The Shotgun Blog
« WS Radio: Jacob Sullum and Marc Emery | Main | Darren Lund on why censorship is necessary (for the children, naturally) »
Monday, March 10, 2008
Why Support For Bill C-484 Should Be Unanimous
Let's be absolutely, positively, 100% crystal clear about why the pro-life and pro-choice factions are so adamant in their respective support and opposition to Bill C-484: it's because each side possesses an unshakeable belief that passage of the bill will have a dramatic effect on the legal status of abortion in Canada.
The problem is, both sides are wrong. It won't change anything, because (a) there is no abortion law in Canada and (b) C-484 does not bestow personhood on a fetus.
Many social conservatives have openly claimed that C-484 will create a precedent paving the way towards tighter regulations on abortion. My question to them is: on what basis? Wishful thinking? I have yet to hear even a rudimentary legal argument advanced from either side as to what shape such an argument might take. The best anyone seems to be able to come up with is that C-484 mentions the word "fetus". But so what? Criminal law is littered with references to all sorts of things – living creatures, inanimate objects – the mistreatment, destruction or absconding of which all attract sanction.
Consider Section 340 of the Criminal Code, which states that anyone who destroys documents of title to goods of land exposes themselves to up to ten years in prison. Or Section 345, whereby anyone who steals mail with the intent to rob or search it could end up with a life sentence. Or how about Section 352, getting caught with tools for the purposes of breaking into a coin-operated device, which could mean up to two years in the clink. Like all of these existing sections in the Code, Bill C-484 merely treats a fetus as a piece of evidence that a specific type of crime has been committed. It doesn’t in any way, shape, or form give the fetus free-standing legal rights.
So if C-484 doesn’t assist either side in the abortion debate, why pass it? Simple: because it actually helps both sides achieve something they are looking for.
No matter which side of the debate you are on, very few people would argue that a fetus is without value, and worthy of the treatment of, say, a chair. Pro-lifers are adamant that a fetus deserves the same legal rights as a human being, which gives rise to a conflict of rights. Pro-choicers, consequently, believe that the only way to ensure there is no such conflict is to resist giving a fetus any rights. But here’s the mistake: both sides have failed to contemplate that the law is entirely capable of providing a legal halfway house for the status of a fetus. That is: less than a person, but more than nothing.
If you oppose abortion, you should support C-484 because it entrenches one of the arguments that social conservatives have been making since time immemorial: that a fetus deserves the protection of the law. It may not assist on the fight against abortion, but it does open the door to ensure that but for abortion, fetuses will not be treated as non-entities; that any third-parties that would attempt to do a fetus harm will be punished.
If you support abortion, you should support C-484 because it entrenches the rights of a fetus as being less than that of a person and thereby fills in a gap in the law which, until now, has been space loudly occupied only by pro-lifers. The only “concession” being made by the pro-choice forces by supporting C-484 would be recognizing that, yes, a fetus is something worthy of protection where the mother wants it protected – and where the mother is also under attack. And since the sole point of contention that pro-choicers fear is the one where a fetus’s rights are equal to a person’s, they should be tripping over themselves to support a bill that explicitly says a fetus has less rights than a person!
Note that the debate about abortion will continue, as it has for 20 years. Both sides will continue to make all the same arguments they’ve always been making. But the merits of each side’s arguments are not going to be weakened or strengthened in any way by the passage of C-484. Once we sweep away all the unfounded fear/optimism about what C-484 might lead to, and focus on the limits of what C-484 actually says - protecting fetuses from violent attack by third parties is a worthwhile objective - this really should be a no-brainer: all of us should support it.
(Cross posted to Wudrick Blog)
Posted by Aaron Wudrick on March 10, 2008 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22305/26956064
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Why Support For Bill C-484 Should Be Unanimous:
Comments
If you really think that this is a "no brainer" you clearly have not thought it through. Your assertion that pro-choicers should be "tripping over themselves" to support a bill that "explicitly says a fetus has less rights than a person" does not make any sense. Under our current laws, a fetus has no rights, because it is not a person. It is a part of its mother until it is born. This is the only way that abortion can be legal in this country. You cannot have a law which draws a distinction between fetuses which are "wanted" vs. those that are not. Either a fetus is a legal entity with rights or it is not; the law does leave room for shades of gray. If a pregnant woman and her fetus are harmed the person who caused the harm should be punished, and they are. They are punished for harming the woman, as it is recognized that the fetus is a part of her. The Supreme Court of Canada has been very clear on this point (see, for example, R v. Sullivan, 1991). I can completely understand why anti-abortionists support this bill, but please do not be naive enough to assume that c-484 will not infringe on a woman's right to choose in the future. Those who are pushing this bill forward do not intend for it to end here.
Posted by: Michelle | 12-Mar-08 2:18:47 PM
First of all, Michelle, you aren't really privy to the motives of those who are pushing for this bill, you are merely suspicious of them. Apparently you are happy with the way things are and think that muffling debate and crushing opposition is preferable to reviewing policy based on current social needs and realities, lest a policy be enacted you are less than happy with. This is a profoundly anti-democratic attitude and smacks of intellectual tyranny.
Second of all, the fact that a fetus is attached to its mother until born does not mean it is PART of the mother per-se. It has its own DNA, its own brainwaves, its own heartbeat, its own fingerprints, and once past the first trimester, it moves, kicks, hiccups, and acts of its own volition, not the mother's. It has everything current forensic science currently uses to determine both life status and individuality. To deny it personhood because it's currently attached to a hollow vessel inside its mother by the thinnest of umbilicals is pretty damned spurious. You could make the same argument about an adult on life support.
Women should get over themselves. They are not as special or morally pure as they imagine.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 12-Mar-08 3:03:00 PM
Muffling debate and crushing opposition? You’re certainly attributing a great deal of weight to my opinion, Shane.
As I stated, the Supreme Court has defined a fetus as being a PART of the mother, and neither hiccups nor fingerprints change that. This is not to say the definition is set in stone; the law is constantly evolving and there very well could come a day when a fetus is recognized as a separate person unto itself. My point was simply that this bill is not compatible with the state of the law as it is now, which is why pro-choice advocates are concerned about it.
As your last comment is both a non-sequitur and vaguely misogynistic, I’m not going to respond to it.
Posted by: Michelle | 12-Mar-08 8:34:43 PM
Aaron,
You make way too much sense, thanks God that nobody is listening to you.
Posted by: Karol Karolak | 12-Mar-08 10:33:58 PM
I agree with you that this bill is very valuable to support. It's an opportunity to give meaning to the horrible death of Olivia and her baby, Lane. It's an opportunity to support a grieving family use their horrible experience to bring forward legislation that could afford future victims more rights. What I think is most tragic and perhaps worthy of a separate storyline from a different angle is the way that Mary Talbot has been treated. Rather that rallying about Mrs. Talbot and offering her some measure of support - even if they could not support the actual bill they have insulted this grieving mother and grandmother. She has publicly pleased to be shown more respect in this debate where she's been dismissed as irrelevant and the meaning of her family's loss is demeaned. Here is her public plea
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/opinion/story.html?id=7f51beb2-7e3c-4e04-b6c3-df6363ca0f0f
Posted by: hailey | 19-Mar-08 5:47:48 AM
I would like to respond to Michelle's comment that I had somehow missed. Specifically her statement "Those who are pushing this bill forward do not intend for it to end here". Mary Talbot has publicly spoken of the fact that she is in favour of abortion and is pro-choice. She has no ulterior motives - she is motivated by grief, by personal experience, and by a desire to see future victims have a different experience with the criminal justice system.
