The age-old abortion debate turned into a shamelessly staged publicity stunt at Dalhousie University Tuesday night when the debater making a case for abortion rights appeared a mere puppet for the anti-abortion movement.
The debate, hosted and organized by student organization Pro-Life at Dal, showcased a very seasoned debater, Stephanie Gray of the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform, a Calgary-based anti-abortion organization. But Mark Mercer, chair of the Saint Mary’s University Philosophy department, had a case for abortion that was so completely unresolved and nonsensical that the entire evening turned into a farce.
At one point, Mercer said he could only hope a mother would not abort her fetus on the grounds that it possessed the homosexual gene because, “homosexuals have proven themselves to be very useful in the arts community.”
Pro-Life at Dal sourced Gray from Calgary and footed the bill. Meanwhile, according to the group’s president Stewart Rand, no effort was made to look outside Halifax for an equally qualified debater from the other side. Rand could name only one other person approached locally for the spot— Dalhousie Bio-Ethics professor Francoise Baylis.
Baylis has no recollection of such an exchange.
“The money went towards the side that we support. I’m not apologetic,” says Rand. “If someone else wants to pay, that’s fine.”
Many will remember Mercer, a self-proclaimed supporter of freedom of expression, for his defense of SMU professor Peter March in 2006 after March posted anti-Islamic cartoons on campus. And subsequently, it was Mercer who supported March in an effort to bring white-supremacist Jared Taylor to speak at the University.
If Pro-Life at Dal was aware of Mercer’s history of supporting controversial issues in the name of free speech, then they also knew to count on him to engage in a debate (however bogus) that would secure a platform for this blatant Pro-Life publicity stunt, which may otherwise have been difficult given CCBR’s history in Halifax.
Two years ago CCBR’s Jose Ruba visited SMU to deliver his “Echoes of the Holocaust” lecture where he likens abortion to the Holocaust. He was pushed out by protesters.
This article appears in Mar 10-16, 2011.
Free speech, ain’t it a bitch.
This should have been posted in LTWWB section.
Tell the truth, you just don’t subscribe to the ‘freedom of speech’ idea.
Unlike the US Supreme Court you prefer controlled speech.
For the record I am emotionally strongly opposed to abortion and also determined to support a woman’s right to have one, and to have it done safely.
Peter March
I wasn’t able to make the debate, but was hoping to read this article that would report on the evening and sum up the arguments from both sides. Isn’t that what journalism is all about? It seems that this journalist was unable to report on what happenend – other than to launch a diatribe about the pro-life group and un-related other issues. How sad that at the university level, such reporting – or rather lack therof – occurs. We are mature readers – we can handle information on both sides of very important issues and make up our own minds.
An ideologue, an ideologue with strong anti-expression inclinations, moreover, calls me a puppet. All I can do is blush and say “Aw, shucks!” My pro-choice arguments, if anyone wants to know them, are pretty much those Peter Singer advanced in the central chapters of Practical Ethics 2nd edition (1993). Or send me an email message and I’ll forward my articles. Gray argued that being human is of ethical significance, I argued that it isn’t. Mark Mercer
What a remarkably censorious article.
Thank you SO much for calling this event what is was: a farce. I was at this event with a few friends, if only out of a desire to ensure that there was at least something of a ‘pro-choice’ section represented in the audience, though I knew who had sponsored the event and feel that they should be ashamed especially to plan this on International Women’s Day. A day when we are celebrating our achievements and discuss how much work still needs to be done. Mr. Mercer may agree that a woman has a right to choose, but that did not come out once in this ‘debate.’ I feel that it is largely the fault of the organizers – Stephanie Gray came in with images of aborted foetus alongside pictures of Auschwitz prisoners and black slaves, and used odd repetitious and alliterative language to try to convince people that abortion is just plain wrong, for all sorts of convoluted reasons. Mr. Mercer is a philosophy professor who stuck to one topic which was in no way ‘opposing’ Ms. Gray’s argument – how is that a debate?! The despicable group who hosted this event knew exactly what they were doing in calling this a debate and putting these two speakers against each other. The so-called pro-choice side looked like a bumbling fool, and no matter how much he denies it, we WAS supposed to be representing the pro-choice movement. There was no discussion about a woman’s autonomy over her body, he dangers of birth vs. abortion, the aptness of compating abortion to genocide, etc. The night ended up with odd conversations about pigs and horses, and something about 18 months. I’m up for a real debate, anytime, as long as it is acknowledged that suppressing a woman’s right to choose what happens to her body is the true abomination.
