The Shotgun Blog
« "It was the summer (election) of '69..." | Main | Fresh from the rumour mill: PCPO leadership contestants' membership sales »
Friday, May 15, 2009
We shall overcome bad laws, misguided opponents
It's been a thrilling week to be a pro-life advocate.
The week started with Monday's annual Focus on Life Dinner in Vancouver, which attracted more than 600 supporters who donated well into the six figures to help fund the annual media campaign sponsored by Signal Hill. Equally exciting was the fact that keynote speaker, Preston Manning, endorsed Signal Hill's new, human-rights- compassion- and education-oriented approach. Watch for an op-ed piece by me on Manning and Signal Hill in an upcoming National Post.
On Thursday, the national March for Life in Ottawa was a big success, drawing several thousand supporters. Smaller rallies took place across Canada, including one in Victoria, which drew about 1,000 marchers. I had the honour of acting as MC of the rally that wrapped up the walk. These are the words I used to open the rally:
“I am naturally anti-slavery. If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. I can not remember when I did not so think, and feel.”
The quotation I just read was written a century and a half ago by Abraham Lincoln. Today, slavery is no more. But we have a new and pernicious evil that must be challenged. Abortion. Today, in echo of Lincoln, I proclaim, “I am naturally anti-abortion. If abortion is not wrong, nothing is wrong. I cannot remember when I did not so think and feel.”
Let Lincoln’s words and actions inspire us as we continue to march and to rally, to act and to pray to create a world free of abortion.
Finally, today's big news is from south of the border, where Gallup reports that, for the first time since its polling began in 1995, the majority of Americans consider themselves pro-life.
Message to pro-abortionists, pro-choicers, or whatever you want to call yourselves. The fetus is a human being. It deserves to be treated as a legal person. It has rights. It should be protected.
Posted by Terry O'Neill on May 15, 2009 in Current Affairs | Permalink
Comments
I didn't say trying to protect life puts you in the same boat as the taliban, claiming that "Women are not noted for rational behaviour in the first place, and on this subject they are lunatics." does.
Actually, no, it doesn't, because the Taliban aren't noted for rational behaviour either. Unless you can find the logic in bombarding 2,500-year-old idols with artillery because they're offensive to Allah.
Women have no one but themselves to blame for their reputation for irrational behaviour. It's not that they're incapable of using logic; on the contrary. But it is true that they prefer not to use it. They don't like it, they don't trust it, and in general will resort to it only when there's something in it for them.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-05-16 3:44:59 PM
You people really are challenged in thinking department.
Said the one who said fetus = carrot.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-05-16 3:45:56 PM
The truth is that an unborn child is a being! Children are mostly being aborted because their timing is inconvenient(woman isn't ready yet, husband or boyfriend puts pressure to abort). Most abortions in the U.S. are not for life, rape or incest reasons. Often, these children are only guilty of being born at an inconvenient time. They have rights too! Technology is showing that these children have both an active brain and nervous system early in the first trimester. Bloviate all you want but improvements in medicine show that fetuses are not simply the pieces of playdoh that many pro-abortion people would have you believe.
I spent the first 25 years of my life as pro-abortion. I felt that the pro-choice label was phony and disingenuous! I thought that abortion was both a womens' problem and issue. I ignored the feminazis on campus as they would rant on about how pro-lifers were anti-woman. My response was that abortion was a woman's problem and didn't involve me in it. It was both her choice and her problem(letting me morally off the hook). However,as I got older, I read up on the subject and was forced to change my mind. There were too many facts pointing to fetuses as being living beings. I could no longer promote a policy that kills defenseless innocent children. I would ask you to simply look into your hearts and ask if you have a moral obligation to protect innocent beings who are unable to defend themselves!
Libertarianism stresses the right of the individual. Therefore, shouldn't libertarianism equally stress the rights of the most vulnerable(through no fault of their own) individual? Abortions kill both girls and boys. These children are the next generation. When we disregard their right to exist, we cheapen ourselves as a society. I believe that there is a link between widespread abortion and the coarsening of our society. How can we expect the next generation to learn such concepts as empathy when we so often fall short?