Posted by: hailey | 19-Mar-08 5:52:30 AM
Hailey - In response to your comment, Mary Talbot is not the person who is "pushing this bill forward". It is a private members bill introduced by MP Ken Epp, who is anti-abortion.
Ms. Talbot's grief is completely understandable. The fact that you sympathize with her is understandable. I do too. But it is despicable that politicians are using her story to distract from the real issue and to play on the emotions of the public. We have to be able to step back and look at this bill in a rational way, to see if it is compatible with existing laws. As I stated, it is my opinion that it is not.
Posted by: Michelle | 19-Mar-08 7:30:14 AM
Michelle wrote: “As I stated, the Supreme Court has defined a fetus as being a PART of the mother, and neither hiccups nor fingerprints change that. This is not to say the definition is set in stone; the law is constantly evolving and there very well could come a day when a fetus is recognized as a separate person unto itself. My point was simply that this bill is not compatible with the state of the law as it is now, which is why pro-choice advocates are concerned about it.”
Currently, there IS no abortion law in Canada, which makes for a pretty unique case in the world community. The Supreme Court cobbled that ruling together as a result of there being no law. Nor was the Supreme Court’s original goal for there to be no law; it merely concluded that the existing law was inadequate and invited Parliament to pass a new one. But so terrified is Parliament of the reaction of women, many of whom see any sort of restriction on abortion as an attack on their “liberty,” that no new law was ever passed, leading to the current situation.
This new bill is an attempt to ameliorate some of the unforeseen consequences of this impasse. And, predictably, the feminists are up in arms, as when it comes to abortion, no restriction is a good restriction. They enjoy the quiet support of a significant minority, if not a majority, of Canadian women. But if you ask them why, they stammer and splutter and actually seem offended that you want a logical reason. It’s always clothed in a discussion of “rights,” even though there is no per-se right to abortion under the Charter.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 19-Mar-08 7:42:42 AM
I find it funny that manipulators are first to find manipulations everywhere. Why is that??? Is it because manipulations and lies and deceptions served feminists so well for so long??? Is it that feminists foresee their own weapons being used against them???
Is mirror such a terrible thing to look into?? How is it that feminists judge Conservatives by their own standards of behaviour?? If cheating deceptions and lies are the new norms that all politicians and all ordinary Canadians should live by than feminist vigilance might as well be justified. We all live in a world of our own making and feminist hysteria over Unborn Victims of Crime Bill is the best evidence yet of bankruptcy of feminist movement.
Michelle, in case nobody told you this as of yet, Unborn Victims of Crime Act is not a slippery slope that will lead to re-criminalisation of abortions. There will be totally separate Bill that will do just that. In case none of older and more experienced radical feminists ever told you yet; botched abortions lead to scarring of uterine walls and infertility. Leaders of Canadian radical feminist movement are way too busy, too old or make too much money to get involved in such mundane tasks like pregnancy and childbirth.
They prefer instant solutions like adoption of unwanted children. Unfortunately there are not that many unwanted children born these days and Children Aid Societies are not that eager anymore to act as baby as they used to be. There is an urgent need to increase supply to meet demand of old infertile feminists, lesbian and gay couples and professional career women working as doctors and lawyers. Current baby breeding farms (CAS run group homes for teenage girls) are too expensive to operate and they cannot produce enough babies to keep up with demand. Something has to rip and more women have to start acting as baby breeders for adoption racket. Easiest way it accomplish that task is ban abortions and radical feminist leadership is driving this change. It was not a coincident that while House of Commons was voting on Unborn Victims of Crime Act Stéphane Dion was entertaining radical feminists at a pink party held at his Stornoway residence in Ottawa. Dion and his partner had to get married, and had to spent lot of time and money and travel to Peru to find a child to adopt. None of that would have been necessary if Canada kept intact abortion ban.
If there is conspiracy to re-criminalise abortion, it is not driven by religious fanatics it is driven by greed and infertility of radical feminist movers and shakers. So now you have it Michelle, you are being sold down the river by your own leaders.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/liberals/dion.html
“Dion grew up Catholic in a suburb of Quebec City but he has told interviewers that his family was really rather secular in its outlook. The family often went skiing instead of to church on Sundays, to the consternation of many of the neighbours. His Paris-born mother told the Globe and Mail that she had been criticized for not wearing a hat to church and not long after that the family stopped attending regularly.
And Stéphane himself does not appear to be particularly religious. He only married his wife, political scientist Janine Krieber, so they could adopt a daughter, Jeanne, from Catholic Peru in 1988. Before that the two had lived together, like so many Quebecers of their generation, for almost 10 years — from when they were students at Laval, through four years of graduate work at the Paris Institute of Political Studies (he graduated in 1986 with a doctorate in sociology), to the start of their academic careers in Montreal and, for her, Quebec City.”
===========================================
Michelle, all your sisters feminists working as lawyers for big Toronto law firms make at least 200k/year each. They generate another 200k/year each for a Law firms that they work for. Healthy newborn Caucasian baby goes for 50k each paid in cash under the table. That kind of money is what each and every one of them generates in less than 6 weeks. There is big competition for these jobs so pregnancy and childbirth are loosing proposition since as soon as one takes maternity leave another one steps in her place.
Great many of them operate in family courts in Ontario so fixing adoption (legalised children trafficking) is a piece of cake for them.
You must know this term “It is the economy, stupid!!!!”
==============================================
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070502.wcloset02/BNStory/National/home/
==Gay lawyers locked in closet==
Law school conference told fear of discrimination alive in legal workplaces
KIRK MAKIN
From Wednesday's Globe and Mail
May 2, 2007 at 4:38 AM EDT
Queen's University sociologist Fiona Kay told the conference that despite the fact that 56 per cent of new lawyers in 2006 were women, female lawyers are very underrepresented at senior levels of law firms. She said the picture is similarly grim for visible-minority lawyers, who remain "conspicuously absent from higher income levels."
Ms. Kay said the most recent survey of lawyers working in firms showed that 43 per cent of female lawyers were childless; the product of a culture that implicitly punishes women who go on maternity leave by sometimes curtailing their job opportunities and reducing their secretarial help. "Numerous lawyers commented on the stigma associated with maternity leaves," she said.
Posted by: Karol Karolak | 19-Mar-08 7:52:01 AM
Shane – it seems as though you are trying to debate whether there or not abortion should be legal in Canada, which is a huge and extremely important issue. It’s also not at all what I was talking about in my posts. Clearly you are “pro-life” (“anti-abortion”) and I am “pro-choice” (you’re free to define that as “pro-abortion” or “anti-life” if you want to be inflammatory) and I doubt that any amount of back and forth posting is going to change that for either of us. I’m not sure which Canadian women you have been speaking with who “stammer and splutter” and are unable to provide a “logical reason” why safe abortions should be legal and available, because I have heard very logical and coherent arguments on both sides. Perhaps you are speaking with the wrong people.
I posted to address the very narrow issue brought up by this article. The author stated that everyone – pro-choice and pro-life alike – should support this bill. I disagree, for the reasons set out in the above posts. You have not offered any argument to counter this point.
Karol Karolak – I’m afraid I wasn’t able to follow your train of thought at all.
Posted by: Michelle | 19-Mar-08 8:21:09 AM
Karol, the number of female law graduates in 2006 has no correlation with the number of female law-firm executives in 2006. Women who have been practicing law long enough to be a senior partner have probably already been in the business 20-30 years. If, in 30 years, women are still underrepresented in the top ranks, then will be the time to bring those statistics into play.