Calling Dr. Mercer a shill for the pro-life cause defies all logic. In any case, we tried to find the best possible opponent for the debate. It is in our group’s interest to put on the best debate, not one that is clearly stacked in our favour.
For the record, in preparation for the debate I contacted 4 local academics who have published work related to abortion. Of these, 1 accepted, and we were very happy to have him participate, as he has written about abortion in national papers and is well-known for his pro-choice views. I offered to forward the names of these individuals to Ms. Duckworth, but she did not follow up with me.
When we pit the two things many of us value above all else, life and choice, against one another, a lot of people argue about a bunch of stuff, yet no one wins; it seems to me that a bunch of people get angry, some people pull childish pranks, and sometimes, people die. I hope we can all move beyond this pointless binary and engage in conversation that might lead to some sort of understanding and thus result in some actual change. I don’t see how either “pro-lifers” or “pro-choice-ers” have qualitatively improved the lives anyone.
Peter. I attended a class you taught last year in lieu of Mark. I hated you. After reading your post, I am reconsidering my judgement.
.
Jose Ruba was not pushed out by protesters. If you are going to write something then I recommend getting your facts straight. The six protesters who interrupted his presentation faced academic penalty for their disruptive methods of voicing their opinions. Their protest ended with all six of them being escorted off campus by the police. Don’t believe me? Here it is on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eulKIaVM9DE
There are 8 parts to this video and I think it is part 6 or 7 that the police remove the protesters.
These protesters were the worst possible group of people that pro-life supporters could have possibly had to represent their views and they hurt their cause more than they helped it. Anyway, I’m not taking any sides on this debate, but this article is just as biased as Dal’s abortion debate. Closing with the completely false statement that Jose Ruba was pushed out, is wildly inaccurate and shows a clear slant towards pro-choice groups.
I meant to say “pro-CHOICE” supporters in my below comment. These protesters were the worst possible representatives for the pro-choice movement, not pro-life.
Any debate on abortion is ‘a farce’.
Name calling, shouting, booing, hissing, jeering, chanting, sneering – and that is before the debate begins.
There is so much that could be said about this debate but one thing is that the topic was about the morality of the abortion procedure itself. That was in fact what Dr. Mercer addressed. The arguments surrounding autonomy are ultimately predicated on the fact that abortion procedure itself is a moral act and as such any debate about abortion must come back to central question around the procedure itself and when does the unborn deserve legal protection. Dr. Mercer acknowledged that this was the central issue yet pro-choicers in the audience seemed to think that abortion is about something else.
While most of the audience was not disruptive it amuses me that pro-choicers criticize PLADs behaviour yet they were the ones who attempted to sabotage the event by filling the ceiling with their own messages attached to balloons and setting off stink bombs in the auditorium…real classy guys.
Perhaps there were a few questionable remarks, but the just of the pro-choice argument that Dr. Mercer posed is the only substantial argument the pro-choice side can make. The argument required both intellectual capacity and an open mind to grasp. There were certain key words Dr. Mercer excluded like; “women’s body, women’s choice” “reproductive rights” that left some women feeling let down and wondering, “where was my representation?” Dr. Mercer, being an educated professor, was already aware of the fact that the fetus is it’s own body and knew he could not use this as an argument. To clarify, the fetus is basically a guest in the mother’s home, the fetus is neither a parasite (stealing from the mother) nor fully apart from her. The placenta is the doorkeeper that allows the nutrients the mother does not need, but the fetus does into the uterus. Aborting the fetus disrupts the cycle her body has been preparing for. This is why many women who have had abortions have health issues later in life; breast cancer and depression. To people who believe, “my body, my rights” and equate that with the insertion of a weapon up the women’s uterus to destroy the other body living inside her, to then liberate her and her partner from the consequences of their actions (for the time being), I ask- where is the (reproductive)justice? I don’t feel any bitterness or despite for people that support abortion, I feel that these people are missing a full understanding and appreciation of women’s bodies, of their capability and gifts and mystery and therefore being trapped by their own cries for liberation; how is having to take a pill everyday to prevent birth liberating? how is being sexually available to men, by constricting your body from thing it naturally wants to do liberating?