Posted by: Jackson | 2009-05-16 3:46:30 PM
Recent election posters involve a white sheep (i.e. Swiss) kicking a black sheep (i.e. immigrants) over a line (i.e. Swiss border). Open racism in elections makes your country racist.
Posted by: Robert Seymour | 2009-05-16 8:51:41 AM
The election poster you are referring to was about kicking out illegal immigrants back into the EU where they had originally entered as "refugees". Libertarians like you feel they can pick and choose whatever laws they want to abide by. The Swiss view illegal immigrants as just that, illegal. If they were true refugees they already had safety in the EU.
Posted by: The Stig | 2009-05-16 4:09:32 PM
"Women have no one but themselves to blame for their reputation for irrational behaviour. It's not that they're incapable of using logic; on the contrary. But it is true that they prefer not to use it. They don't like it, they don't trust it, and in general will resort to it only when there's something in it for them."
Again with the prejudicial bigotry Shane? Let me guess, you're a pimple faced virgin aren't you. Well with your ignorant attitude your going to stay that way a long time.
Posted by: Farmer Joe | 2009-05-16 5:14:17 PM
Again with the prejudicial bigotry Shane? Let me guess, you're a pimple faced virgin aren't you. Well with your ignorant attitude your going to stay that way a long time.
Farmer Joe, Isn't it odd many people stumble into bigotry as a consequence of a too open mind?
You view virgins with contempt. You think it is quaint that there are still people who actually believe that sex has something to do with continuation of human life. (Ridiculous on the face of it!)
Only advanced progressive and ultra-rational minds like yours realize that the stork theory is true.
Posted by: Timothy | 2009-05-16 5:31:22 PM
See the slaughter of the innocents at:
http://www.AbortionNo.org
-------------------------------------
Definition of fetus At:
http://www.physiciansforlife.org/content/view/1043/26/
The word "Fetus" is Latin and means...
"young one" or "offspring".
"Fetus" simply describes a Stage of Human Development, just as does the Latin word "Adolescent", which means "to grow up".
Posted by: Stephen J. Gray | 2009-05-16 6:33:37 PM
There seems to be a lot of ad-hominem attacks flying back and forth on both sides, so I'll try to keep my comments as civilized as possible. Farmer Joe, your comments indicate that you believe the unborn to be a living entity. At this point, however, you contend that though they are alive, they are not fully human. This necessarily raises the question; if the unborn possess life, then what type of life do they possess? Science tells us that things reproduce after their own kind, dogs beget dogs and cats beget cats. Humans therefore beget humans. It seems reasonable, therefore to contend that the unborn is fully human, as it is the reproductive offspring of humans. If it is not human, then what species is it?
Posted by: C-Dub | 2009-05-16 7:11:06 PM
In the same way as an egg is not yet a chicken a fetus is not yet a human. When the egg hatches you get a chicken, when the fetus is born you get a human. The egg is a potential chicken, the fetus is a potential human. Rights do not pertain to a 'potential', only to an 'actual' being.
Abortion is a moral right which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved. Morally speaking nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. No one has the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body.
Unlike others on this thread I do not believe that women are stupid. It is my belief that they are perfectly capable of deciding what is in their own best interest and that includes all parts of their bodies.
And what is right for one woman at a particular point in time is not necessarily right for all women all the time. It is of the utmost importance that the decision be left to the individual woman.
Posted by: Farmer Joe | 2009-05-16 8:36:39 PM
"You view virgins with contempt."
No I don't. I hold narrow minded gender based bigotry such as Shane's in contempt. And am speculating that his negative stereotype view of women stems from his own failed love life.
Posted by: Farmer Joe | 2009-05-16 8:45:11 PM
Again with the prejudicial bigotry Shane? Let me guess, you're a pimple faced virgin aren't you. Well with your ignorant attitude your going to stay that way a long time.