I'd also like to note that while any competent law student can pass the bar exam, leadership roles require far more than a knowledge of the law; they require and aggressive and competitive spirit, and such traits are far more common among men than among women. Men prefer competition; women prefer cooperation. Men prefer conflict; women prefer consensus. I'm generalizing somewhat but these are abiding male/female traits.
I'd also like to point out that the chauvinism of many men actually works in the woman's favour in this case. Typically only one member of a mated pair can be a high-powered law executive, if children are desired. That means either a stay-at-home dad or a stay-at-home mom. Many women are perfectly happy to stay at home and let someone else pay the bills, but men are far more reluctant to enter such an arrangement.
Of course, you'll never hear factors like this mentioned at a feminist rally, because it would mean they'd have less to rally about. Most activists are in it for the struggle, not the cause.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 19-Mar-08 8:24:19 AM
Michelle, if you have any logical reasons at all in favour of abortion, I’d be happy to hear them. They will be the first I have heard or read on this topic. It’s true that I’m pro-life, but that’s not why I’m here. My complaint is that this current impasse in our laws is largely due to the intransigence of the pro-abortion lobby. Their suspicion is almost pathological. Even a bill like this, designed to protect a woman AND her unborn child (which you’d think a woman who has decided to keep the child would appreciate), is shouted down as “recriminalizing abortion through the back door.”
I would remind you of your own words: “Please to not be naive enough to assume that c-484 will not infringe on a woman's right to choose in the future. Those who are pushing this bill forward do not intend for it to end here.” How do YOU know what they intend? Have you spoken to them? Do you have tapes of secret conversations revealing their true intentions? While your legal arguments vis-à-vis the rights of the fetus do make sense (I address them below), your words above do not. They reflect suspicion, not truth.
As I understand it, under this bill, the fetus will be considered more akin to property; that is, it is a non-person under the law, but its destruction will be legally actionable (whereas currently it is not). This sidesteps the “it’s a person/is not/is too” issue. This bill technically promotes slavery, with one human being owning the other, but law doesn’t always reflect objective reality (and judges, lawyers, and activists don’t seem to see why it should). On the other hand, it does provide at least a temporary patch for a very large hole in our body of law.
This all academic, however, because the “right to choose” is no right at all. Rights are defined by the Charter, as interpreted by the courts, and there is currently NO law regarding abortion in Canada. Therefore, it is an unregulated activity, not a right, similar to the home extraction of troublesome warts (and which many pro-abortionists seem to liken an unborn infant to). What all this means is that there IS no “right to choose.” It’s just a virtuous-sounding phrase concocted by feminist spin artists to give their cause a veneer of respectability.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 19-Mar-08 8:48:13 AM
Michelle, what is so hard to follow?? Feminists have developed revolutionary concept of "new division of labour". Radical feminist and lesbians at the top of the feminist heap are using women at the bottom of feminist heap for breeding purposes.
Children's Aid Societies in Eastern Canada for years were acting as baby snatchers feeding adoption racket.
Try link below and read post #196;
http://boards.aetv.com/thread.jspa?threadID=300012892&start=195
The post that I directed you to read gives you quite vivid description on how bbaby snatching is done by CAS. Where these children end up other than with busy women lawyers than cannot afford to take time for pregnancy and childbirth??? Read below:
===============================================
http://www.the519.org/programs/Queer_Parenting/LGBTTParents_through_public_adopt.shtml
LGBTTQ Families Who Have Adopted Children Through Children’s Aid Societies
Description:
We are a lesbian couple who adopted our son through the Children’s Aid Society in 2004. We are interested in setting up a regular get-together for LGBTTQ parents who have adopted through the CAS. Our goal is to create a support network for parents and a space where our kids can get to know other children who share their life experience.
With the support of the Toronto CAS and the Queer Parenting Program at the 519 Church Street Community Centre, we’ve already had one successful drop-in in the spring of 2007. We are aiming to have another in October.
If you’d like to join our mailing list, or have any questions or suggestions about this group, please get in touch with us by email or phone.
Contact:
Jenn & Rachel: LGBTadopt@sympatico.ca or 416·465·8417
Last Update: Jun·2007
==================================================
Posted by: Karol Karolak | 19-Mar-08 8:49:16 AM
Shane Matthews you wrote "Men prefer competition; women prefer cooperation. Men prefer conflict; women prefer consensus. I'm generalizing somewhat but these are abiding male/female traits."
You might be right about that.
Documents that are publicly available indicate that Ms. Martha McCarthy, Toronto lawyer, swore on false information contained in Divorce Petition M.M. V. J.H. dated June 15, 2004 where she listed as grounds for a divorce one year separation of the parties. Sham marriage that she was allegedly trying to dissolve took place on June 18, 2003 that is less than a year before Divorce Petition was filed with the Court. Alleged separation in this particular sham marriage allegedly took place on June 23, 2003 that is five days after sham marriage was performed.
It is very clear from Madam Justice Ruth Mesbur's endorsement that she willingly colluded with Ms. Martha McCarthy and other individuals in granting this sham divorce instead of throwing it out of her Court and penalising all parties involved for submitting to the court Divorce Petition containing false information, perversion of Canadian laws and for scandalising the Court.
Last year's decision of Family Law Section of OBA to offer an award for outstanding achievements to Ms. McCarthy for among other things; wilful fraud and participation illegal activities sends a wrong signal to whole legal community in Canada.
See: http://www.cba.org/OBA/en/main/home_en/Newsdetails.aspx?no=NEWS05172007-4559-1E
Just watch the dates; Halper decision and "legalisation" of gay/lesbian marriages June 10, 2003, sham lesbian marriage June 18, 2003, alleged separation in sham lesbian marriage on June 23, 2003. Separation agreement is allegedly dated April 30, 2004. Divorce petition based on one year separation is issued on June 15, 2004. Justice Mesburn conducts hearing on sham divorce on September 13, 2004. (all events take place while Canadian Parliament is not in session). Justice Mesburn releases her decision on November 19, 2004. Supreme Court of Canada releases their reference on Same Sex Marriage on December 9, 2004.
http://www.samesexmarriage.ca/docs/Petition_divorce.pdf
Posted by: Karol Karolak | 19-Mar-08 9:09:45 AM
Shane – you’re right, I do have my own suspicions regarding the motives behind this bill. My suspicions stem from the fact that Ken Epp would like to see abortion be illegal in Canada. I believe that Stephen Harper would as well. I have not spoken to Mr. Epp or Mr. Harper, nor have I been tapping their phones. I am forming my own opinions based on statements made by these politicians, and others who support this bill, as well as on my (admittedly imperfect) knowledge of the law. I have to ask – do you take everything that politicians say at face value? I, personally, do not think that some suspicion and critical thought is a bad thing in this case. I would remind you of your own words: “Women should get over themselves. They are not as special or morally pure as they imagine.” How do you know how “special” or “morally pure” women think they are? Have you been reading the thoughts of all women?
Obviously the “pro-life” lobby and the “pro-choice” lobby are going to see this bill differently, which has been exactly my point all along. I’m sure that you’ve heard the “slippery slope” argument enough that I don’t have to repeat it here.
I’m confused by your repeated statement that there is NO law regarding abortion in Canada. In a common law country, decisions of the Supreme Court ARE law. If the Supreme Court states that abortions are legal, the fact that the legislature has not refined this, or that the word “abortion” is not mentioned in the Charter makes no difference.
