, but to duke it out with a “pro-lifer” would be fighting a losing battle. Kinda like the carnivore vs. vegetarian, same-sex marriage vs. traditional heterosexual marriage and death penalty vs. incarceration debates. When it comes to controversial subjects such as these, people tend to dig their heels in.
http://api.ning.com/files/O55D1Wr7*l*mLxs4…
Pro-choice idiots
Ob. You should consider the big picture. Sure, some women are victims of rape, incest, or poverty, but when was the last time you checked stats canada on abortions? In Canada, there are 43 abortions for every 100 live births.
No matter how you slice it, when the tragic stories are accounted for, there must still be a whole lot of narcicistic women out there. It is fucking sickening.
Women carry the burden, it’s their right to choose. Case closed!! hehe
Abortions for all!
BOO!
Very well, no abortions for anyone!
BOO!
Hmmm, abortions for some, miniature American flags for others!
YAY!
Personally I feel that there are plenty of valid reasons for abortion, birth-control just isn’t one of them.
– And –
What about Dad’s say in the matter? What if he does/doesn’t want an abortion?
That’s my troll for tonight.
I have to get a licence to drive a motorcycle to protect myself and the people around me. I am adamant there should be some sort of licensing required to have children. – Tim Allen
Does she have any adopted children?
I’m sure the answer is no. But i’d like to find out. Because unless you’re out there helping unwanted or disenfranchised kids, you don’t care about them that much.
in fact. I’d like to know if she’s ever given money to the IWK, Children’s Wish Foundation or the starving kids in Africa. Again, betting the answer is no.
Great Values cartoon – For The Win.
M.Kegg’s Simpsons reference- Honorable Mention .
Abortion as birth control, in a society this educated and this prosperous is as repugnant as it comes.
The only thing more repugnant would be granting the government the authority to condemn a woman to maternity for the supposed offense of “conception”
Maybe I’m just too apathetic and good-natured to truly be a “conservative” but the phrase “Mind Your Own Fucking Business” keeps coming to mind.
i found it http://cdn.iwastesomuchtime.com/9720121806…
Agreed. Abortion should not be used as a method of birth control, and the right to have an abortion is widely abused.
Fun fact: In Russia, abortion is the most widely used form of birth control. It’s not uncommon for some women to have had 6-10 abortions in their lives.
Happy Mother’s Day!
In NS does MSI cover abortions?
A PRO-CHOICE IDIOT
“She said there was no valid reason for a woman to have an abortion. Doesn’t matter that you were brutally raped or poorer than coackroach shit. you should still pop out your sprog.” Pro-Choice All The Way
One must remember that, for the poster, the pro-life woman was “stunned.” Why was she stunned? She was stunned because she claimed that there was no valid reason for a woman to have an abortion. Why would she say something like that? She would say something like that because she believed that the fetus was a human being – not yet autonomous in the sense that she could survive outside the womb – but a human being nonetheless. Now, how does the poster – let’s call him a “Pro-Choice Idiot” – demonstrate that this is an erroneous belief? How does the Pro-Choice Idiot show that the pro-life woman is stunned, that she is a stupid conservative bovine?
Briefly, he doesn’t. He doesn’t because he can’t. The pro-life woman, of course, is as aghast at anyone being brutally raped or being poorer than cockroach shit but – and this is the central point – for the pro-life woman it’s not about the woman, it’s about the human fetus. It has nothing to do with adoption, nothing to do with putting her money where her mouth is. It has everything to do with the preservation of human life, all human life.
Do you understand that, you stupid bovine Pro-Choice Idiot?
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
Who are you people to decide for someone else what a “valid reason” for an abortion is? Are you all self proclaimed moral and ethical experts? It’s pathetic to see educated people scramble to justify why they think they should be able to control the choices of others.
Why is this even an issue? Is there not some privacy to be expected between doctor/health professional and patient? Government should not be able to intervene with what is a decision between a woman and their doctor. As long as their are no ethical quandaries holding them back because of their hippocratic oath, I see no reason to force women to carry unwanted babies, just because some women are unable to have them.
“It has everything to do with the preservation of human life, all human life.” Don’t worry, MM. The human species will be just fine. Think about all the third world abortions that those Red Cross bastards perform, even without the financial help of the Canadian government. Just look at the populations of impoverished, third world, countries. There are a little over 7 billion people on this planet and it will take nothing short of an explosion, violent enough to completely vaporize the entire planet, to eradicate the human race. As Guy Laliberte has proven by purchasing his way to space, even the complete destruction of earth is not a guarantee that the human species will die with it.
Yes, abortions are covered under MSI if they are done in a hospital. Since there are no private clinics, all abortions are done in-hospital and covered.
In Ontario, OHIP covers hospital and clinic abortions.
RSVP
: Stephen Harper (05/12, 1:01PM)
“Don’t worry, MM. The human species will be just fine.”
I won’t worry about the human species, Stephen. I won’t worry because that was never the issue. What was the issue?
For the “stunned” pro-life woman, the “stupid conservative bovine” according to our Pro-Choice Idiot, the issue was never about the survival of the species. The issue was (and is) a moral one, the sanctity of human life itself, all human life without exception.
Now, that wasn’t too difficult to grasp, was it?
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
Thank you PK.
I do agree with those who suggested abortion shouldn’t be a form of birth control.Having said that;it’s no one’s business but my own if I want or need an abortion.
…As much as I absolutely love children;I don’t think I would have the emotional stability to raise a child conceived of rape….. Hats off to those women who would raise a child conceived out of such a hateful,power hungry act…..I don’t care how well that secret is hidden from the child;the child would sense a ‘cloud’ over their head for life and never understand why.
like several bitchers have typed, it’s no one’s freaking business. it’s done in a hospital, where it should be, not a special clinic. a clinic was blown up on harbord st in the 80’s, it draws the soapbox crazies
MM, the “sanctity of human life” is defined by the person making that decision, not by a bunch of pious subjugates on a mission to cram their definition down everyone’s throats, by force of “law”.