Already married, F.J.; like your kindred spirit Greenthumb, you're a lousy guesser. Hope you're not a gambling man.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-05-16 9:08:29 PM
You exclude whole swathes of humanity based on your narrow-minded and knuckleheaded idea as to what constitutes humanity, and call me a bigot? Rich. Very rich.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-05-16 9:13:36 PM
In the same way as an egg is not yet a chicken a fetus is not yet a human.
You display a fundamental ignorance of reproductive biology, F.J. An unfertilized egg, whether a chicken egg or a human ovum, is a haploid gamete. Technically it isn’t even an organism because it’s incapable of mitosis (cell division), unlike even the simplest unicellular organisms. Once two gametes fuse, however, they produce a full organism, albeit one at the very earliest stage of development.
When the egg hatches you get a chicken, when the fetus is born you get a human.
A real farmer would know that a chick is alive and aware and moving around long before it busts out of its egg.
The egg is a potential chicken, the fetus is a potential human. Rights do not pertain to a 'potential', only to an 'actual' being.
Wrong again. Both are full, complete, diploid organisms capable of cell division with the DNA of their respective species and are fully differentiated before hatching or birth.
Abortion is a moral right which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved.
There is no such thing as a “moral right.” And no, it shouldn’t.
Morally speaking nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered.
People who practice “pump and dump,” the most murderous form of slavery ever to exist, merely to avoid a little temporary bother, are not in a position to lecture anyone on morality.
No one has the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body.
Just she does not have the right to make decisions concerning the baby’s body.
Unlike others on this thread I do not believe that women are stupid. It is my belief that they are perfectly capable of deciding what is in their own best interest and that includes all parts of their bodies.
It doesn’t matter what you believe. It only matters what you can prove. Your arguments are psychotically inane, and when it’s pointed out to you what a total moron you made of yourself when you compared a fetus to a toenail clipping, you abandoned all pretence of science and logic and tried the emotional morality angle, because it’s all that’s left. And you sucked at that too.
And what is right for one woman at a particular point in time is not necessarily right for all women all the time. It is of the utmost importance that the decision be left to the individual woman.
The "utmost" importance? As in, "all other concerns secondary"? Why is it so important, more important than, say, respect for life and perpetuation of the species?
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-05-16 9:23:31 PM
“perpetuation of the species?” LOL, I don’t think we have to worry about that. The last time I checked humanity was a long ways from getting on the endangered species list and getting farther away from it every day.
Okay, let me come at this thing from a different angle then cupcake.
One of the key things about rights is that they are held, individually, by everyone, at all times. Another is that one person does not have more or less rights than another. Therefore, the rights of one cannot and must not violate the rights of another. They are reciprocal.
A person has the right to be free, but no right to enslave another. One has the right to choose ones own happiness, but no right to decide that their happiness lies in the misery of another. There is no such thing as “a right to a job”—there is only the right of free trade, that is, the right to take a job if someone else chooses to hire you. There is no “right to a home,” only the right to build or to buy one. There are no “rights to a ‘fair’ wage or a ‘fair’ price” if no one chooses to pay them. There are no “rights of consumers” to milk, shoes, movies or champagne if no one chooses to produce these things.
I do not believe that a foetus is a human being or that it has rights, but for the sake of argument let’s say that it is and does.
If the rights of the foetus and the woman are equal then neither have any claim over the other. But there is an obvious problem with this, the foetus is dependent upon the woman for it’s very existence. The woman depends upon the foetus for nothing. It is a very one-sided relationship. One person (the foetus) does all the taking, the other, the woman, all of the giving( I imagine this is how Shanes marriage works).
If we forcibly strapped person A to a table against their will, stuck a needle in their arm and hooked their veins up to person B to keep person B alive, I think we would all see that as immoral and a violation of person A’s individual rights through the use of physical force. Yes, person B may die without the blood of person A, but person B’s need of someone else’s blood does not put a moral obligation on anyone else to provide it. In the same way there is no moral obligation and there should be no legal obligation on the part of a woman to sustain a foetus if she chooses not to.