Finally, I do not believe for a minute that you have not heard any logical arguments in favour or abortion (sorry, there goes my suspicious nature again). Honestly, I really do not want to get into this in detail because the arguments on both sides have been repeated to the point that they have become tired. You know that women had abortions before they were legal, they just had unsafe abortions; you know that the state forcing a woman to carry an unwanted child to term can be seen as a violation of her autonomy, etc. etc. I know that the vast majority of Canadians find late-term abortions distasteful, but I am at a loss as to how to implement regulations that would “draw the line” at a logical place; I know that most pregnant women “feel” like their foetus is a “person”, but I don’t believe that we should make laws based on people’s feelings; I know that there are other options to prevent unwanted pregnancy, and I know that adoption is always an option, but the sad reality is there will always be unwanted pregnancies and I think that woman should have an option should this situation arise.
Posted by: Michelle | 19-Mar-08 9:18:29 AM
First, Michelle, you have committed a fundamental error when you based a belief on another belief. You BELIEVE that this bill is a backdoor to recriminalization of abortion because you BELIEVE Harper wants abortion outlawed. You see how quickly this can turn into a torrent of self-delusion. It’s intoxicating in its simplicity and offers the comfort of familiarity. But it does not offer truth.
I find it interesting that, after first declining to respond to my remark that “women should get over themselves,” you pick up the gauntlet this time round. But okay, I’ll play along. You don’t have to look far to see evidence of women’s belief in their moral superiority. They downplay their own capacity for violence (starting just over half of all altercations), yet denounce men as vicious monsters. They smash in the doors to men’s clubs with crowbars and battering-rams, yet exclude men from their own clubs on the grounds that “men sweat.” Men are swiftly ushered from any woman’s shelter with catcalls and epithets, as if merely being a man makes them somehow dirty. And women, after decades of clamouring for equality, suddenly turn around and demand rape-shield laws, sexual harassment laws, mandatory sensitivity training, affirmative action, and so forth—designed to make them “equal, yet special.” I could go on, but it gets kind of mean, so…
Your point was NEVER that pro-life and pro-choice camps would view this bill differently. That was not your argument. You clearly stated that anyone who thought this bill was not the start of something bigger was being “naïve,” that the fact that it was a foot in the door to decriminalization of all abortion was a “no-brainer,” and that “a woman’s right to choose” was in danger. Why is it that “progressives” are allowed to use “slippery-slope” arguments, but not “wing-nuts”? Does a fallacy magically become not a fallacy when placed in the hands of a Leftist? If so, you really must teach me that incantation. But please, no newts’ eyes or bats’ brains.
You are correct in that the findings of a Supreme Court represent the law in our country. And the finding of the Supreme Court regards this law is that there is no law. The existing law was declared overly restrictive and the Court invited Parliament to enact a new one. Parliament has not done so, since women’s intransigence on this subject practically guarantees no such party would be able to stand for re-election. The Supreme Court did not say abortions were legal; it said the old law was invalid. So there is no law, and there is no legally protected right to abortion either, except inasmuch as there is no law against it at the present time.
And really, I find it very telling that you, after expressing nothing but disdain for my assertion that I have never heard a logical argument in favour of abortion, now pass up such a unique opportunity to pour such arguments onto what is essentially a clean slate—that side of the logic scale in my brain, as it were, is uncluttered with faulty previous “pro” arguments and would therefore have only the arguments on the other side as competition. I am forced to conclude that you were either blowing smoke or, upon reflection, have come to the shocking realization that, unless you use Malthusian math, there IS no logical argument for abortion. It is a service that fulfils wants, not needs, and runs counter to both current medical and scientific knowledge and our society’s longstanding value that human life is precious and not to be taken.
Your problem is you are working backwards. You start not from the facts, but from the conclusion, in this case the irrevocable right of a woman to choose, because “It’s my BODY and I’ll FLUSH if I want to, FLUSH IF I WANT TO!!!” But when you run up against sticky subjects like third-party fetal harm and late-term abortions, you are faced with the threat of compromise—putting a limit on what you have already deemed absolute. All of the science points toward the other end—the fusion of the gametes, the fingerprints, the brain waves, the heartbeat, the self-motility, the response to stimulus—so there is no succour for you there. The only possible ways to support abortion are to: a) not have the facts; or b) to have the facts, and not care.
THERE IS NO LOGICAL ARGUMENT FOR ABORTION.
As an aside, if you want to see to just what absurd heights backwards reasoning to protect a belief can take even the most respected of thinkers, Google “deferent and epicycle.” Hell of an amusing read—and a must for anyone for whom the phrase “critical thinking” is more than progressive boilerplate.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 19-Mar-08 10:42:29 AM
Shane – you truly have a knack for ridiculous hyperbole. A TORRENT of self-delusion. I’ll have to file that away for future use.
I’m not going to detail all the ways in which I disagree with your post, because I have other things to do today. To name a few:
- Your tirade against me basing my opinion on my beliefs is ridiculous. Opinions are formed by looking at the world around us and making decisions based on what we see. Unlike you, I am open minded enough to change my opinions should I encounter evidence to the contrary.
- I reiterate that your statement that you have never heard a logical argument in favour of legal abortions is also ridiculous. You seem genuinely interested in this subject, and much has been written on it, so I have to conclude that you are comfortable with your one-sided analysis and have no interest in considering the other side. I mentioned the fact that making abortions illegal will simply force women to get dangerous “back alley” abortions as was done in the past. You offered no counter argument to address this. If you really would like to consider further arguments, try reading a book. David Boonin wrote an excellent one entitled “A Defense of Abortion”.
- You’re correct, I did decline to address your statement that “women should get over themselves.” I mentioned it in my last post not to address the content of the statement, but to point out the hypocrisy of you purporting to know what is going on in the minds of all women, while chiding me for being suspicious of the motives of a politician. For similar reasons, I don’t think your absurd anti-feminist outburst in the above post merits a response.
I find that this discussion has become off-topic and tiresome, so I’m going to leave you to rant in peace.
Posted by: Michelle | 20-Mar-08 5:28:11 AM
Shane, sorry dude you should have known that you cannot win an argument with feminist. Michelle has a book for you to read. Once you agree with what is in that book and learn how to treat Michelle like a lady and apologise to her she might consider talking to you once again, until then she is going to ignore you. Thinking causes wrinkles on a forehead and Michelle is not about to sacrifice her looks for you. For now you are uncivilised brute that doesn’t seem to know how the game is played. Rule number one: never ever disagree with feminist. Rule number two: never ever point out any contradictions in feminist way of thinking. Rule number three: never ever question intelligence of a feminist. Rule number four: never ever question main tenants of feminist dogma like the right to choose (right to abortion).
Posted by: Karol Karolak | 20-Mar-08 7:05:14 AM
Michelle wrote: “Shane – you truly have a knack for ridiculous hyperbole. A TORRENT of self-delusion. I’ll have to file that away for future use.”
Ad hominem. Yawn.
Michelle wrote: I’m not going to detail all the ways in which I disagree with your post, because I have other things to do today.”
Consider your surrender accepted, Michelle.
Michelle wrote: “Your tirade against me basing my opinion on my beliefs is ridiculous. Opinions are formed by looking at the world around us and making decisions based on what we see. Unlike you, I am open minded enough to change my opinions should I encounter evidence to the contrary.”
The way you win a debate, my dear, is by pointing out the flaws in the other person’s reasoning and enhancing your own through judicious fact-finding and convincing deduction. You will win no debates by highlighting the reputation you have with yourself.