True dat, Bread Lady!
The location of the abortion service with capital health has to keep moving around the hospital complex around HRM for safety reasons and the location isn’t advertised. People who accompany you can’t go in.
One thing that is unacceptable is the fact that you HAVE to come to Halifax to get an abortion. It can be an expensive trip to Halifax from Cape Breton or Yarmouth. And in PEI, you can’t get one without leaving the island and doctors tend to be reluctant to send referrals. Apparently, you need two referrals in PEI to have the procedure covered.
I’m not 100% on the specifics, but I had a friend in Women’s studies that studied this and we were chatting about it once.
Anyone see/read Freakonomics where they hypothosize that the reduction in crime rates in the late 80s/early 90/ is due to abortion becoming available in the early 70s? Interesting theory.
In answer to the person who mentioned …what about ‘dad’s’ rights … he has none, there is no ‘baby’ to be the dad of yet !
I have always believed that each of us as indiviuals should be free to make decissions for ourselves.
Right or wrong opinions on these decissions does not IMO enter into this right.
Those who believe that abortion is wrong, I have no problem with that .
If ever you are gang raped, abused or told having a child will probably kill you & you still decide you are going to do so …so be it , that is your decission & IMO, YOU should be allowed to do as you wish.
If you simply forgot to put a condom on & now you need to have that pesky little fetus removed , IMO YOUR decission & you should not only be allowed to make that decission, you should have access to all the medical help you need … just like the person who decides to carry the fetus to term.
There are far too many people sticking their noses way too far into the business of others , with Government becoming way too big a participant in this as well these days ….
my 2 cents.
It’s the same ol same ol for me. If the enormous burden of human overpopulation and the toll it takes on the limited resources we have leads to the immense suffering and death for billions of people, aren’t we morally obliged NOT to save every last human being at this time. Am I being cruel, heartless, inhuman? Not to the folks living in the year 2150. Or do we matter more than them. We are meant to die, we’re mortal, we’re part of the biosphere. Trying to live to 150, cure every single disease is like cutting off the branch you’re sitting on.
Yes I have people I love and I don’t want to see them die but they will and so will I. I’m not going to try and squeeze every last drop of life out of myself with drugs and therapy so I can exist for an extra six months.
So abortion, the expunging of an unwanted fetus is probably sensible in the stark reality of things. Sad but true. Besides, how far do you take this? Outlaw masturbation? Legislate unprotected daily sex for all women? Every chance missed, every drop of sperm wasted is denying the possible existence of somebody. That person doesn’t exist not because of someone’s actions as in abortion but because of someone’s inaction. What’s the real difference?
Ok. I have a legit question for everyone on here who says they’re pro-choice but they disagree with abortion being used as a form of birth control…..why?
So you’re saying it’s ok to abort – but only under certain circumstances (ie. a one-off, or two-off or if there’s a really, really, good reason…). Isn’t that essentially like saying you only believe in abortion for cases of abuse or incest? Different, of course, but the same in that abortion is only ok under certain circumstances – whatever those circumstances are deemed to be.
I’m not being facetious, honestly. I’m just curious how many people have truly and honestly examined their reasons for their beliefs.
Let’s say you’re pro-choice because a) you believe in a woman’s right to exercise control over her own body; and
b) you don’t consider a fetus or embryo to be a human being.
In my experience most of those who are pro-choice identify this way because of both a and b.
So then if the embryo or fetus isn’t actually a human being but a bunch of cells, why does it matter how often it is “aborted”? Or for that matter, why does it matter why someone chooses to abort something if it’s only a bunch of cells?
Why do we place a value judgment on an individual choice when we’re (us pro-choicers who believe a & b) only talking about a bunch of cells here?
I mean, do we disagree with using abortion as a form of birth control because such a procedure is rather serious and undergoing it willy-nilly is irresponsible because it’s a fairly extensive procedure?
But then who is it irresponsible for? For the person undergoing the procedure? But if you believe in a person’s right to have ultimate say over their being, what does it matter how often they harm themselves, especially if no one else is harmed in the process?
Or is it because the procedure, if done in hospital, is covered by taxpayers?
Or is it something else I’m missing….?
Is it because as a society, many of us are still pretty uncomfortable with killing something like a fetus even if we say it’s not really a person because, as Reg LeCrisp said, it’s a (really close) possible existence of a person – an almost-person? Do we feel that aborting casually is a slap in the face of the miracle of human life?
I *think* if we’re really honest with ourselves, it’s difficult for any of us to pinpoint exactly why this makes us uncomfortable.
I’m no philosopher or MM stand-in but I am curious what others think…….should this (aborting as birth control) make us uncomfortable or is that being contradictory?
Excellent points and questions, Kelifax. Particularly where you said “Do we feel that aborting casually is a slap in the face of the miracle of human life?”
I’m not sure if my post will answer any of those questions because they are very thought provoking and could be discussed at great length in and of themselves and it’s almost 1:00 AM.
It depends on when you would determine that a life has actually stared. That is the main point of contention I think between pro-life and pro-choice people, socially and legally.
‘Pro-life’ folks generally say it’s conception. But by that logic, shouldn’t we stop using condoms and IUD’s and birth-control pills? If your argument is that a single celled organism is human because it carries human genetic code, then killing sperm and eggs, or denying them the opportunity to fertilize during intercourse, isn’t really any different than having an abortion.
Abortions, such as the ones performed in Canadian hospitals, do not happen to fully formed fetus’. They happen to very small clusters of matter that will become human (in my opinion) if given the opportunity to mature into an infant. At the stage of pregnancy in which abortions are possible (12-14 weeks and under), the embryo doesn’t have very many human characteristics yet. No brain, no independent pulse, no bones.