So either the foetus is a part of the woman’s body and she is free to do with it as she likes, or it is an independent individual human being with full human rights, in which case there is no obligation upon the woman to provide it with anything. Either way it is still the woman’s choice.
Posted by: Farmer Joe | 2009-05-16 10:35:16 PM
It's simple.
All human beings are equal and should have the equal protection of law. That goes for the unborn.
Posted by: SUZANNE | 2009-05-16 10:35:51 PM
What is just or equal about forcing one human being to sustain another against their will? That sounds pretty one sided to me.
Posted by: Farmer Joe | 2009-05-16 10:44:53 PM
LOL, I don’t think we have to worry about that. The last time I checked humanity was a long ways from getting on the endangered species list and getting farther away from it every day.
Then why do we need to import 250,000 immigrants every year just to keep our numbers up?
One of the key things about rights is that they are held, individually, by everyone, at all times. Another is that one person does not have more or less rights than another.
Not true. We put people in jail, depriving them of their right to liberty, but only some people. We don't extend full rights to children and adolescents. This statement is false on so many levels.
A person has the right to be free, but no right to enslave another. One has the right to choose ones own happiness, but no right to decide that their happiness lies in the misery of another.
Or, in the case of abortion, the death of another.
If the rights of the foetus and the woman are equal then neither have any claim over the other. But there is an obvious problem with this, the foetus is dependent upon the woman for it’s very existence. The woman depends upon the foetus for nothing. It is a very one-sided relationship.
The same is true of a newborn, or even a small child. Is a small child's life also subject to termination at the whim of a parent?
If we forcibly strapped person A to a table against their will, stuck a needle in their arm and hooked their veins up to person B to keep person B alive, I think we would all see that as immoral and a violation of person A’s individual rights through the use of physical force.
But if the person did all of these things willingly (which is what you do when you admit male sperm, instead of taking steps to intercept it), this argument is void. A better metaphor would be that person knowingly and willfully making someone else completely dependent upon them for life and limb and then pulling the plug.
So either the foetus is a part of the woman’s body and she is free to do with it as she likes, or it is an independent individual human being with full human rights, in which case there is no obligation upon the woman to provide it with anything. Either way it is still the woman’s choice.
Using this logic, a parent could legally abandon a child to the elements at any time. Do you even think before you make these wretched arguments?
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-05-16 11:12:03 PM
What is just or equal about forcing one human being to sustain another against their will? That sounds pretty one sided to me.
Actually, it's a case of one human forcing another to become dependent on the other, and then withdrawing support. The fetus is there because of the mother's actions, not the fetus's. But you don't acknowledge that responsibility.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-05-16 11:13:23 PM
"Then why do we need to import 250,000 immigrants every year just to keep our numbers up?"
Where are we getting them from Jupiter?
Posted by: Farmer Joe | 2009-05-16 11:48:45 PM
"Using this logic, a parent could legally abandon a child to the elements at any time."
A mass of dividing cells is not a child. Besides which we see stories about this kind of tragedy all the time. Whether it is legal or not doesn't seem to enter the minds of those who do these kinds of things.
Posted by: Farmer Joe | 2009-05-17 12:02:20 AM
Where are we getting them from Jupiter?
Mostly from countries that don't have one abortion for every three live births.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-05-17 12:06:39 AM
A mass of dividing cells is not a child.
A mass of dividing cells describes a blastocyst, an embryo, a fetus, a newborn, a child, an adolescent, an adult, and an old man breathing his last. Don't try to one-up me on life sciences, pal; you're completely outclassed.
Besides which we see stories about this kind of tragedy all the time.
Not grounds for tolerating it.
Whether it is legal or not doesn't seem to enter the minds of those who do these kinds of things.
Using that logic, we'd have no laws at all. In which case a nasty character like you would do well to watch his back.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-05-17 12:10:12 AM
"But if the person did all of these things willingly (which is what you do when you admit male sperm, instead of taking steps to intercept it), this argument is void."
You're getting closer on this one. It is all about what choices people make. Most birth control methods are very effective but only abstinence is 100%. Are you choosing to have sex to make a baby or are you choosing to do so for pleasure.