Michelle wrote: “I reiterate that your statement that you have never heard a logical argument in favour of legal abortions is also ridiculous.”
I haven’t, and you haven’t changed that. I’m beginning to wonder if you’d recognize logic if you saw it.
Michelle wrote: “You seem genuinely interested in this subject, and much has been written on it, so I have to conclude that you are comfortable with your one-sided analysis and have no interest in considering the other side.”
Ad hominem, ad hominem…blah, blah, blah. Is this really the best you can do once you run out of rhetoric?
Michelle wrote: “I mentioned the fact that making abortions illegal will simply force women to get dangerous “back alley” abortions as was done in the past. You offered no counter argument to address this.”
No one is FORCING women to get anything, though, are they? There are ways to avoid getting pregnant, and there are ways to avoid having to raise an unexpected child short of Hoovering it to death. Your chances of having an unplanned pregnancy by rape are a statistical zero. The argument that women are being FORCED has no foundation, because there’s no external coercion.
Michelle wrote: “If you really would like to consider further arguments, try reading a book. David Boonin wrote an excellent one entitled “A Defense of Abortion”.”
Which you have declined to provide even one single quote from, so one wonders if you don’t know it by reputation only—told to mention it at rallies and so forth. I’ve read excerpts, though, and find it to be a dreary exercise in shysteresque hair-splitting and preposterous hypothetical arguments. Both are faulty debating practices that are useful only when someone has already made up one’s mind. On no account can this lamentable piece by considered scientific or even logical.
Michelle wrote: “You’re correct, I did decline to address your statement that “women should get over themselves.””
It would seem I’m correct about a lot. Must rankle.
Michelle wrote: “I mentioned it in my last post not to address the content of the statement, but to point out the hypocrisy of you purporting to know what is going on in the minds of all women, while chiding me for being suspicious of the motives of a politician.
I have met a lot of women and had a chance to observe them, which means I’ve had a chance to see what makes women, as a group, tick. You have had no such opportunity with these politicians, whom you know by reputation only. That’s not hypocrisy; that’s the difference between experience and lack of experience. You WANT to believe the politicians are selling you out.
Michelle wrote: “For similar reasons, I don’t think your absurd anti-feminist outburst in the above post merits a response.”
Your debating skills decline rapidly the angrier you get. That’s why I think feminists will ultimately lose this debate—they refuse to be rational about it and, sooner or later, take its very existence as a personal attack.
Michelle wrote: “I find that this discussion has become off-topic and tiresome, so I’m going to leave you to rant in peace.”
Mumbled the quitter as she shuffled out of the room with downcast eyes, but not before spraying everyone in sight with silly string. What’s the matter, you feminists only bullish and ballsy when you’re in large groups?
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 20-Mar-08 7:48:15 AM
Michelle's the one slinking away in defeat, Karol, no matter what she tells herself. She tipped her hand and showed her colours when she got catty and refused all requests for rational argument. I'll be able to face myself, undiminished, in the mirror. She won't.
Not only am I unafraid of disagreeing with feminists, sometimes I provoke them to bring their ugliness to the fore. The more people see it, the less popular feminism gets. They are an obliging target; they enjoy being provoked. They just don't enjoy losing.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 20-Mar-08 7:53:45 AM
Wow Shane. You realy have that male competitiveness down pat. A feather touch of opposition and attempt at rational debate and suddenly your wielding your "competitiveness" like a sword. I think this whole aregument has realy only proven one thing. Clearly the support for bill c-484 (remember that was what we were talking about?) realy does break down pretty evenly on pro-coice/pro-life and more importantly feminist/anti-feminist lines. So when it comes down to it the author of this article was wrong. This bill is a devisive and anger inducing thing and those among us who are pro-coice realy have plenty of reason to oppose it.
Posted by: Hendrik Bruyn | 20-Mar-08 8:12:49 AM
First of all, Hendrik, I notice that you stayed your tongue when Michelle descended into ad-hominem hysterics; yet you jumped on me for my much milder ribbing. A little selective in our criticism, aren’t we? I’m not angry; I just derive a little harmless amusement from the fact that someone so full of herself has made such a fool of herself in public.
I gave Michelle ample opportunity to explain her position. But in spite of repeated exhortations, she made no attempt at rational debate. Instead she confessed her suspicious nature, refused to answer questions, declared that enough logical arguments had been made by others that she needn’t offer any herself, and finally left in a huff, convinced I had mistreated her. Yet you single ME out for criticism, while offering not one point in argument yourself. You’re a common mud-chucker with no debating ability, just like she is. No wonder you’re riled.
Well, let me give you some tips. One, NEVER use the word “clearly” in a debate; your facts will speak for themselves if they ring true. Second, you shouldn’t resort to hyperbole after your comrade-in-arms has denounced it; e.g. “competitiveness like a SWORD,” as it weakens both your positions. Thirdly, learn how to spell; nothing detracts from a piece like the appearance of being written by a six-year-old. Fourth, rational debate consists of offering facts and positing deductions, not in flinging out raw emotion and stubbornly refusing to answer questions. Emotion is the bastard child of thought and not a valid foundation on which to build policy.
The author of this article did not say that this bill did not divide along pro-abortion/pro-life lines. What he said was that it SHOULDN’T, as it did not extend personhood to the fetus. I already know you cannot write. Are you unable to read as well?
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 20-Mar-08 9:00:56 AM
Uh-oh, Shane is resorting to pointing out spelling errors now. Temper tantrums can't be far behind. Is there any merit in C-484, Shane? If some lunatic wants to whack around a pregnant woman, is this bill going to stop them?
Nope, sure won't. Maybe we should write a different bill that puts those people away for a bazillion years, would that help?
The fact that you haven't mentioned anything about how this bill helps pregnant women leads me to believe that you're just in this to yell about how bad abortion is.
"THERE IS NO LOGICAL ARGUMENT FOR ABORTION"
There's a logical argument for everything you moron. Even for (get ready, this might be a little shocking) things you don't agree with.
Grow up. You're an arrogant little boy who hates women, just accept it, go talk to a therapist, try to get on with your life.
Posted by: Bad Andrew | 20-Mar-08 1:15:56 PM
Bad Attitude wrote: “Uh-oh, Shane is resorting to pointing out spelling errors now. Temper tantrums can't be far behind. Is there any merit in C-484, Shane?”
Yes, there is merit, inasmuch as it holds to have value that which has since 1988 been considered valueless. Of course, if you hold that potential human life and the future of the race has no value, you might be able to question the merit. And you’re just enough of an asshole to do that, even if you don’t believe a word of it. Anything for an argument, eh?
Bad Attitude wrote: “If some lunatic wants to whack around a pregnant woman, is this bill going to stop them?”
I see. So just because a law cannot provide protection in every instance, it must be a dud, right? I’ve heard many idiots (including one idiot who is now a dead idiot) apply the same argument to seat belts: “It won’t save you if you hit a bridge abutment at 200 kph, so what good is it?” News flash, Braniac—it WILL save you in a MAJORITY of collisions.
Bad Attitude wrote: “The fact that you haven't mentioned anything about how this bill helps pregnant women leads me to believe that you're just in this to yell about how bad abortion is.”
It’s meant to help the fetus, actually, in case Daddy decides he’d rather off it than pay child support, among other situations. But again, you knew that already. You’re just pretending you didn’t so you can do your happy slaps, your gonchie pulls, and eat your way through a boxcar of Ex-Lax and =sit on someone’s face. Sandbox tactics, what a wienie. What’s the matter, are they making you do the fifth grade over again? Did the floor fall out of your lame-ass clubhouse?