“At one point, Mercer said he could only hope a mother would not abort her fetus on the grounds that it possessed the homosexual gene because, “homosexuals have proven themselves to be very useful in the arts community.”
Wow buddy, you’re so fucking clever! You should be like, a professor or something so you can act all witty and pompous all the time and say things like “Gray argued that being human is of ethical significance, I argued that it isn’t.”, because like, whoa that’s groundbreaking! You mean we have no significance in the world, like duuuuuuude you are blowing my mind by being so edgy!
Sarah8, don’t you think women should have the right to decide if they want to be pregnant or not? Thats why they invented birth control. So women could have sex (which is a natural urge and thing) and not worry about getting pregnant! Women should be allowed to have sex for pleasure. not just to reproduce!
I love that the head of Dal’s pro- life group is a guy because you know that he will never be in a situation where he might need to get an abortion! And I’ve heard the whole defense “well the father of the fetus should have rights” I’m sorry but its the women who’s carrying the child and in the end its ultimately her decision what she wants to do with her body!
I wonder how many of those pro lifers are going to go out and adopt a kid! And I don;t mean pay $40,000 and fly over to Africa and pick one up. I mean adopt a kid from north end Halifax! Probably not that many!!
My problem with the pro- life movement is that they seem to only care about the fetus in the womb and after their born their on their own!! Instead of holding a “fake” debate why don’t you guys have a fundraiser for the home in Dartmouth that helps support low income teen moms who are trying to raise these babies that you guys so desperately want to live!!!
a) he’s a man
b) he has NO say on the reproductive cycle of a female
c) there is NO DEBATE period,we have meet this topic years ago and it cannot be re opened!
d) pro-lifers…will you help raise and meet all financial obligations for this child,I think not!
e) pro-lifers thus have NO creditability on this topic.
It is sad that people are equating pictures of the holocaust next to pictures of aborted fetus’s as good argumentation. Ms Gray was not able to piece together a coherent argument the entire night. Gray resorted to rhetoric devices to convince people of a silly position, pro-life. Mercer perhaps didn’t focus on the type of pro-choice people wanted however he did argue against the foundations of the pro-life movement. Mercer argued that the moral salient feature was person hood not being a part of the human species. Mercer did this in a well put together argument, where as Gray used terrible logic to come to her conclusion. Gray was saying hilariously absurd things, like for instance when she compared the work her group was doing to that of MLKjr or Gandhi.
The people hating on Mercer should take a step back and think about the arguments he made. If it is true that the moral salient feature is person hood and a fetus doesn’t have person hood then pro life has no weight, this means pro choice is the only way to go.
This article is farcical at best.
You didn’t enjoy Dr. Mercer’s arguments and somehow that’s the fault of the Pro-Life side?
It sounds to me like your (the writer’s) problem is that neither side advanced the exact particulars of your own ethical arguments. Their duty of course, was to address their own ethical particulars, not yours.
Dr. Mercer is not only a respected professor, but for many years has been the most popular columnist in The SMU Journal, and he is also frequently published in the Ottawa Citizen. (http://www.ottawacitizen.com/life/need+fre…) Any impartial individual who looked at his record, and strong support of civil libertarianism, would deem him an obvious choice for a debate such as this.
Accusing the Pro-Life society of trickery and defaming Dr. Mercer simply because you disagreed with his arguments is shameful.
No effort was made WITHIN Halifax to find a pro-choice rep. PLAD failed to contact any reproductive rights group, any health providers, any women’s organizations, any sociology or other feminist/pro-choice profs or departments at any of the universities.
-Saint Mary’s Women Centre Coordinator-
The issue remains that the debate was presented to a philosophy professor as a debate on morality. Mercer presented a philosophical lecture on morality and personhood from a theoretical standpoint. He was not debating pro-choice, advocating for a women’s rights etc.