But it will. Eventually. And that’s where the controversy is.
My Opinion:
If the woman was raped or if she’s too young to have a child or if she’s a fully grown adult who had consensual sex with a loving partner but is not ready/willing to take on that kind of a responsibility (hey, mistakes happen!) There’s no difference. She should have the support of the man who helped put her in the position to have to make a choice that no one ever really makes lightly and she should feel confident and comfortable seeking medical help without interference.
It’s simple, cost to the tax payers.If I’m footin’ the bill for a 16 year(or whatever age) old to go and get an abortion a few times a year, fucking rights I should have a say in whether or not abortion should be used as birth control….If mommy or daddy is covering the cost for little Mary to get abortions;that’s none of my business.
Little Mary should be getting free birth control from Planned Parenthood(?).These days there are many different forms of birth control which are extremely less costly for the tax payers.
At the end of the day, Rex from the city shouldn’t have a say in Suzy-down-the-streets decision to terminate a pregnancy. If we didn’t provide safe, clean environments to facilitate an abortion, that does not, by any stretch of the imagination, mean that abortions would stop taking place.
hoist Hypothetically speaking,..because we all know there’s a chance this could happen …you could set up an abortion clinic in your spare bedroom of your 2 bedroom apartment and perform Suzy’s abortion without proper tools and sterilization available.Little Suzy dies.Hoist gets charged with manslaughter.
If proper tools are not against the law while performing abortions,who says a real doctor must perform them?
Birth control isn’t free from the Halifax Sexual Health Centre (this is what Planned Parenthood in Halifax is called now) except for condoms and condoms aren’t always the most effective form of birth control in comparison to methods like contraceptive pills, depo shot, IUD, etc…. BUT contraceptive pills, depo shot, IUD, etc… is low(er) cost there. A few years back a friend of mine was on nuva ring and her insurance didn’t cover it so she went there and got it cheaper than the pharmacy’s price.
Thing is, MSI doesn’t cover birth control. It’s Family Pharmacare program will cover 80% of SOME prescription contraceptive pills, but that’s only if you’re approved for the program and only once you’ve paid your deductible, so WHY should MSI (funded by tax payers) be paying for those who use abortion as birth control? I don’t really think it’s a widespread problem like it is in other parts of the world, but until the government ponies up for other contraceptive methods, I don’t see why abortion should be covered for that purpose.
It’s really hard to police that kind of thing, though, so there’s really no sense in getting worked up about it because people are going to do what they’re going to do and it’s all legit in the eyes of the government. Doesn’t mean the taxpayer can’t have an opinion on how their money is being spent.
If we had private clinics that people paid for, I have no problem in saying that I’d have no right to voice an opinion in how someone uses abortion for birth control, but since my tax dollars are going to fund someone’s method of contraception when the government doesn’t pay for my IUD and/or contraceptive pills along with condoms and any other form of birth control, why should people who are irresponsible (yes it’s IRRESPONSIBLE to have multiple abortions) get their choice of contraception covered by tax dollars?
@Kelifax
1) My being pro-choice has absolutely nothing to do with “a womans right to control her own body”. In fact, for me, fymynyst sloganeering is the weakest argument for abortion. I’m just enough of a cranky old righty-whitey male to believe that “rights” go hand in hand with “responsibilities” – as in, abortion is a last resort. If you’re in control of your body enough to have casual sex,
you’re in control enough to prevent conception. Or should be.
After all, if “No Means No” can be invoked at any point in the rutting process, surely “No I Don’t Want To Get Knocked Up” should be just as inviolable a principle.
I would dearly love to see a statistical breakdown on who is getting abortions and why. My perception, my stereotype if you prefer, is that rape, incest, faulty birth control are a very small percentage. I can’t shake the image that the majority of recipients are educated, professional, upper middle class Carries & Samanthas, treating it like just another form of nip’ntuck. And, if the number of children pushing strollers I see on public transit is anything to go by, the people who SHOULD be terminating their pregnancies – AREN’T .
This is one of those times when I would dearly love to be proven wrong, but the evidence needs to be pretty damned compelling. Something a little more substantial than a rhyming couplet that begins “Hey Hey, Ho Ho…”
2)The simple fact is I DON”T KNOW if a fetus is a human being. I really don’t. This treads into scientific, moral, philosophical territory where I have no firm footing.
I’ve had my fill of people who get their knickers in a twist over Styrofoam burger containers and Tims cups tossed into ditches but casually flush out something that is only classed as a person, once the cord has been snipped.
Unless ,of course, you try to light up smoke in front of an expectant Mother.
“HOW DARE YOU POISON WHAT WOULD UNDER LESS CONVENIENT CIRCUMSTANCES BE A NON-VIABLE CELLULAR MASS TRESPASSING IN MY GRAVID WOMB”
In the same way that Lefties get tired of people opposing abortion, but supporting capital punishment – this presents a logical contradiction that gets increasingly infuriating as the voices on both sides grow in stridency.
So, at the end of the day, I’m pro-choice and anti-abortion. I’m pro-choice because it is the lesser of a whole bunch of evils, the most heinous being that I do not think the government is competent to have that power over individuals.
And, since I’m footing the bill, I have no intention of relinquishing my doubts, my repugnance or my right to attempt to fit the issue into my own particular moral framework.
Your questions are legitimate ones. I hope my answers are the same.
Kelifax, my reason is this: abortion is a surgical procedure that requires OR time. The OR time, as well as the cost of the doctor, materials and instruments used to complete the procedure, is not cheap. It is at the expense of the, already strained, health care budget. Also, With any surgical procedure comes risks… bleeds, clots, infection, internal scarring, etc. if any surgery can be avoided, it should be. There are so many ways to prevent pregnancy. With sex comes responsibility. With that said, no method of birth control is 100% effective, so ‘mistakes’ happen. I don’t feel that a women should be forced to give birth to a child if the condom broke or she was part of the 4 or 5 percent failure rate of the pill. I also don’t believe in the idea that “abortion is wrong because so many women out there are unable to have children”. That’s unfortunate for those women who want kids, but can’t have them; however, it is not the burden of women who can.
I would like to pick a side to be on for this topic. Let me know who cycles the most and I will back their point of view.
RSVPs
: Stephen Harper (05/12, 6:45PM)
“MM, the ‘sanctity of human life’ is defined by the person making the decision, not by a bunch of pious subjugates on a mission to cram their definition down everyone’s throats by force of ‘law'”.
Well, I’m glad you cleared that up Stephen. It’s good to know that the “sanctity of human life” is not based on a principled moral position as was the case with the stunned, stupid conservative bovine but rather it’s all just up to the whim of the person making that decision.
But, of course, Stephen, one does wonder just how you knew this. Since you give no grounds to support your claim, by what intuitive deliverance did you come to realize that the “sanctity of human life” is not based on a fundamental moral principle directing human action after all, but rather is based on the the whim of the person making that choice? Stephen, I think I know.
While claiming that the pro-lifers are little more than a “bunch of pious subjugates” – I’m not sure just what that might mean, Stephen, but it doesn’t sound very nice – what you have done is simply to legislate, without appeal, YOUR OWN definition of that source of the “sanctity of human life,” albeit with rather severe qualifications. In other words, Stephen, you yourself have become just another “pious subjugate” but with the embedded, unannounced and contrasting claim that the “sanctity of human life” does not exist at all. It is a chimera, a delusion. It does not, after all, rest on a basic moral principle underlying all human activity but rather it is like everything else in the mad rush to proclaim the primacy of individual choice, of unrestrained egotistical human expression. As a consequence, the “sanctity of human life” has become little more than an expendable ornament, perhaps like a new car or even a smart pair of shoes. This the view, Stephen, that you seem to be on a mission to cram down everyone’s throats by force of law which, by the way, currently embodies precisely your view.
Of course Stephen, in rejecting the entire concept of a fundamental moral principle guiding and constitutive of human activity, a principle which happens to elevate man above the level of the beasts of the field and one which makes him human, your claim reduces to the unrestrained pursuit of mun-mun and fun-fun which, of course, is the current bottom line in our blinkered, superficial, pragmatic and materialistic society.
However Stephen, there are those who, in the hope of bestowing dignity on the life of man, reject this claim. For them Stephen, society must rest upon moral principle. Otherwise, so they claim, our lives are without meaning, without significance. Our lives become little more than delusional orgy of consumption, little more than an evanescent chimera.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
Masturbation is MURDER!
nothing puts a smile on my face and a cringing of my soul more than seeing the Stupidity that is the term “sanctity of human life”
To those who love to use that stupid catch phrase … Are you all daft ?
We allow 25000+ babies/children that have been born …. no one aborted these children… to die each year in Africa alone for a simple lack of medications which would cost no more than .50 cents a child !
We are in wars, police actions, conflicts in more than 60 places on this globe right now leading to the deaths of thousands of men woman & children.
What do a majority of the so called caring religious people do in our societies? They waste our focus on, picking on women who feel they do not wish to attempt to carry a fetus to term.
THere are far larger problems in the world that really need to be fixed.
And just an FYI to those self righteous assholes who claim “their” tax dollars are paying for abortions ….well the person who is getting an abortion is also a tax payer & there are tax supported infrastructure, you use ,that they don’t wish to support either .
PK Thanks for the info.
30 years ago(when I was a teenager), then Planned Parenthood did cover the cost of the birth control pill.
The Sanctity of Human Life + Unrestrained Egotistical Human Expression:
Regarding the Human Ego… What about the rest of life? What’s an abortion to the near complete slaughter of a species? We’ll need to understand what Life is in order for this debate to reach a conclusion.
Which is more important… The right and ability of an individual to do whatever they want with their body, or the strict preservation of life?
My answer would be to allow a woman total freedom with her own body, as is her right, but to also expect that the responsibility of maintaining life, as well as quality of life, be paramount and without restraint from the selfish limits of the human ego.
What bugs me SOOOO much is how all pro-lifers think all pro-choicers are pro-abortion and would have an abortion themselves. I may be pro-choice, but that doesn’t mean I would ever have an abortion. I just happen to think women shouldn’t be told what they can and can’t do with their bodies.
“A woman should have total freedom with her body.”
Why is suicide illegal? If your dying or you just don’t want to live for some reason,one should have the right to take their own life if the quality of their life is nil.
In the case of suicide humans do not have freedom with their own bodies.
Also, those in favour of abortion — are there limits on the type of abortion?
For instance: I don’t think abortion should take place (if at all possible, I realize there are exceptions) after the embryo turns into a fetus (the second trimester). And partial-birth abortions are just reprehensible (google it, guys).
And what about abortion methods? There is some evidence to show that some fetuses can feel pain of being terminated when certain methods are used (such as saline-based methods). I’m not an expert on abortion and abortion methods, but there are stories of babies who have survived abortion attempts. I think I remember reading about one girl who is missing a hand from a failed attempt to abort her.
It’s FAR from cut and dry, and while I have stated I’m pro-choice, I do think abortion does become all out murder at some points (for instance, the partial birth abortion).
It’s also interesting to note that the gestation period of a fetus has been steadily declining for the past few hundred years. Women used to carry a child for 10-11 months, allowing for more development inside the womb (also the cause of more birth related deaths due to larger babies). But due to more secure locations for birthing and raising a child gestation has decreased to allow for more development outside the womb (which is why we’re getting taller!).
The point is, we have functioning bodies long before we’re expelled into the universe.
suicide is not illegal in canada http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_legis…
Why is this being debated? Women thave the right to choose in Canada….
I actually get what MM is getting at, and agree. I’m as surprised as everyone else.
Why can’t abortion be used as birth control? That what it is, isn’t it? What matter if a person has 1 abortion or 100? If its a cost thing or something along those lines I understand why people would be up in arms about it.
Cranky dear… you’re debating…
Someone has the right to get as many abortions as they want, just as someone has to the right to say whatever they want. Doesn’t mean I personally have to agree with or respect their decision, epecially when I’m paying for it. Just as I can’t infringe on someone’s choice to raise a child even if I question their readiness/ability to do so.
What do you guys think of a “you get (x amount) on the tax payer dime and after that, unless you’ve been raped or something, you foot the bill” type of policy?
I don’t think I’d be for it but it’s an interesting idea. But I mean if someone can have multiple heart surgeries on the taxpayer dime even though they choose to keep living unhealthy lifestyles, I don’t see how that’s any different.
“What do you guys think of a “you get (x amount) on the tax payer dime and after that, unless you’ve been raped or something, you foot the bill” type of policy?”
I agree, but only if that idea went for everything to do with Healthcare. You have ‘X’ amount of dollars, do not exceed! I liked your example of unhealthy people who have heart attacks and are continuously admitted to hospitals, despite the individual making no attempts to mitigate the effects their unhealthy lifestyle has on the healthcare system.
You can’t eat at McDick’s everyday if you’re saving the money for your next triple by-pass.
How much does it cost for an hour of hospital time to receive 7 stitches? That would be my bill for the last 5 years.
IS THE HUMAN FETUS A TURD?
RSVPs
: More (05/13, 10:31AM)
The reason your soul cringes when encountering the stupid catchphrase “the sanctity of human life” is simply because you are incapable of distinguishing what actually happens in the world from what ought to happen, i.e., the realm of empirical fact from the realm of moral principle. Indeed, in your lobotomized view, there is no realm of moral principle. I know you will not understand that.
: Tartan Tyrant (11:01AM)
“Regarding the Human Ego… What happens about the rest of life?”
Under the current dispensation there is no “rest of life”.
In the absence of the moral dimension, the demands of the Human Ego is all that there is. I know you will not understand that.
: Pretty Kitty (05/13, 11:09AM)
I also don’t think that the woman should be told what to do with her body either but that is irrelevant to the issue. All I wanted to say was that abortion is ultimately a moral question. Either you believe in the sanctity of all human life, regardless of its particular stage of development, or you don’t. If you do, you appeal to that moral principle; if you don’t you appeal to something else, something like unrestrained individual choice. I know you will not understand that.
: Mister Meaty (1:18PM)
Everyone is debating it because abortion contains a moral dimension which transcends the fact that women happen to have the right to choose in Canada. That fact is irrelevant to the moral question. I know you will not understand that.
: Cranky (1:27PM)
I was surprised that you understood that.
So there’s the question: Is the human fetus a turd, something which can be expelled without remorse or reflection or is there, perhaps, something else going on?
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
IS THE HUMAN FETUS A TURD?
RSVPs
: More (05/13, 10:31AM)
The seasoning of your nether hole whinges when bantering about the cupidity of Pinochet’s obsession with the “sad titties of a Roman wife.” It’s limply basking in a bowl of vichysoisse and capable of extinguishing the factual slapping of your whorled bottom. Aiieee – that scene from “In the Realm of the Senses” ! The deed where Ishida’s knob and wobblies are removed by a certain amoral comfort girl. I wish I had not seen that.
: Tartan Tyrant (11:01AM)
“Regarding the Human Ego… What happens about the rest of life?”
Thunder from the ruritanian desolation proves there is no “Best of Show”.
Speed is of the the essence if the boreal henchmen are to acquire the Depends which this man dons in lieu of a Speedo when windsurfing. I know you wish you had not pictured that.
: Pretty Kitty (05/13, 11:09AM)
I also don’t think that a woman should be told what to do with her body unless it involves her being ordered from this place and brought round to my place. All agreed that I wanted a larger portion as in “La Grand Bouffe” Either you retrieve the candidly placed panties, regardless of their granicular state of embalming or you mope. If I appeal to your carnal mandibles, then steal a glance at my protuberance with unrestrained proverbial chaos. I know you want to.
: Mister Meaty (1:18PM)
Everyone is beating it because the torsion sustains a glottal intercession which portends that act which women have the obligation to perform on me. That act is prevalent amongst your inverted milieu. I know you command a high price to enact it.
: Cranky (1:27PM)
I surmised that your undergarments withstood it.
So, there’s the stetson: Is the mutant boletus demurred, something which can excel without recourse to genuflection, or is there a pair of chaps, with my name written on.
My nethers crave foreplay.
Belleau Wood!
Thanks Painy
I’m just gonna refrain from commenting on this Bitch.
Card carrying member of the “Somerville Army”, MM?
i’ve always though there was a direct correlation between believing in god and being pro-life. am i wrong?
feck *thought*
Abortion policy in Nazi Germany had nothing to do with either god or choice. Simply put, a woman’s body was considered to be the “property” of the state and her “duty” was to produce children for the Reich. Providing abortions to “aryan” women was a capital crime. Yet, abortion was mandatory in cases where the the fetus was determined to be deformed or would produce a handicapped child or was the product of a union with a “non-aryan”. When Germany invaded Poland one of the first measures undertaken was to overturn the proscription on abortion and to actively ” encourage” them for Polish women. God, or religion had nothing to do with this.
Disclaimer: I really hate dragging a Nazi parallel onto an abortion argument and only do so because it is an area of personal expertise and relevant solely as a view of past history and most emphatically not as a comment on current policies. Likewise, my use of Nazi terminology is not to be interpreted as support for or approval of their actions, goals and philosophy.
i’m speaking of the present
IS MONTREALMANS MORAL COMPASS AN ANUS?