Bad Attitude wrote: There's a logical argument for everything you moron. Even for (get ready, this might be a little shocking) things you don't agree with.”
Then you shouldn’t have any trouble coming up with one! Go on, I dare you! I double-dare you! Neener-neener-neener!
Bad Attitude wrote: “Grow up. You're an arrogant little boy who hates women, just accept it, go talk to a therapist, try to get on with your life.”
Screeched the petulant adolescent around a mouthful of dope. WWWWAAAAAHHHHH! (hic) WWWWAAAAAHHHHHH! Oh, golly, I swallowed my popsicle...
Leftists. Hah.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 20-Mar-08 1:36:25 PM
"Yes, there is merit, inasmuch as it holds to have value that which has since 1988 been considered valueless"
Who talks like this? Do you think this makes you sound smart, or like an ass?
"I see. So just because a law cannot provide protection in every instance, it must be a dud, right? I’ve heard many idiots (including one idiot who is now a dead idiot) apply the same argument to seat belts: “It won’t save you if you hit a bridge abutment at 200 kph, so what good is it?” News flash, Braniac—it WILL save you in a MAJORITY of collisions"
This is not a seat-belt. Pregnant women can't pick up Bill C-484 like some magic shield and protect them from a bullet or fist. Apples and oranges.
"It’s meant to help the fetus, actually, in case Daddy decides he’d rather off it than pay child support, among other situations. But again, you knew that already."
I already addressed this. Fetuses aren't helped by putting the man/woman behind bars who destroyed them.
You're just making this worse for yourself. You're saying that the merit of this bill is to give value to a fetus. So your big thing is having a fetus recognized as a human being. If that's your motivation behind supporting this bill, then you're living proof that this bill's supporters have intentions other than punish offenders. You're yelling on here that this bill is not about abortion, but you support it because it can help your anti-abortion cause.
Take a deep breath. Use the arrow pointing up on your keyboard and review. Ahhhhh... See? Now hush up, you're making it too easy for us "leftists"
Posted by: Bad Andrew | 20-Mar-08 2:04:45 PM
Do you see what Shane did there, Andrew? He changed your name to "Bad Attitude", thereby implying that you have a bad attitude. Snap.
I enjoyed the debating tips you gave Hendrik, Shane, but you forgot to mention how much it strengthens your point to call your opposition puerile names like "asshole" and "wienie". At least your post contained relatively decent spelling. That's a plus.
I'm confused as to your view of how this bill is meant to work. Above, you state that it is "meant to help the fetus". In one of your March 19th posts, you seemed to acknowledge that it is contrary to the current state of the law to recognize a fetus as a "person" with rights, but that this bill was okay because "under this bill, the fetus will be considered more akin to property; that is, it is a non-person under the law, but its destruction will be legally actionable". So which is it?
Posted by: Angela | 20-Mar-08 2:08:59 PM
Angela, the bill is intended to provide the fetus with what protection the law can give without having to declare it a person, by essentially making it the mother's property. It's a compromise intended to maintain the status quo on abortion while lifting the fetus from its current status as a nonentity under the law. Because it helps both sides, the author of the blog suggested both should embrace it. One side remains suspicious, however, irrationally so.
As for dealing with "Bad Attitude"--I think we can agree that attempting rational debate with this specimen would be about as constructive as sticking your head in the blender and pushing frappé.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 20-Mar-08 3:08:42 PM
Bad Attitude wrote: “Who talks like this? Do you think this makes you sound smart, or like an ass?”
I talk like this. Build a bridge and get over it; cut the deck and deal. You can’t be that infatuated with the impression you leave on others when your very screen name amounts to an e-wedgie.
Bad Attitude wrote: “This is not a seat-belt. Pregnant women can't pick up Bill C-484 like some magic shield and protect them from a bullet or fist. Apples and oranges.”
You’re dancing your ass. The point is that laws do provide more protection than no law. Unless you want to argue that the whole idea of law and order is a sham.
Bad Attitude wrote: “I already addressed this. Fetuses aren't helped by putting the man/woman behind bars who destroyed them.”
Should we repeal the law against murder, too, then? Think carefully before answering.
Bad Attitude wrote: “You're just making this worse for yourself.”
Not at all. I enjoy smashing mouthy punks across the face with a heavy leather belt—figuratively speaking, of course. :-)
Bad Attitude wrote: “You're saying that the merit of this bill is to give value to a fetus.”
Yes.
Bad Attitude wrote: “So your big thing is having a fetus recognized as a human being.”
Human beings, by definition, are not property. Who’s playing apples and oranges now, big-balls?
Bad Attitude wrote: “If that's your motivation behind supporting this bill, then you're living proof that this bill's supporters have intentions other than punish offenders.”
But it isn’t, so boo-hoo to you. Screw.
Bad Attitude wrote: “You're yelling on here that this bill is not about abortion…”
It isn’t.
Bad Attitude wrote: “…But you support it because it can help your anti-abortion cause.”
Oh, how you must wish it were that simple. You think if you say it over and over enough times it’ll come true? And they say the Left doesn’t pray.
Bad Attitude wrote: “Take a deep breath. Use the arrow pointing up on your keyboard and review.”
Too slow. I use the scrolling wheel, like most people who aren’t trapped in the mid-20th-century.
Bad Attitude wrote: “Ahhhhh... See?”
I can see you have a talent for talking yourself into things…
Bad Attitude wrote: “Now hush up, you're making it too easy for us "leftists"”
Live the dream, B.A. Now go play outside.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 20-Mar-08 3:19:23 PM
"You’re dancing your ass. The point is that laws do provide more protection than no law. Unless you want to argue that the whole idea of law and order is a sham."
Not always, some laws are just there to make us feel better and more secure. Your comparison is still completely wrong.
Should we repeal the law against murder, too, then? Think carefully before answering.
No, we should not repeal the law against murder. Murder is a good law, C-484 is not. Not all laws are good. It's strange how some people can read and learn how the world is shades of grey and still come out seeing black and white.
And I don't have to think carefully before talking to you Shane, I just have to stop myself from laughing long enough to type.
"Not at all. I enjoy smashing mouthy punks across the face with a heavy leather belt—figuratively speaking, of course. :-)"
I'm sure your children will one day come to know that you use the term "figuratively" in a very loose manner.
"Human beings, by definition, are not property. Who’s playing apples and oranges now, big-balls?"
But if it was up to you, fetuses would be classified as human beings and women would not have the choice to end their pregnancies.
"But it isn’t, so boo-hoo to you. Screw."
Sure it isn't Shane... Sure...
Bad Attitude wrote: “You're yelling on here that this bill is not about abortion…”
It isn’t.
"Oh, how you must wish it were that simple. You think if you say it over and over enough times it’ll come true? And they say the Left doesn’t pray."
It is that simple. Either that or you're not making any sense and just talking out of your ass to try and save face.
Do you pray a lot Shane? Does it make you feel better when you think about all those awful, awful doctors doing those awful, awful things inside a woman's vagina? I bet god gives you some pretty good explanations for it. It's probably why you're brimming with so much confidence when you're clearly brain damaged. Women shouldn't have any say about what happens down there, should they Shane.... It's like those women overseas complaining about how their religion is forcing them into female circumcisions. How dare they try to take control of their own body!! God wills it, they have no choice.
You're an idiot. You lost this argument a while ago. You're not even in it anymore. I think there's a message board somewhere where you can debate whether Paris Hilton is too thin or something. Go there, and be with your own kind.