Which is why the group choose him, and approached him the way they did. Mercer was having a philosophical discussion, while Stephanie Gray was doing her full time job, which is to advocate for the abolishment of abortion and debate the issue.
The fact alone that women/woman/girl/girls were not mentioned until audience questions near the end, in and of itself should illustrate the faults within this presentation.
Mercer was mislead, showcased and ill prepared. He was brought out to look foolish, present his own personal viewpoints on ethics, discuss philosophy and through association make the pro-choice arguments seem disjointed and laughable. He was there to make Stephanie look good, because without a show gate this would be difficult to achieve as her arguments cannot stand up to thoughtful criticism. Mercer’s unfamiliarity with the formating alone was irresponsible, to the point where he was unaware that there would be rebuttals and closing statements and had finished his presentation following his opening statements and responding to Stephanie’s come backs (which focused extensively on what Mercer’s personal moral/ethical compass entailed).
Well, Mercer should’ve known his stand when he accepted the invite. If he’s not debating pro-choice & advocating for women’s rights, then he shouldn’t have accepted the invite. Who would have known he’s not sure where he stands?
It’s clear that SG and Bio Erhics have no regard for human life as she/they so callously and ruthlessly (in the true sense of the word, without compassion) exploit and humiliate tortured and murdered Jews to sell their agenda/points/point of view. Unconscienable, and since we’re talking about ethics, unethical to the extreme. In my mind, it’s a hate crime. She could be delivering the answer to the meaning of life but once you peddle Holocaust survivors (do they have copyrights from the families to reproduce and use the image of their loved ones?) to sell anything you are pretty depraved and evil.
I am American and unfortunately we have the same sort of debate here. I am pro-life and I think women who choose to have an abortion are very confused unless there is a medical reason such as a situation I know of where the unborn child had died in the womb and the mother was 17 weeks pregnant. This is an argument for keeping abortion legal. (Remember I am speaking from an American view.) I do not believe that abortion should be legal because of some known physical defect. This type of thinking is the same as that of Adolf Hitler and I definitely do not believe that homosexuality is genetic. Americans also like to use free speech as an excuse to express an evil view of life. There is a huge difference between free speech and verbal assault.
I think you hit the nail on the head B_A_D. Mercer was having a philosophical discussion, and from that perspective he destroyed her. I’m still confused at the difference between a philosophical discussion and a debate though. Both consist of using (hopefully well) reasons arguments to support a claim or position. Gray used rhetorical devices that everyone in the room should have recognized and just thrown those argument’s out the window.
to say that Gray did a better job in the debate seems like a slander against debate, argumentation, and the intelligence of the crowd…
though the crowd was mostly pro-life so maybe that’s not that far off.
We’ve actually tried to contact abortion advocates in your area to do a debate many times. And all of them have said “abortion is not up for debate”. That draconian thinking, that they are right and everyone who disagrees with them is wrong because THEY assert it, is why Prof. Mercer stepped in to debate.
The logic that abortion is a fundamental right and therefore should not be debated is ludicrous because even our most fundamental rights have reasonable limits – that’s why there are things called laws! Even the right to vote is limited by age and nationality!
If abortion advocates posting here who are complaining about this debate are truly not that draconian, then I publicly challenge them to organize an abortion debate. As long as the rules allow us for equal time and don’t censor our presentations (like last time I was there), I promise to participate.
This is your chance now to prove that it was pro-lifers’ fault for not looking hard enough to find an abortion advocate. Please back up your words by stepping up to the plate and debating me.
Jojo Ruba
CCBR
silly me, i thought we had already debated this issue and were done with it
Sorry Paingirl. I wasn’t old enough to vote last time this issue was debated in Parliament, let alone old enough to run for political office.
I want my say too, just like many Canadians who’ve never got a chance to debate this issue…or are we always beholden to the decisions of people in the past? If that’s so, slavery in the US, voting rights for women and even gay marriage should have all been decided as soon as the first government willing to tackle these issues had their say.