Nobody chooses to have contraception fail, or to be raped. You don't put people in jail because of something that is not their fault.
Posted by: Farmer Joe | 2009-05-17 12:11:13 AM
"The fetus is there because of the mother's actions, not the fetus's. But you don't acknowledge that responsibility."
Yes I do, I give the woman has the highest responsibility because I give her the choice. You are the one who wants to take the responsibility and choice away from her.
Posted by: Farmer Joe | 2009-05-17 12:16:16 AM
"Using that logic, we'd have no laws at all. In which case a nasty character like you would do well to watch his back."
Are you threatning me because I have a different opinion than you?
Posted by: Farmer Joe | 2009-05-17 12:19:35 AM
You're getting closer on this one. It is all about what choices people make. Most birth control methods are very effective but only abstinence is 100%.
Failed contraceptives are so rare, even allowing for incompetence on the part of its users, as to not be statistically significant.
Are you choosing to have sex to make a baby or are you choosing to do so for pleasure.
Your intent is irrelevant. All that matters is the result.
Nobody chooses to have contraception fail, or to be raped. You don't put people in jail because of something that is not their fault.
You don't pull their bodies apart with forceps, either.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-05-17 12:20:58 AM
Yes I do, I give the woman has the highest responsibility because I give her the choice. You are the one who wants to take the responsibility and choice away from her.
You give her no responsibility, and that is the problem. The only responsibility you assign is to the fetus--specifically to die on demand.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-05-17 12:22:09 AM
"Where are we getting them from Jupiter?
Mostly from countries that don't have one abortion for every three live births."
So when you said "the perpetuation of the species"
you weren't actually talking about human beings is that correct?
Posted by: Farmer Joe | 2009-05-17 12:22:31 AM
"Your intent is irrelevant. All that matters is the result."
Bullshit!!
Posted by: Farmer Joe | 2009-05-17 12:25:12 AM
"You give her no responsibility, and that is the problem. The only responsibility you assign is to the fetus--specifically to die on demand."
This statement makes absolutely no sense. You have a real problem with logic.
Posted by: Farmer Joe | 2009-05-17 12:27:26 AM
"You give her no responsibility, and that is the problem."
No sir it is you who are advocating taking away the rights, the responsibilities and the choices of women. You are wrong, you are misguided and you have no right to do so.
Posted by: Farmer Joe | 2009-05-17 12:32:37 AM
"A mass of dividing cells describes a blastocyst, an embryo, a fetus, a newborn, a child, an adolescent, an adult, and an old man breathing his last. Don't try to one-up me on life sciences, pal; you're completely outclassed."
It also describes a carrot, a rat, fungus, mold and all sorts of other things, none of which are human. It's back to life sciences 101 for you.
Posted by: Farmer Joe | 2009-05-17 12:36:01 AM
Farmer Joe,
So is a 1 day old zygote a human life? Does it have the same rights as an adult? And if so, should sexually active women be required to capture the fluids expelled during their periods to check for a fertilized egg that failed implantation in the uterus, so we can then "save" the human life and have it re-implanted into her or another woman?
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-05-17 12:45:25 PM
"Your intent is irrelevant. All that matters is the result." Bullshit!!
Says who and based on what?
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-05-17 3:43:55 PM
[A mass of dividing cells] also describes a carrot, a rat, fungus, mold and all sorts of other things, none of which are human. It's back to life sciences 101 for you.
Excuse me, it was you who said a mass of dividing cells was not a child, whereas in truth a mass of dividing cells describes any diploid organism, including a child.
Presumably you want abortion to stay legal because you can't figure out Life Sciences 101. Guess you're one of those types who figures the woman won't get pregnant if she's on top.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-05-17 3:46:20 PM
Spare us the hyperventilating, Mike. Up to a third of all fertilized eggs abort spontaneously, usually due to some sort of unsurvivable defect. Failing to capture an aborted zygote is a far cry from pulling apart a living, heart-beating fetus with a pair of forceps and calling it equality.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-05-17 3:48:19 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.