Posted by: Bad Andrew | 20-Mar-08 4:03:02 PM
Shane, funny thing is that Bill C-484 is a Trojan Horse devised to split Pro-Choice (read abortionist) camp.
Abortionist as a group are too stupid to see it for what it is.
They do not realise that rejecting this Bill strips them of any legal and moral grounds that they could try to use to defend abortions.
Harper's plan is very simple, he let this private member's Bill thru just to start public debate on abortion issue let abortionists shoot it down and expose their underbelly while doing it.
Abortionists do not realise that senior feminists and adoption industry are all for introduction of restrictions on abortions. There are no unwanted children in Canada these days as all of them get aborted. This creates shortage of children for adoption by infertile women. Current practice of baby snatching by CAS in maternity wards to feed adoption industry demands is way to coercive and creates real risk of pitting rich infertile women against poor fertile women. This split could cause complete demise of feminist movement. Something has to rip and as soon as abortion ban is in place supply/demand issue will get resolved.
Abortionists do not realise that if it was possible to push same sex marriage thru House of Commons despite public opposition to it, passing of abortion ban is a cakewalk considering current dismal birth rate in Canada, and unholy coalition of radical feminists of the left with Christian
fundamentalists of the right.
Cheers.
Posted by: Karol Karolak | 20-Mar-08 4:05:00 PM
Bad Attitude wrote: “Not always, some laws are just there to make us feel better and more secure.”
So which ones “work” and which ones don’t? How do you decide? Play spin the bottle?
Bad Attitude wrote: “Your comparison is still completely wrong.”
Prove it.
Bad Attitude wrote: “No, we should not repeal the law against murder. Murder is a good law, C-484 is not. Not all laws are good.”
And yet no law will deter a determined killer. Criteria please.
Bad Attitude wrote: “It's strange how some people can read and learn how the world is shades of grey and still come out seeing black and white.”
Who says I read and learned that? Most of the people saying so are trying to avoid the certainty of work, judgement, and responsibility that come with a black and white world.
Bad Attitude wrote: “And I don't have to think carefully before talking to you Shane, I just have to stop myself from laughing long enough to type.”
Yes, your aversion to careful thinking is quite evident.
Bad Attitude wrote: “I'm sure your children will one day come to know that you use the term "figuratively" in a very loose manner.”
You’ve only seen me use it once. How would you know? Spinning the magic bottle again?
Bad Attitude wrote: “But if it was up to you, fetuses would be classified as human beings and women would not have the choice to end their pregnancies.”
But it’s NOT up to me, and what I think on abortion has no bearing on the merits of the proposed law in any case. If my aunt had balls she’d be my uncle. Next.
Bad Attitude wrote: “Sure it isn't Shane... Sure...”
Wow. Against such arguments as these, the gods themselves contend in vain.
Bad Attitude wrote: “It is that simple. Either that or you're not making any sense and just talking out of your ass to try and save face.”
The argument for that bill is that simple. Fetesus are currently unprotected; classing them as humans would mean the end of abortion rights; a middle-ground law that classifies them as not persons but property is proposed. It’s not that you don’t understand the reasoning; you just see conspiracies everywhere.
Bad Attitude wrote: “Do you pray a lot Shane? Does it make you feel better when you think about all those awful, awful doctors doing those awful, awful things inside a woman's vagina? I bet god gives you some pretty good explanations for it.”
This has nothing to do with the proposed law. Do not attempt deflections or distractions. They do not work on me.
Bad Attitude wrote: “It's probably why you're brimming with so much confidence when you're clearly brain damaged.”
Yes, no doubt you repose far more trust in a neurotic basketcase who tries to use feelings to explain everything. It would explain a great many things.
Bad Attitude wrote: “Women shouldn't have any say about what happens down there, should they Shane…”
If my understanding of the law is correct, they have sole discretion about what happens down there.
Bad Attitude wrote: “.... It's like those women overseas complaining about how their religion is forcing them into female circumcisions. How dare they try to take control of their own body!! God wills it, they have no choice.”
You’re talking out of the top of your ass. In such societies, the circumcisions are all done by women, to women. The women believe even more in the holiness of the procedure than men do. Yes, there are those who object, but they’re in the minority. There are even stories of girls begging mothers reluctant to perform the operation to do it, lest they be “left out.” I guess peer pressure transcends all national and religious boundaries.
Bad Attitude wrote: “You're an idiot.”
Says you. Boo-hoo.
Bad Attitude wrote: “You lost this argument a while ago.”
Funny, that note from the referee must have got lost in the mail. Oh wait—there IS no referee! Sucks to be you.
Bad Attitude wrote: “You're not even in it anymore.”
Do you often talk to people who aren’t there, then? Again…this development explains a great many things.
Bad Attitude wrote: “I think there's a message board somewhere where you can debate whether Paris Hilton is too thin or something. Go there, and be with your own kind.”
I can’t leave. I’m in love with you. Give to me the large kiss!
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 20-Mar-08 4:55:20 PM
Old feminists selling out young women on abortion issue;
====Painful delivery====
Broadsides by Antonia Zerbisias
http://thestar.blogs.com/broadsides/2008/03/on-wednesday-ev.html?cid=107552240#comments
Ladies, in case nobody told you this as of yet Unborn Victims of Crime Act is not a slippery slope that will lead to re-criminalisation of abortions. There will be totally separate Bill that will do just that. In case none of older and more experienced radical feminists ever told you; botched abortions lead to scarring of uterine walls and infertility. On top of that leaders of Canadian radical feminist movement are way too busy, too old or make too much money to get involved in such mundane tasks like pregnancy and childbirth.
They prefer instant solutions like adoption of unwanted children. Unfortunately there are not that many unwanted children born these days and Children Aid Societies are not that eager to act as baby snatchers as they used to be. There is an urgent need to increase supply to meet demand of old infertile feminists, lesbian and gay couples and professional career women working as doctors and lawyers. Current baby breeding farms (CAS run group homes for teenage girls) are too expensive to operate and they cannot produce enough babies to keep up with demand. Something has to rip and more women have to start acting as baby breeders for adoption racket. Easiest way to accomplish that task is ban abortions and radical feminist leadership is driving this change. It was not a coincident that while House of Commons was voting on Unborn Victims of Crime Act Stéphane Dion was entertaining radical feminists at a pink party held at his Stornoway residence in Ottawa. Dion and his partner had to get married, and had to spent lot of time and money and travel to Peru to find a child to adopt. None of that would have been necessary if Canada kept intact abortion ban.
If there is conspiracy to re-criminalise abortion, it is not driven by religious fanatics it is driven by greed and infertility of radical feminist movement. So now you have it ladies, you are being sold down the river by your own leaders.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/liberals/dion.html
“Dion grew up Catholic in a suburb of Quebec City but he has told interviewers that his family was really rather secular in its outlook. The family often went skiing instead of to church on Sundays, to the consternation of many of the neighbours. His Paris-born mother told the Globe and Mail that she had been criticized for not wearing a hat to church and not long after that the family stopped attending regularly.
And Stéphane himself does not appear to be particularly religious. He only married his wife, political scientist Janine Krieber, so they could adopt a daughter, Jeanne, from Catholic Peru in 1988. Before that the two had lived together, like so many Quebecers of their generation, for almost 10 years — from when they were students at Laval, through four years of graduate work at the Paris Institute of Political Studies (he graduated in 1986 with a doctorate in sociology), to the start of their academic careers in Montreal and, for her, Quebec City.”
Ladies, all your sisters feminists working as lawyers for big Toronto law firms make at least 200k/year each. They generate another 200k/year each for a Law firms that they work for. Healthy newborn Caucasian baby goes for 50k each paid in cash under the table. That kind of money is what each and every one of them generates in less than 6 weeks. There is big competition for these jobs so pregnancy and childbirth are loosing proposition since as soon as one takes maternity leave another one steps in her place.
Great many of them operate in family courts in Ontario so fixing adoption (legalised children trafficking) is a piece of cake for them. You must know this term “It is the economy, stupid!!!!”
Posted by: Karol Karolak | March 15, 2008 at 11:35 PM
Mr. Karolak, once again your agenda to turn women into unwilling wives, mothers and baby incubators is showing.
You not only make unsubstantiated assumptions about ''radical feminists'' not wanting to bear their own children (which they can, with the help of their male partners, friends or turkey basters), but you also accuse them of both advocating abortion and adoption at the same time.
Which is it?
Question: Would you force women -- say pregnant teens who would prefer to have abortions -- to go through with their pregnancies and then give up their babies to feed the ''demand'' by ''radical feminists'' for children? Is that what you are saying?
That said, I am delighted that you recognize how difficult it is for women to balance challenging careers and maternity.
Posted by: Antonia | March 16, 2008 at 01:33 PM
Antonia, thank you for your public and official endorsement of "new feminist concept of division of labour".
I am quite sure that you are "delighted that I recognize how difficult it is for women to balance challenging careers and maternity."
My view however is such that women should recognise constraints of their own biology and give up on some professions and have children of their own instead of trying to keep competition with men at the expense of "forcing women -- say pregnant teens who would prefer to have abortions -- to go through with their pregnancies and then give up their babies to feed the ''demand'' by ''radical feminists'' for children" that they could not otherwise have.
Here is a response that I received from Toronto woman whose child was stolen to feed ''demand'' by ''radical feminists'' for children that they could not otherwise have.
----- Original Message -----
From: M E
To: KAROL KAROLAK
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 3:55 PM
Subject: RE: Royal college warns abortions can lead to mental illness
Isnt it remarkable that pyschiatrists issue warnings about the effects of an abortion but say nothing about the long term effects of adoption.
Ask any woman what's worse, terminating an embryo or being forced to give away your own flesh and blood?? I know what my answer is.
This REEKS of an adoption agenda & social engineering
--------------------------------------------------
From: karol_karolak@rogers.com
To: mothers-in-exile@hotmail.com
Subject: Royal college warns abortions can lead to mental illness
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 11:08:11 -0400
From The Sunday Times
March 16, 2008
Royal college warns abortions can lead to mental illness
Sarah-Kate Templeton, Health Editor
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article3559486.ece
Posted by: Karol Karolak | 20-Mar-08 5:33:38 PM
"You’re talking out of the top of your ass. In such societies, the circumcisions are all done by women, to women. The women believe even more in the holiness of the procedure than men do. Yes, there are those who object, but they’re in the minority. There are even stories of girls begging mothers reluctant to perform the operation to do it, lest they be “left out.” I guess peer pressure transcends all national and religious boundaries."
Wow Shane, I hardly call being held down by 3 women and having your genitals carved up voluntary. Especially when you're 8 years old. I don't know if you're depraved or just uninformed but I'm done wasting my time on your little nazi view of the world.
Karol Karolak - Ummm... You're insane. Aging feminists stealing babies and trying to bring back anti-abortion laws? Maybe you should get into Bigfoot or something a little more realistic.
Keep the bible out of the vag... people.
Posted by: Bad Andrew | 20-Mar-08 6:24:14 PM
Bad Attitude wrote: “Wow Shane, I hardly call being held down by 3 women and having your genitals carved up voluntary.”
Fortunately, that’s not the way it typically happens, so you don’t have to call it anything.
Bad Attitude wrote: “I don't know if you're depraved or just uninformed but I'm done wasting my time on your little nazi view of the world.”
You haven’t offered a single fact for consideration, yet call me uninformed. Your entire contribution to this blog has been one long gonchie pull. Maybe it’s time for your mother to cut down on your sugar intake.
This is what happens when the custodian doesn't disinfect damp locker room floors...lowlifes like B.A. start spawning in the crud. Reproduction is asexual...out of sheer necessity.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 20-Mar-08 7:16:34 PM
Bad Andrew you are accusing Shane of ignorance of the World that we live in. It seems that your own ignorance has no bounds, try these links:
http://boards.aetv.com/thread.jspa?threadID=300012892&start=195
Read post #196,
http://www.unhchr.ch/huridocda/huridoca.nsf/e06a5300f90fa0238025668700518ca4/3ab4d356d165f1b4c1256ce1003c048a/$FILE/G0310400.pdf
Scroll down to Canada.
Posted by: Karol Karolak | 20-Mar-08 8:24:58 PM
Bad Andrew few more links just to give you taste of things on supply end of it.
http://www.exiledmothers.com/babies_taken_for_adoption/index.html
http://www.exiledmothers.com/first_mothers_action.html
http://www.emediawire.com/releases/2004/4/prweb117838.htm
Posted by: Karol Karolak | 20-Mar-08 8:29:31 PM
Bad Andrew here are links just to give you taste of things on demand end of adoption racket.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/liberals/dion.html
“Dion grew up Catholic in a suburb of Quebec City but he has told interviewers that his family was really rather secular in its outlook. The family often went skiing instead of to church on Sundays, to the consternation of many of the neighbours. His Paris-born mother told the Globe and Mail that she had been criticized for not wearing a hat to church and not long after that the family stopped attending regularly.
And Stéphane himself does not appear to be particularly religious. He only married his wife, political scientist Janine Krieber, so they could adopt a daughter, Jeanne, from Catholic Peru in 1988. Before that the two had lived together, like so many Quebecers of their generation, for almost 10 years — from when they were students at Laval, through four years of graduate work at the Paris Institute of Political Studies (he graduated in 1986 with a doctorate in sociology), to the start of their academic careers in Montreal and, for her, Quebec City.”
GOVERNOR GENERAL OF CANADA BECOMES PATRON OF THE ACC
français
The Adoption Council of Canada (ACC) is proud to announce that Her Excellency the Right Honourable Michaëlle Jean C.C., C.M.M., C.O.M., C.D. Governor General of Canada has agreed to be the Patron of the organization.
This formal grant of patronage provides the ACC with the name and status of vice-regal office.
The board and staff of the ACC are very honoured by this announcement, as Her Excellency is the first Patron of the organization. “We are particularly pleased that the Governor General has agreed to be a patron of the Adoption Council of Canada because of her deep concern about disadvantaged children and her personal knowledge of adoption” proclaims Sandra Scarth, President of the ACC.
Posted by: Karol Karolak | 20-Mar-08 9:18:11 PM
Karol Karolak wrote: "Shane, funny thing is that Bill C-484 is a Trojan Horse devised to split Pro-Choice (read abortionist) camp.
Abortionist as a group are too stupid to see it for what it is.
They do not realise that rejecting this Bill strips them of any legal and moral grounds that they could try to use to defend abortions.
Harper's plan is very simple, he let this private member's Bill thru just to start public debate on abortion issue let abortionists shoot it down and expose their underbelly while doing it."
Wow Karol, I couldn't have put it any better myself! So I have to wonder, if an obviously virulently anti-feminist anti-abortion fringe personality like Karol can see through
bill C-484's vary obvious agenda why can’t Shane?
Posted by: Hendrik Bruyn | 18-Apr-08 11:47:56 AM
Post a comment