Why would morals be absent when animals enter into the debate? Oh right, montrealman doesn’t believe animals have the ability to discern right and wrong and are completely devoid of ego.
Maybe for you, montrealman, your ego is all that there is in the world.
“HIER ICH STEHE, ICH KANN NICHT ANDERS.” (Martin Luther)
RSVPs
: Pennis Playdoh (05/13, 7:00PM)
An excellent parody, Penis. I think I’m beginning to see the philosophical subtext. I’m beginning to see it as an existential “cri de coeur,” a railing against the emptiness and meaninglessness of life in the absence of that moral dimension which bestows on man his humanity. Am I right?
: WHATACROCK (7:17PM)
Would you like a drum roll with that?
: Stephen Harper (7:35PM)
I’m not sure if you could call me a “card-carrying member of the Somerville Army” Stephen, if by that you mean it in some passive, follow-the-leader sort of way but I congratulate you on seeing the similarity. Regardless of any extra-moral factors, she does maintain that some things – abortion being one – are intrinsically wrong and they are wrong because they are intrinsically immoral. But here “immoral” is not to be understood in some narrow sectarian or religious sense but rather it gestures to that fundamental principle contained in the phrase the “sanctity of human life” at whatever stage of development it may have attained.
: Paingirl (7:44PM)
Yes.
(8:11PM)
You can’t really mean that.
: Ethan Edwards (05/14, 6:45AM)
It is not obvious how Nazi practices relating to the morality of abortion can be seen as relevant at all, whether “solely as a view of past history,” or in any other sense in which the term might be coherently used. Perhaps you meant those practices as a counter-example of such morality, as a particular example of immorality, in which case I agree entirely. While not as stark as your Nazi example, some might view the comments in support of abortion on this thread, whether from the perspective of economic or personal convenience, as being of the same generic sort.
Disclaimer: I am not trying to persuade or convert anyone about anything. I am not trying to encourage anti-abortion legislation. I am talking at another level, the level of philosophical morality, the level at which the question of abortion resides. All I am doing is proclaiming my views on that inescapable moral dimension. As Martin Luther said in another context: “Here I stand, I can do no other.”
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
RSVP
:TartanTyrant (05/14, 8:44AM)
Now stop it TartanTyrant, stop it right now.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
People moralizing over abortion are ridiculous. Who cares how a woman got pregnant, if she wants to abort that’s her choice. Personally I think abortion should be encouraged in cases of teen pregnancies.
And now cue some whiner who will regale us about how his teen mother almost aborted him/her and hypotheticals about aborting the next Mozart.
RSVP
i<3blastbeats (05/14, 9:53AM)
Yes of course, blastbeats, we should stop moralizing over abortion and you’re absolutely right, we should encourage abortion among teen pregnancies.
But my question is, what about the Jews? Where are the Jews? Shouldn’t we “encourage” abortion in the cases of Jews?
You buffoon.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
Whoa, whoa, whoa…. The Captain didn’t realize that you were advocating for teen abortions, blastbeats, but I guess that’s the consequence of skipping posts. I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that you know nothing about female anatomy or physiology?
The Captain is forced to agree with montrealman….
You buffoon
Now go throw yourself overboard
What does anatomy have to do with this? Teenagers, rate exceptions aside, are not usually prepared to deal with parenthood. Just because you are physically capable of creating life doesn’t mean doing so is a good idea. A 16 year old girl has literally nothing to offer as a parent and more often than not they and their child will end up receiving money from the state to subsist. I’d rather aborted fetus’ than children living in poverty being raised by substandard parents or becoming wards of the state.
i would much rather a female have an abortion, than to bring unwanted children into the world. her choice
Agreed Painey.
We really need a strong Christian influence on these boards.
RSVPs
: Captain (05/14, 4:15PM)
You tell ’em, Captain.
: 1<3blasbeats (6:18PM)
You’re right, anatomy has nothing to do with the first principle of morality, the sanctity of human life. But then neither does your view that you would prefer aborting a human fetus so that the child will not live in poverty, being raised by substandard parents or becoming wards of the state. You are unable to engage the realm of morality. I know that you will never understand that.
: paingirl (6:55PM)
But what is your preference for abortion as opposed to bringing an unwanted child into the world based on? Is it simply a feeling? Well, what is that based on? Do you want me to tell you? Your preference is based on a collapsed moral dimension – those who support the view might be called “moral flat-liners” – with the consequence that such moral principles as the sanctity of human life have no meaning. They have no existence. Your opinion – your whim – is all that there is. There is nothing else. There is only a moral vacuum.
: Reg Le Crisp (10:24PM)
That’s nice that you agree with paingirl but it is irrelevant. Morality is not a matter of agreement, of consensus. There was consensus in Germany of the 1930’s about the Jews, the Slavs and all the rest. Did that make it right?
: Kirk Patrick Kirkpatrick (5/15, 8:31AM)
Christianity, or any other religion, has nothing to do with morality, you buffoon. The realm of the moral transcends the here-and-now, including religion.
My view of the moral absolute as embodied in the sanctity of the human fetus in the present case is not simply based on a personal preference which, in the absence of supporting grounds, necessarily reduces to a whim. Rather it is based, as you might have supposed, on philosophy. Without an absolute moral baseline all “morality” reduces to “situation ethics,” i.e. something is right or wrong depending on the situation in which it is found. But, as a moral foundation “situation ethics” then necessarily reduces to relativism. “Everything is relative,” so the cry goes up. But, one might ask, relative to what? To say that it is relative to the situation is to reason in a circle. There has to be some basis which exists outside the situational circle else all morality collapses as, for example, it has done here in the case of abortion. Nothing exists beyond one’s personal preference, one’s unsupported whim. We have become moral flat-liners, morally lobotomized.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
“What does anatomy have to do with this?” – I wonder what anatomy has to do with pulling something out of a woman’s uterus? Gee, I dunno, maybe the physical implications of tinkering with teenage vaginas that are a) still going through puberty, b) possibly susceptible to permanent damage c) likely to be at least a little emotionally troubled by this, and d) If they form a habit like this when they’re young there could be side effects from multiple abortions over their life.
I understand that it’s totally their decision. Unfortunately teenagers (especially young teens) are often not educated enough to make proper decisions for themselves. Advocating for the promotion of teen abortions is not a good idea! I know there’s some nurses on this board, maybe they could shed some light on possible side effects of multiple abortions in teenage subjects.
I’m pro-choice, blastbeats, but you’ve got a potentially catastrophic idea.
You’re subjecting others to your personal view of what quality of life means, and how it is measured. So you don’t want a child born into relative squalor. Good. We’ll abort children if they fall below an established economic threshold, below which they’d likely be unable to achieve proper quality of life. By that measure most developing countries populations should be aborted, because usually neither the parent nor the state can properly care for these children.
“I’d rather aborted fetus’ than children living in poverty being raised by substandard parents or becoming wards of the state.” – Clearly your mind was stuck in neutral when you had this thought. Or do you think this debate relates strictly to Canada? There are millions of children living in poverty worldwide. You’d want them all aborted? Well, at the very least it would do something positive for the food crisis.
Captain
Not to go on a tangent here but you should look into the causes of the food crisis. There is more than enough food grown each year to feed the world population it’s just politics and economics that stop it from getting around evenly. Also, every year massive amounts of food that can’t be shipped and or doesn’t have a buyer gets thrown out. Hundreds of tons of it, all around the world. It’s completelty liason and runs on the dollar. Welcome to the machine.
As for how abortion can relate to third world countries I have no doubt that women there would be having them done by doctors if there were enough of them there that could be afforded.
PHILOSOPHY, MORALITY, AND THE SANCTITY OF HUMAN LIFE
What is the relationship between philosophy, morality and the sanctity of human life? For some on this thread philosophy has been confounded with religion with the result that identifying morality with the sanctity of human life has become seen as little more than the ravings of a religious zealot. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Religion is based upon belief in religious dogma, what is called “revealed truth.” To be a member of a particular religion one must accept that dogma or cease to be a member of that particular faith. That has nothing to do with philosophy. (Some may claim that Thomas Aquinas’ “proofs” for the existence of God constitute “philosophy” but that is little more than what is formally – and rightly – called “Apologetics.”)
Rather than the simple acceptance of revealed truth, the practice of philosophy is fundamentally a rational exercise. It asks only two questions: “What do you mean?” and “How do you know?” In brief, it embodies the demands of reason. Reason is not to be confused with empirical evidence about the phenomena of the natural world. Philosophy is not religion but it is not science either. For philosophy all that is required is the absence of self-contradiction, of incoherence. Whether one accepts the demands of reason is a matter of judgement which, in turn, itself rests on further demands of reason. To fail to give reasons is not just being incoherent, it is being irrational. It is being mindless, in the fullest sense of that word. If the demand is for some “ism” appropriate to philosophy, it would not be any religion but rather “humanism”, an “ism” in which man, in particular his mind, is the measure of all things and where, by “measure,” is to be understood the activity and products of rational reflection, of his mind. To reject thought is to reject rationality and is to reject man himself. So then, what is “morality”?
Morality consists of the outcome of rational inquiry into the principles of right action. As with religion, since philosophy proceeds by rational reflection alone, it also rejects those factors which are extrinsic to the act of that rational inquiry, i.e. as in the present case, pragmatic considerations such as the well-being of the mother and so on. It is not that philosophy is indifferent to the suffering of the woman or the child if abortion is rejected but rather that the principles of morality must be intrinsic to that rational inquiry itself. Everything else, as I have maintained, may be the case but they are irrelevant to the principles of right action, to the principles of rational inquiry into right action. So what is that fundamental principle of morality accessible to the powers of the mind, to the powers of rational inquiry?
That fundamental moral principle, one not reducible to any further principle or any other consideration but rather one where rational inquiry into the principles of right action ends, is the principle of the sanctity of human life. It is the foundational baseline of all moral consideration. Others have proposed different foundational baselines but scrutiny of those proposals has yielded insuperable difficulties.
For example, the American “post-modernist” philosopher Richard Rorty (“Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature”) claimed that the endpoint of rational inquiry into the principles of right action boiled down to the injunction, “Don’t be cruel.” But the question then arises as to just of what such “cruelty” might consist. In the present instance, which would more “cruel,” aborting the child or letting is live in poverty? The difficulty is that the concept of “cruelty” does not contain the criteria for its own application. By itself, the concept is impotent to determine the principles of right action, of acting morally. It fails to resolve the moral dilemma contained in the issue of abortion.
It therefore appears that the only principle which will not collapse rational inquiry into the principles of right action is that of “the sanctity of human life.” Everything else follows from it.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
my keptin, i wasn’t typing about money, i’m speaking of forcing a women to give birth to a child that won’t be loved or nurtured. montrealman, i think your jealous because you can’t give birth, too bad, so sad, please don’t talk to me
Abraham, you are correct. Between dictators and greenies, it’s a wonder any food gets to those who need it. The dictators by stealing, charging, graft, etc and the greenies fearmongering about frankenfoods, farming methods, etc.
It’s been a dark humor kinda day for The Captain. That comment wasn’t aimed at you paingirl, I apologize for the collateral damage.
I’ve heard a similar tale, Daniel. Apparently we’ve enough food to feed the world for a year, but wouldn’t be able to sustain that system once stockpiles emptied. As for your other point… unfortunately you’re probably right. Some women in terrible positions like that might jump at the chance for an abortion.
And yeah, BroTim, everyone’s greedy or scared.
The Captain’s digging the philosophy
i’m not scared or greedy, just angry^^
RSVPs
: paingirl (05/15,4:51PM)
Well, that’s an interesting comment pg, I’m jealous because I can’t give birth. It looks like you’ve discovered my secret. But I don’t see the connection between my secret and “please don’t talk to me.” Does this request apply to all males who cannot give birth or only to me? Would you want to talk about it?
: Captain (7:36PM)
I’m glad you’re digging the philosophy Captain. That’s the best approach. Of course, it all depends on what you mean by “digging.” Is it more than simple enjoyment? Is there some further dimension involved in your digging it? Do you want to talk about it?
: paingirl (7:57PM)
I notice that this comment was posted three hours after your previous one, pg. It sounds like you really have a head of steam built up. Anger, of course, is the death of rational dialogue as I’m sure you agree. Would you want to talk about it? (And just don’t say “No.” Remember, in doing philosophy we’ve always got to give reasons, in this case those relating to just why you are angry.)
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
Montrealman: I’m in no way suggesting that abortions should be mandatory or forced upon young and/or impoverished women. But the option should always be there. I believe that every person should have the right to do with their life and their body as they choose. That being said I wish more people would look at the larger picture when deciding to have children. I also strongly believe that developing countries need better access to contraceptives and sexual education.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Just because you are biologically capable of reproducing doesn’t mean that it is a good idea.
I’m talking about shipping bro Tim
Did you get that, or am I on a tangent
Daniel, shipping isn’t the problem. there are enough planes, trains, and automobiles (okay a movie tangent) and ships to get food to where it is needed. It is the receiving at the end that is the problem.
RSVP
: 1<3blastbeats (05/16, 3:50PM)
The reference to forced abortions for young women was “Captain’s” point, not mine. My point throughout the debate related to the morality of abortion itself and was based on the claim that the moral principle – that of the “sanctity of human life” – ruled out all abortions of whatever sort at whatever stage of development.
This, of course, is not a currently popular position. The moral principle serves to reject the claim, which you obviously support, that “every person should have the right to do with their life and their body as they choose.” Now your use of the word “ought” implies a moral injunction. It is a universal moral command, but on what ultimate grounds is it made?
In response I would say that this right to choose does not extend to the living human fetus which, in effect, is NOT part of their body and so their right to do with it as they choose is overturned. Freedom of choice, which I take to be your baseline moral principle, does not extend to the extinction of human life.
My further point was related to the popular inability to even recognize a moral domension which transcends individual freedom of choice. It is not that people recognize the moral domain and then reject it but – so ingrained is this current egocentrical view- that they are unable even to recognize its existence.
As I have recently stated, the recognition of this moral domain is not religiously inspired. Rather, it is the result of philosophical reflection into the nature of morality itself, the recognition both that morality is open to rational scrutiny and that the buck must stop somewhere – in this case, with the principle of the “sanctity of human life.”
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
I fail to see how you can claim your belief in the sanctity if human life yet state it is a secular in nature. When you eliminate religious belief from the equation how you can conclude that human life is sacred. That is a loaded term. To follow your stance through to its logical conclusion you must adhere to a moral code similar to the Jain religion. I take the viewpoint that human life is not sacrosanct and in the grand scheme of things no more or less important than that of a fish or a bird or my dog.
RSVP
: i
RSVP
: i<3blastbeats 05/17 4:15 PM
“Your failure to see how I can claim a belief in the sanctity of human life yet state it is secular in nature rests on your antecedent failure to distinguish morality from religion. “
In other worlds, my Spongebob Squarepants briefs – laced with emissions and indigenous smegma, retarded by the lack of any particular sexual perversions I might invoke- provide, not merely, support for a well-rounded set of buttocks, but I view the stains as an ointment for proctological flagellation. Gastrological eructations are not merely fiddle music (i.e. space based phazymes caused by a diet rich in legumes) but functional in relieving stress upon the aperture that produces the volumes of my thought itself. I see my nonconformist flatulence amazes you.
You mustn’t fear to be poorly hung when the command “Get Naked” rears it’s immutable invitation to scornful jeering. For example, one can pray “I’m b-b-b-b bad to the bone” without applying a phallophobic approbation. In this context I used Lasik surgery to appear more monumental in my own eyes. No baby magma here, anymore.
My broadening arse forever laments the scarcity of “Roamin’ in the Gloamin'” 78s and perceives the neglect of Harry Lauder and the resonance of current dance music to be an awful blow to my crested helm. I see that he who intends to order “ching-chong” without the “ding-dong” will forever question the contents of the Lo Mein, and reject the policy of “30 Minutes or it’s Free” It is spectacular because it reduces the amount of MSG but not the filler. i.e. bean sprouts. It strives to be heart-healthy and neglects taste. However, the principle of Edam for Boys is simply empty calories, and to envy them is genius. A recreational vehicle must be driven across the continent, for some distance. From the pup tent and ambulance I decried the “paucity of cumin in the Golan Heights” That was Harry Lauder’s joint. It was never vicious but it was diabolical.
I treasure my ballplay.
Oroonoko!*
*Sharp eyed readers will recognize this as a the title of a novel by Aphra Behn, Englands first female literary writer whose charming epitaph:
“Here lies a Proof that Wit can never be
Defence enough against Mortality.”
is a lesson we can all cleave unto.
RSVP
Pennis Playdoh (05/18, 1:09PM)
Another parodic masterpiece Penis, one combining felicity of style, classical erudition, philosophical insight and mordant wit all set within a sensitive, compelling yet utterly captivating surreal framework. Could one ask for more?
Congratulations again!
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
FETUS — It’s what’s for dinner! 🙂