At Carleton University we brought in the Executive Director of Planned Parenthood Ottawa AND the executive director of Canadians for Choice to debate Jojo Ruba of CCBR. Trust me, if you wanted someone to debate the issue from the standpoint of “womens rights” then it would turn out even worse, exactly as Professor Mercer said. The two ladies who debated Jojo Ruba walked out saying how they were offended that Jojo spoke about the unborn child. If you want to see that train wreck of a debate on the pro-abortion side please let me know! Trust me, the pro-abortion side does not win any debate no matter which angle they try to tackle it from!
John McLeod
Carleton Lifeline
“Pro-life” is a bullshit term. Who isn’t pro-life? Most people are, unless they are a serious misanthrope (and sure, everybody has their days!). Same with pro-choice. Most people are indeed, pro-having-of-choices. We need to lay it out, either you’re pro-reproductive rights or you’re anti-reproductive rights. None of this dancing around with bullshit language. If you’re anti-reproductive rights, you need to stand up and declare that yes, you are against a woman’s right to bodily autonomy. No hiding behind the fuzzy pro-life banner.
The goal of presentations like this is to traumatize people, particularly women, by using graphic images to transmit blame to individual women who have decided or may decide to get an abortion. This is victim blaming in a context where we do not have universal childcare, do not have pay equity, do not have adequate sex education, but we do have widespread male violence against women. Sexist harassment and violence includes these male led anti-abortion campaigns that vilify women, who may already be mothers, for making the difficult choice to end a pregnancy. Mercer and March show how tenure is used by univer$itie$ to maintain a racist and sexist status quo. They faciliate the activities of the fascist youth clubs that organize public harassment under the guise of student groups and academic debates. These sexist anti-abortion arguments benefit from the institutionalized violence that allows so called ‘pro-life’ activists to front like they are peaceful and rational, and not part of a fundamentalist movement. But when push comes to shove, they are willing to harm and harass the most vulnerable sectors of our community.
This video shows the aggression of the organizer of 40 Days for Life Halifax toward a pregnant woman upset by Pro-life harassament at the hospital.
Pro-life aggression
This is an outline that breaks down the political factors behind right wing discriminatory campaigns.
Understanding the Right
The goal of presentations like this is to traumatize people, particularly women, by using graphic images to transmit blame to individual women who have decided or may decide to get an abortion. This is victim blaming in a context where we do not have universal childcare, do not have pay equity, do not have adequate sex education, but we do have widespread male violence against women. Sexist harassment and violence includes these male led anti-abortion campaigns that vilify women, who may already be mothers, for making the difficult choice to end a pregnancy. Mercer and March show how tenure is used by univer$itie$ to maintain a racist and sexist status quo. They faciliate the activities of the fascist youth clubs that organize public harassment under the guise of student groups and academic debates. These sexist anti-abortion arguments benefit from the institutionalized violence that allows so called ‘pro-life’ activists to front like they are peaceful and rational, and not part of a fundamentalist movement. But when push comes to shove, they are willing to harm and harass the most vulnerable sectors of our community.
This video shows the aggression of the organizer of 40 Days for Life Halifax toward a pregnant woman upset by Pro-life harassament.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4xrKU4kEt4
This is an outline that breaks down the political factors behind right wing discriminatory campaigns.
http://www.publiceye.org/multimedia/other/…
So if a woman chooses to kill her child, pro-lifers are to blame because we point out that it is wrong to kill a child? If you are willing to speak out for the choice of abortion, then what exactly is traumatizing about showing what that choice is? If it is such a good thing, why run away from the reality of what it does to the fetus?
And BTW, it is pro-lifers who support reproductive rights. When you destroy your own offspring, how can you call that reproduction? BTW, reproductive rights are already limited in Canada. We can’t sell our sperm or ova for example and of course we can’t have sex with anyone we want or anywhere we want.
And as someone who’s worked with pro-life groups across the country, I can testify that they are usually led by women – including our own.
The Orwellian doublespeak here is consistent with the abortion advocacy we usually encounter. It is a good sign for us that they have to rely on such irrational arguments to prove their point because it shows they actually never engage our arguments – ones that anyone, Christian, atheist, male, female etc. who are actually honest with the facts, can understand and believe.
BTW, I’ve noticed that none of the fine rhetoricians here have actually taken up my challenge to debate them. I’ll be glad to visit Halifax again – just provide me an opponent that satisfies your standard and format of a fair debate.
Jojo Ruba
Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform