Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« When one lie doesn't work, try a new one | Main | Playing with fire in Iraq »

Thursday, April 10, 2008

Western Standard and Marc Emery on abortion

Since its launch in 2004, the Western Standard has provided what might be called friendly coverage of the pro-life side of the abortion debate.

Western Standard readers may recall a cover story by Andrea Mrozek on sex-selection abortions in Canada. We've all heard of couples overseas aborting female fetuses for want of a boy. In her story, “Canada's lost daughters,” Mrozek’s investigative report reveals it's also happening right here in Canada.

Mrozek continues to write about abortion issues on the Shotgun blog. You can read her posts here and here.

Last year Western Standard reporter Patrick McGee wrote about the efforts of pro-life activists to change the abortion-on-demand status quo in Canada. In his article “Informing choice,” McGee reported on the Crossroads Pro-Life public education campaign that involved activists walking from Vancouver to Ottawa to bring awareness to the issue of abortion. One of those activists was former Western Standard reporter Cyril Doll.

More recently, we published an article by John Williamson on “A not-so-private matter of abortion.” In this article, Williamson writes:

While few Canadians are clamouring for legislative restrictions on abortion, it is doubtful those same voters would support government promoting it. Hence, the pro-abortion lobby employs language that implies the state has little to do with it. They say it's about the freedom to choose, an individual's choice and the state has no business interfering in a private decision. It's a position that satisfies small-government libertarians as well as those claiming to be both fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Yet, government is more involved in promoting abortion than Canadians realize.

Terry O’Neill is also well known to readers as a pro-life reporter, columnist and blogger. You can read O’Neill’s posts on the Shotgun here and here.

The Western Standard’s mission is to build an online news and opinion website with a libertarian and conservative perspective. So, with this objective in mind, how should we tackle the issue of abortion?

Well, we will continue to give pro-life viewpoints friendly coverage in our news reporting and will share the opinions of pro-life libertarians and conservatives.

My personal view, which will no doubt find its way into our coverage, is that abortion should not receive government funding. Forcing pro-lifers to pay for abortions makes a mockery of the notion of choice, and choice is said to be at the centre of this debate.

But not all our readers, and not even all libertarians and conservatives, are pro-life, and their perspectives should be part of our news coverage and editorial discussions.

This brings me to Marc Emery’s latest opinion piece for the Western Standard. Titled “On my vasectomy and my girlfriend's 2nd trimester abortion,” Emery has written a shocking and graphic personal account of...well, his vasectomy and his girlfriend's abortion.

Why would we publish this? Well, first, Emery is perhaps Canada’s best known libertarian activist and publisher. Second, he makes a number of challenging points in his article. Here are a couple of excerpts worth discussing:

There is no statute of limitations on murder or infanticide. If the pro-life position appears in legislation, then doesn’t that make 40,000,000 North Americans (or those still alive) murderers? And is every doctor, nurse, advocate, friend who helped, husband or wife an accessory to any such act? Can we really criminalize upwards of 100,000,000 people in two countries for their abortions?

...

If one state makes abortion illegal, and a woman leaves the state to get an abortion in another state, is she criminally liable for that abortion when she returns to her home state? Or could she never return to her home state again under warrant of arrest? What about the person who helped her over state lines? Is that person an accessory to a capital crime? I respect Ron Paul, who is intense about his pro-life views, in that he doesn’t believe a woman should be punished for having an abortion, but his political stance that under the U.S. Constitution any of the 50 states can regulate abortion is a prescription for civil war.

Emery has a visceral style. (If you’re not pro-life already, you may be after reading his account of his girlfriend’s abortion experience.) With that cautionary note, you can read his complete article here – but don’t say I didn’t warn you.

Posted by Matthew Johnston

Posted by westernstandard on April 10, 2008 in Current Affairs | Permalink

Comments

I have not read the entire article, but allow me a comment on each paragraph excerpted.

"There is no statute of limitations on murder or infanticide...."

An analogous claim would be to argue that the slaves should not have been emancipated and recognized as fully human because that would make anyone who ever owned a slave or helped in any way facilitate slavery guilty of kidnapping or an accessory to kidnapping. If abortion really is murder it does not make sense to say the murders should continue because stopping it would criminalize the people who have done it in the past.

But also it would be simple enough to allow the law to recognize new abortions as prosecutable murders while granting a blanket amnest on all past acts. It is not quite the same as a (ahem) grandfather clause. It is also not quite like the South African amnesty for aparthied era crimes. But it is a little bit like both.

"If one state makes abortion illegal, and a woman leaves the state to get an abortion in another state, is she criminally liable for that abortion when she returns to her home state?"

I am no expert on US law, but if I live in Kansas and I rob a bank in Texas and then return home to Kansas, it does not matter what Kansas law says about bank robbery. If I broke Texas law, then I can be prosecuted in Texas, but not in Kansas. If the same were true about abortion, a Kansas law saying abortion is murder while Texas considers it a legal practice would mean a Kansan who went to Texas to have an abortion broke no law in either state and could return home without fear of prosecution.

Posted by: Fact Check | 2008-04-10 2:16:02 PM


Why do you post what this Emery guy has to say? He's a wanted criminal! Who'll be posting next, Mumia Abu Jamal?

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-04-10 3:08:00 PM


Whoa! Miss/Mrs/Ms. Karolak -- are we living on the same planet?!

"Nobody seems to realise that women who while young and attractive have abortions as the prospect of pregnancy and motherhood is not very appealing to them are the same women who decades later while not so young or so attractive anymore desperately try to get pregnant and have children of their own to stave off prospect loneliness and emptiness of the rest of their lives. These same, now ugly and old, women find themselves infertile as result of so many abortions that they had in their past. Infertility however does not stop them from achieving their goal of having a captive audience of a child (human pet one could say) by hook or by crook."

So, let me get this straight: In your opinion, a young woman, or couple, who opt for an abortion, do so simply because the idea of having a child is 'unappealing', and that abortion as birth-control is MORE appealing than actual birth-control?

You do paint a rather colourful image though: One of young nubile nymphets blithely engaging in wanton, unprotected sex. Their firm young bottoms wriggling taunts and the big Promise of 'no strings -- no consequence' to the unwitting young lads who would be seduced by their charms. And once they've bounced around town and abortion clinics for a decade or two, their charms now faded and their bodies scarred from multiple abortions making them no good to anyone, really ... what option do they have but to devise a sly, selfish and dastardly plot:

" These same once young and attractive women turned witches end up working for government where they use their positions to legally steal children from economically disadvantaged Canadian women that chose nevertheless have children of their own."

Of course! Brilliant! Get a government job, use the position to legally steal (even if you have to adopt) children from the 'Impoverished and Disadvantaged Breeding Farm'! How very sci-fi!

are you for real?

"This tug of war between old and infertile and young and fertile women with increasing frequency turns into real tragedies. It is not only that young women of today more and more often choose to have abortions as a way to prevent having their newborn stolen from them at maternity wards and a way to prevent being smeared in government records as unfit mothers with prospect of having all of their future children stolen from them, but also women facing apprehension of their children by old witches on government payroll turn to murder of their own children."

How true! These women (read drug addicted sluts, or otherwise undesirable) should have been aborted themselves rather than allow their children to be subjected to lives with those malevolent old witches!


I haven't run across such a woman-hater in thirty or forty years.

Personally, I commend any man who knows he doesn't want children and certainly knows that he never wants to put a woman through such a painful experience -- either way it happened to go. That level of maturity is often lacking in men of forty never mind twenty.

Your attack on Mr. Emery says an awful lot about you. In fact, it's downright transparent!

We are, in reality, dealing with human beings here ... not pets. And human beings are complex, emotional beings and not always rational or even logical. We are also capable of compassion.

The image you painted might be a best seller for some kind of Harlequin Romance -- 'Bad Girl: Old Hag', or even perhaps for some twisted porno flick -- but it's not reality now is it?

I thoroughly enjoy reading Mr. Emery. He is well known for his candour and I appreciate that breath of fresh air every now and again.

Bravo, Mr. Emery!

Posted by: Mahara Sinclaire | 2008-04-10 8:36:57 PM


The Replacements: "Dope smoking moron ! Don't make me yawn."

How did Emery become Canada's leading "libertarian activist?" Perhaps libertarian philosophy would gain more clout in this country if the movement wasn't led by Cheech & Chong potheads.

Posted by: Buchanan | 2008-04-10 9:47:19 PM


i'm afraid you have me confused with someone else.

Posted by: Mahara Sinclaire | 2008-04-10 9:47:51 PM


Karol - please do not post complete articles as comments. Provide a link with your commentary. Thanks.

Also, please do not post private and personal information or lenghty email exchanges.

Thanks again.

Matthew Johnston

Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2008-04-10 10:38:47 PM


LOL! Who cares what males think about abortion? Abortion is a matter between a woman and her healthcare provider. Reproductive health is part of basic primary health care delivery and healthcare is a basic right of citizens and a human right. Taxpayers cannot cherry pick which programs to fund and which not to fund. Abortion is a settled area of public policy in Canada. If Harper and his clowns want to reopen this issue, why has he not done so already? The fact is that the Canadian public is not interested in reopening this matter. It is settled. If Harper tries, he will go down in flames.

Karol, you are wasting space with your verbose posts. Less is more, more is less. LOL!

Karol is representative of Harper views on abortion. The more Karol speaks for the CONservatives, the more ordinary Canadians take fright and turn away from Harper. Thanks Karol! LOL!

Posted by: ROGER | 2008-04-10 10:45:13 PM


I do believe Karol is posting anti-semitic posts now! Blood libel posts at that! The highly respected Dr Morgentaler, a true Canadian hero, ought to sue for defamatory libel for the vicious statement written by Karol. This is no laughing matter.

Posted by: ROGER | 2008-04-10 11:24:10 PM


LOL! Karol, call me whatever you please, just make sure you spell my name right! LOL! While you are busy name-calling, the rest of us are free to have substantive discussion. So please, stick to name-calling. I am doing this as a public service to everyone here! LOL! A sandbox of name calling for Karol to play in while adults can have a good chat. A soother for Karol.

Posted by: ROGER | 2008-04-10 11:52:13 PM


Funny how we need a license for a car, a pet, a marriage, a gun, to grow pot - everything! But any idiot who can figure out how to get their pants off is allowed - no, ENCOURAGED - to bring more of themselves into the world.

There is absolutely nothing more environmentally irresponsible than having a kid. ESPECIALLY if you live in North America. The amount of natural resources a human will use up, coupled with the pollution it will produce, should categorize all newborn children as weapons or mass destruction.

This country, this continent, this PLANET needs more humans like it a fish needs an accordion.

I had a vasectomy after years of harassing my doctor, and two near fatherhood episodes. Never regretted it, and every time I see some sugar-charged yuppie-larvae named Cody or Rachel screaming like a psycho in a mall, I smile to myself. The I laugh and say "Bet you are wishing you bought those condoms NOW, aren't you?!? Ha ha ha!!"

Then people like my wife and I - who chose not to have kids - are treated like WE are the weird ones. "You aren't having KIDS?!"

Like there is something wrong with US, because we don't want to have our children live on a polluted turd ruled over by demons named Cheney and Bush and Putin.

Earth is doomed. Anyone deliberately having kids in 2008 is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Posted by: Russell Barth | 2008-04-11 6:07:27 AM


Oh yes Russell God has no plans for any more children on earth at all-stop it all now ervyone and tie your tubes. You sound like David Suzuki and his sick ideas.
Chidren are Gods creation and I say the more the merrier.
This new age left wing Al-Gore dribble makes me want to vomit.
Onward to more children all over the world!
We certainly though need less of your knuckle dragging types.

Posted by: Merle | 2008-04-11 7:49:36 AM


It is really too bad that this discussion (which has potential) turned into a ridiculous back and forth between ROGER and Karol.

First of all, Roger the idea that children are the enemy of "the environment" is extremely offensive. There is no future without children, and evolution would continue having winning and losing species, volcanic eruptions that cause huge emissions of CO2, periods of warming etc. would continue. What a sad belief system to have.

I am firly pro-life and would never have an abortion, even if raped. I am always, completely opposed to any public funding of abortion and believe that abortions after 20 weeks should be illegal for both the woman and doctor, unless it is a case of the woman's life and health being in danger. (in this case it should be publicly-funded until our obselete system is done with overall).

I struggle with pre-20 week abortions. I believe it is a life and deserves rights, but at the same time have sympathy for the view espoused at prowomanprolife.org that we should convince women to choose life rather than legislate it. I would support immediate legislation requiring informed consent to abortions: ie women have to view ultrasounds, read information about what stage of development the fetus is at and receive information on all of the risks later in life.

Mr. Emery's story is disgusting. His wife chose to end a promising new life. I enjoy the same substances as Mr. Emery occasionally, but he appears to enjoy it far too much. if the right to toke up is more important to him than the right of his own son or daughter to live and possibly someday have their own children, he is completely morally corrupt. How does one sleep at night with such a lifestyle?

Children are the future people - all children deserve life and any life is better than no life.

There is the pro-choice view throughout the media - WS is one of the few places one can even see a pro-life position. (sadly no longer in print as Mrozek's investigative piece was groundbreaking and should have been seen by a wider audience). Please focus on pro-life and informed discussion.

Posted by: Elizabeth | 2008-04-11 8:23:41 AM


My heart goes out to Marc Emery and his wife and associates, (Michelle Rainey, and Greg Wms).

They have consistently worked hard for civil rights in Canada AND the U.S. They are not afraid of confrontation from the government.

As far as abortion is concerned, I have the belief that this should be solely a choice made by the individuals involved. The "mother" and/or "father" of the "child".

No government or religious entity NOR medical services should dictate policy on what is to me a very private decision that affects no one else but those that are directly involved in the situation.

It seems to me that in this day there is no longer a "need" to produce children for "laborers" or that for whatever reason may produce suffering for the child or the perspective parents, unless they (the parents) believe that they SHOULD endure this pain.

On a personal note, I have never had an abortion but I vehemently support the right to do so.

I was born with debilitating depression and anxiety and chronic pain syndrome since I was a young adult. In my own mind I knew that I probably should not have children, since this IS an inheritable disease.

However, since I was born and raised Catholic, birth control was not an option for me when I was young. (Actually I was too young to be having a physical relationship with anyone). But somehow, using "birth control" would be a worse decision than actually getting pregnant.

GOD was with me in my young years, (or maybe I was just lucky, I am not sure about that). However, I did not become pregnant until I was nineteen years old - which is still way too young to be having the responsibility of a child. I should have been in school, preparing my life so that my children (if I had them) would have had a better life than I did - though I was far from mistreated.

Anyway, due to the fact that my father had told me I was "crazy" not to want children, I did indeed become pregnant. The first question my Mother asked me after the initial blow was "Why didn't you use birth control?" I was stunned.

As a result of my decision NOT to have an abortion, both of my pregnancies were full term, and both daughters were born with yellow jaundice, which in and of itself was not so bad.
But as the years passed, I realized that they too would suffer the depression as I had, and that is most difficult for me to live with, because I had known in my own mind that this is what would happen, but I still chose to put these children on this "earth".

My oldest daughter has anxiety and depression and other health problems as well. As well my youngest daughter had her first pregnancy at 15 and lost the child to stillbirth. By nineteen she had two precious boys, who also show signs of this horrid disease.

In addition, my youngest daughter has "Acute Myofacial Pain Disorder" to go along with the depression and anxiety that she suffers from. She
For all practical purposes will never be able to obtain work that will 'support her family' as they should be supported.

So there you go, from my Grandfather's generation (where this began, (only because I know of no previous family members), through my Father who I loved dearly and still do, through myself, and my two children, and now my grandsons, we have passed down a legacy of illness. We have no other legacy to pass because we were all "ill".

I don't know where the initial depression started or why, I just know that I wish I had not produced more suffering because I did not want to "SIN" and prevent my children from being born into this horrid way of life.

However, I love my children and grandchildren more than anyone in the world, and will do all that I can for them. And I sometimes wonder if "THERE IS A REASON FOR ALL OF THIS". Only time will tell. I do believe in God, and maybe just maybe, he sent all of us here for a reason.


Sheree Krider
Louisville, KY
[email protected]ghtbb.com


Posted by: Sheree M Krider | 2008-04-11 11:36:03 AM


>"This country, this continent, this PLANET needs more humans like it a fish needs an accordion.

Like there is something wrong with US, because we don't want to have our children live on a polluted turd ruled over by demons named Cheney and Bush and Putin.

Earth is doomed. Anyone deliberately having kids in 2008 is part of the problem, not part of the solution."
Russell Barth | 11-Apr-08 6:07:27 AM

Bush and Cheney are done as of January 2009, time to get over your BDS.

Better still, a vasectomy wasn't enough, why don't you save the planet by giving your mother a retroactive abortion?

Posted by: Speller | 2008-04-11 12:10:44 PM


Only in fascist Ontario would the murder of babies be considered a civil rights struggle.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-04-11 12:28:45 PM


Sheree, thank you for your personal story.

With all that said, do you think that your daughters had no right to live? Do you think the risk of an inheritable disease is a good enough reason to kill human life?


You state at the end that perhaps we were all put here for a reason? wouldn't that mean that a woman gets pregnant for a reason other than killing the unborn child?

Karol: Please stop posting entire articles, especially ones that aren't related to the topic at hand.

Posted by: Elizabeth | 2008-04-11 12:37:39 PM


Karol's comments are now approaching violating section 319 of the criminal code (hate speech) and have no place in even a right wing oriented forum.

Posted by: Dan Grice | 2008-04-11 1:41:23 PM


Karol,

You need to stop claiming that a gay cabal is controlling the attorney general's office. Not just because it's a hateful thing to say, but it's also annoyingly stupid.

Your follow up post doesn't substantiate the claim, either. So what: the judge is willing to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies. Big deal.

Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-04-11 2:13:10 PM


I want to commend Marc on this piece. For those who only know about him from his cannabis activism, this piece is from a part of his life before he became involved with Pot (I'm certain he has said in the past that he didn't try cannabis until his mid 20s) and illustrates a different side of the person and someone who may not always be right or respected, but at least has shown himself to be consistent in following through with what he believes to be his principles.

For any WS readers who believe in personal responsibility, this story is one that is hard to top. While not all of the readers may believe agree with the legal position in regards to abortion, Marc's story illustrates an extreme example of why our current laws are necessary. It is a story of a young couple who were taking reasonable precautions to avoid an event they were not prepared for and were twice lied to by their family doctor. Once to pull his girlfriends off of birth control, and a second time that almost lead them to have a late term pregnancy. For anyone to blame or criticize Marc based on this piece or to tie this article into his pot activism, really shows a lack of character.

His irreversable vasectomy was the extreme act that should be congratulated by any one who opposes abortion as well as those who believe that women should have control over their own fertility. He is not attempting to glorify abortion or undermine the moral dilemma, but is showing a character of someone who believes in his own maximum right to freedom but who understands that responsibility does come with that.

You don't have to agree with him and his stances, but WS readers should at least show him some respect for having strength of character and his desire to devote his life to the issues and beliefs that he believes in.

Posted by: Dan Grice | 2008-04-11 2:24:47 PM


Karol,

How about starting your own church or creating your own blog so that others will enjoy sharing their toughts with people really passionate about the past century.

I'm just suggesting here; please don't go crazy and write down billions of words. I personnally enjoy reading your opinions for some reasons but maybe not all your emails, letters, urls...

But hey, this is a free country...do as you want.
And try to enjoy the week-end.

Posted by: Marc (One who also enjoy smoking weed but who's not M. Emery) | 2008-04-11 3:03:24 PM


Karol,

I'm a Canadian. I attend school here, but I grew up in Ontario. But one of the finer skills that comes with studying philosophy is the ability to make a distinction between the assessment of the validity of a person's claims (and the evidence he offers for them) and where that person happens to be living at the moment.

Where I study has nothing whatsoever to do with my ability to judge the comments you made.

Justice Brownstone may be a supporter of same sex marriage. As a judge, he probably does have the authority to remove children from the custody of their parents, at least under some circumstances. You claimed that his intention is to use that authority as part of some homosexual plot to steal children away from heterosexual parents.

It's that claim that with which I and others have taken issue. Your insinuation that I am unfit to assess that claim because I happen to be living for the moment in Bowling Green, Ohio, reveals only that my rebuke struck a nerve.

Good. Your libelous accusations crossed the line. Get over it.

Best,

Terrence C. Watson
PhD candidate,
Department of Philosophy
Bowling Green State University

Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-04-11 4:46:21 PM


Mahara Sinclaire is an established artist and painter in Vancouver and has no association with the website www.laughingboomer.com, that is a different Mahara Sinclaire.

All the comments left by Koral Karolak are abusive and extremely derisive of other people leaving comments, insulting homosexuals, Jews, potheads, women, old women, etc. Its an endless insane slander, none of which makes any sense.

Matthew and Peter, you have to learn that ON TOPIC is essential, derisive name calling sooner or later hijacks a thread, its unseemly and unacceptable in respectable publications.

You two have to develop rules of merit in order for people to comment, the crazy ones will drive away thoughtful people. All comments are welcome, you should say, as long as they are relevent, to the point, free of insults, contain at least a germ of intellectual content and overall each comment has to contribute to the discussion in a manner worthy of a national publication.

I think Karolak is chasing away the serious comments because her machine gun insults scream "I'm a lunatic and I'm going to judge and attack every other comment here."

Posted by: Marc Scott Emery | 2008-04-11 5:13:46 PM


Marc,

I have it on good authority that some of Karol's most outrageous comments were already removed. But you're right: even what's left is so over-the-top abusive that many will reasonably shy away from commenting.

I really liked your column, by the way. I was one of the people who interviewed you on the Political Animals radio show. Thanks again for doing that.

And Karol, the next time you Google me, you should search for "Terrence C. Watson." Let me know what you think about my piece in the Toledo Blade on censorship in Canada. Also, you could offer your opinion of my Washington Times piece on health care in Canada.

Both pieces were written during my time as a graduate student in the United States.

Best,

Terrence C. Watson

Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-04-11 5:24:03 PM


Karol,

Imagine that: a gay person who doesn't like it when gays are discriminated against! What IS the world coming to?

And no, I don't think that resentment is motive to do what you're accusing him of doing.

Kind regards,

Terrence C. Watson

Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-04-11 5:30:47 PM


Karol Karolak is a man, not a woman as I had originally indicated in my salutory remarks. Google has unearthed some very interesting information about Karol Karolak, P. Eng., Missisauga, Ontario.

Surely no one takes this guy seriously.

Pfft.

Posted by: Mahara Sinclaire | 2008-04-11 5:56:03 PM


Karol, I don't enjoy policing this site, but please keep your posts reasonably short and on subject and do not post entire articles in your comments. Thanks again.

Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2008-04-12 1:01:31 AM


Michael and Marc:

"I think Karolak is chasing away the serious comments because her machine gun insults scream "I'm a lunatic and I'm going to judge and attack every other comment here."

Having gone to Catholic school, I'm quite familiar with the anti-abortion rhetoric (and the people who push it) and just skim over it. Yes, seeing a bunch of spam from this Karol character, with a few drive-by and lame posts from obvious trolls, make me loath to post anything useful here. Moderation (with an option to killfile obvious trolls like Karol and others) would be an improvement

Posted by: Tim | 2008-04-12 8:09:40 AM


Marc Emery's article is a welcome revelation of the power of certain doctors to force their personal views on others. His concluding comment that abortion is available in Canada without state interference is unfortunately not true. Women in New Brunswick, for example, are forced to get permission from two doctors before getting a funded abortion (up to 12 weeks gestation only) at one of only two hospitals that actually offer them. This regulation is at odds with the Canada Health Act, and is currently facing a court challenge. Over 700 women per year pay in full for their abortions (up to 16 weeks gestation) at the Morgentaler Clinic in Fredericton because they could not access the funded abortions they are legally entitled to have as Canadian citizens.

Posted by: Lianne | 2008-04-13 10:16:41 AM


Matthew Johnston

you do not need policing this site. All posts by Karol are perfectly true and to the very point, given that we have Neo Fascists like Tim Meehan, Michael and Marc.

Matthew: No Pasaran to Neo Fascists of Canada!
The People have the right of self-defense and they WILL self-defense from Noe Fascists like Tim Meghan, Michael and Marc and the likes ...

Posted by: Maria | 2008-04-13 11:58:02 AM


re : Lianne pregnancy ...


Don't you understand that Doctors have duty to intervene when there is illness, disease, not to mention life threatening condition.

Pregnancy/new life is fundamental, normal, healthy condition of mammal species. Whoever force otherwise onto Doctors, who have the ultimate Hippocratic Oath, is deranged, psychopathic criminal.

Lianne pregnancy is not life threatening condition that resolves itself in nine months.

From medical point of view there is no need for medical intervention. Feminists claim that foetus is nothing but clump of tissue just like excess fat.

Publicly funded health insurance dos not cover elective medical procedures like tummy tuck of a face lift.

Why should we as Canadian taxpayers finance performing of elective medical interventions like abortions??

Not mentioning health risk of abortions or moral question of participation in killing unborn children.

Posted by: mirna | 2008-04-13 12:10:44 PM


following up on “Oppressed Lianne” (associate professor of visual culture, University of New Brunswick, [email protected]) ...

Juxtapossion

post 13-Apr-08 10:16:41 AM:
Marc Emery's article is a welcome revelation of the power of certain doctors to force their personal views on others. His concluding comment that abortion is available in Canada without state interference is unfortunately not true. Women in New Brunswick, for example, are forced to get permission from two doctors before getting a funded abortion (up to 12 weeks gestation only) at one of only two hospitals that actually offer them. This regulation is at odds with the Canada Health Act, and is currently facing a court challenge. Over 700 women per year pay in full for their abortions (up to 16 weeks gestation) at the Morgentaler Clinic in Fredericton because they could not access the funded abortions they are legally entitled to have as Canadian citizens.

with

the following :

1)
“Oppressed Lianne” wrote whole book on encroachment of men into traditionally female profession of midwifery.

“Childbirth and the Display of Authority in Early Modern France”

https://www.ashgate.com/shopping/title.asp?isbn=0%207546%203619%204

"Throughout the early modern period in France, surgeon men-midwives were predominantly associated with sexual impropriety and physical danger; yet over time they managed to change their image, and by the eighteenth century were summoned to attend even the uncomplicated deliveries of wealthy, urban clients. In this study, Lianne McTavish explores how surgeons strove to transform the perception of their midwifery practices, claiming to be experts who embodied obstetrical authority instead of intruders in a traditionally feminine domain."

2)
http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/166/13/1700

The Left Atrium De L´oreille gauche
Lifeworks

Picturing the dead, Lianne McTavish

----------


“Oppressed Lianne's" obsession with death indicates some very serious mental ploblems. Is it possible that she shares with Dr. Morgentaler his philosophy of abortion as crime prevention tool or is it more necrophilia aspect of abortion that turns her on???

Posted by: Lisa | 2008-04-13 1:52:44 PM


following up on “Oppressed Lianne” (associate professor of visual culture, University of New Brunswick, [email protected]) ...


Juxtaposition


post 13-Apr-08 10:16:41 AM:
Marc Emery's article is a welcome revelation of the power of certain doctors to force their personal views on others. His concluding comment that abortion is available in Canada without state interference is unfortunately not true. Women in New Brunswick, for example, are forced to get permission from two doctors before getting a funded abortion (up to 12 weeks gestation only) at one of only two hospitals that actually offer them. This regulation is at odds with the Canada Health Act, and is currently facing a court challenge. Over 700 women per year pay in full for their abortions (up to 16 weeks gestation) at the Morgentaler Clinic in Fredericton because they could not access the funded abortions they are legally entitled to have as Canadian citizens.


with


the following :


1)
“Oppressed Lianne” wrote whole book on encroachment of men into traditionally female profession of midwifery.


“Childbirth and the Display of Authority in Early Modern France”


https://www.ashgate.com/shopping/title.asp?isbn=0%207546%203619%204


"Throughout the early modern period in France, surgeon men-midwives were predominantly associated with sexual impropriety and physical danger; yet over time they managed to change their image, and by the eighteenth century were summoned to attend even the uncomplicated deliveries of wealthy, urban clients. In this study, Lianne McTavish explores how surgeons strove to transform the perception of their midwifery practices, claiming to be experts who embodied obstetrical authority instead of intruders in a traditionally feminine domain."


2)
http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/166/13/1700


The Left Atrium De L´oreille gauche
Lifeworks


Picturing the dead, Lianne McTavish


----------


“Oppressed Lianne's" obsession with death indicates some very serious mental problems. Is it possible that she shares with Dr. Morgentaler his philosophy of abortion as crime prevention tool or is it more necrophilia aspect of abortion that turns her on???

Posted by: Lisa | 2008-04-13 1:55:48 PM


Matthew Johnston, you can delete 1st copy my post with time stamp 13-Apr-08 1:52:44 PM. Sorry for error.

Posted by: Lisa | 2008-04-13 2:00:15 PM


ABORTION POLICY IS A SETTLED MATTER IN CANADA.

Citizens are happy with the present policy and uninterested in reopening this debate.

Harper lied to voters when he claimed he would be able and willing to reopen this issue. Harper ain't gonna touch this topic because it is a quick road to oblivion for him. Harper is a cynical opportunist who encourages the feeble minded to believe he will do something about abortion by turning the clock back. Harper also promised action on same-sex marriage and the death penalty and the sacred trust of income trusts and he was going to show the world that global warming was a commie conspiracy and he was going to take French off your cornflakes boxes and put Quebec in their place and ..... LOL! Now he is shovelling money into Quebec and licking Quebecois toes and recognized Quebecois as a People! LOL! Notice how Harper speaks a lot of French these days? LOL! Next Harper is going to lead the Pride Parade down Calgary! Harper in bare bum chaps! LOL!!!!

Posted by: ROGER | 2008-04-13 2:08:12 PM


Lisa, I accept your admission of error. Your thinking is indeed in error. That you recognize it is a positive sign.

Posted by: ROGER | 2008-04-13 2:09:16 PM


Hallo dude ROGER!


Error was spelling-unchecked copy at 13-Apr-08 1:52:44 PM.


NOT the correct copy at 13-Apr-08 1:55:48 PM.


----------


ABORTION POLICY IS NOT A SETTLED MATTER IN CANADA.

Citizens are NOT happy with the present policy and ARE UTMOST interested in reopening this debate.

And the People will prevail always against you ROGER and your ilks ...

Posted by: Lisa | 2008-04-13 2:19:37 PM


Lisa, your error is noted. If abortion is such a burning issue for voters, why has Steve Harper and the CONartists not pounced upon it and milked it for all the mileage they can get out of the issue? Is Harper averse to issues that will win him votes? Not likely! So, why has Harper not jumped on it? You think Harper supports abortion as a basic human right and part of basic health care for women? Maybe. More likely, Harper knows that he would quickly lose an election on this issue and return to the wilderness of Alberta.

Posted by: ROGER | 2008-04-13 2:29:42 PM


Marc Emery is a Neo Fascist? HAH HA HA! Well, I've got my shits and giggles for the day. Dope-smoking Crack Heads? Doesn't even make sense! But sure, come to our safe sex orgy, Karol. We'll be sinning debaucherers all night long! Oh, and as for Marc's abortion clinic weaponry -- well, I'll go clean his AK-47 now! Yes, kill the babies. Heil Hitler! No, wait... Morgentaller's a Jew, right? Then, down with Hitler! But praise dope fascism! *rolls eyes* What ridiculous, outrageous, bandwidth-wasting tripe. Do you see how nutty Karol sounds?

Karol seems like a mentally unstable hatemonger, clearly an anti-freedom, anti-liberty Social Conservative (or Neo Conservative), and reminds me of a few other online trolls who like to post random obscure references to other websites, emails and blogs to back up their outlandish claims and opinions. That type of behaviour follows in the vein of other Marc Emery-hating trolls such as crazy John Turmel (in Ontario), nutty John Shavluk (of BC), and obsessive YouTube/internet stalker "xxhevinheaven", or really "Dr. Alexander Sumach" aka Roddy Heading. It's disgraceful and not at all credible.

As for abortion, I am completely for a woman's right to choose what to do with her body and anything she creates with her body. I believe that giving birth to a child without having a home, money, two loving parents, and emotional stablility is the WRONG thing to do. There are so many people who have been raised without a father and soon fall into addiction and self-destructive behaviours -- all because they were raised improperly, born into an unstable environemnt, and affected by the lack of both parents. To give birth to, and raise, a child for 1 through 18 years of age in an unhappy, unloving, unstable, poor, abusive, or neglected home is -- in my opinion -- by far a greater sin than it is to abort a developing fetus. I believe birth control is a good thing, but it's still being tweaked to find the most comfortable and effective method, and as such, young women continue to get pregnant while trying to find the best form of birth control. For you anti-condom, anti-pill types, "pulling out" is NOT effective birth control!

I (thankfully) have never had to worry about pregnancy with my husband (Marc Emery) and am so very grateful for it. I've never had the fear or stress about being late for my period, or thinking that I might need to get an abortion, or make plans for raising a child. I do want children, but not now -- because once I have a child, my life will be focused entirely on them and nothing else, and as much as I want to give all of my love and undivided attention to a beautiful baby, at this time in my life I want to devote myself to political causes, so I can't be a parent. Not yet. And that's also what Marc thought when he got his vasectomy -- he knew he would be so busy as an activist for decades to come that he wouldn't be able to be a great father, so he knew he shouldn't have kids. I think that's a much wiser decision than staying fertile and possibly impregnanting a few women (Marc has had a number of solid long-term relationships).

P.S. Karol, Marc Emery hadn't even tried marijuana, or ever seen it, when he went through this traumatic ordeal. Marijuana didn't figure in the story whatsoever. Leave your "dope-head" comments to marijuana-related articles, at the least.

Posted by: Jodie Emery | 2008-04-13 4:35:59 PM


One other poster's elucidating on “Oppressed Lianne's" was one of the best posts:


When one compares Lianne McTavish (associate professor of visual culture at the University of New Brunswick) posts (13-Apr-08 10:16:41 AM etc.),


with her other writings, such as:

1) her writing the whole book on encroachment of men into traditionally female profession of midwifery. “Childbirth and the Display of Authority in Early Modern France”


https://www.ashgate.com/shopping/title.asp?isbn=0%207546%203619%204


"Throughout the early modern period in France, surgeon men-midwives were predominantly associated with sexual impropriety and physical danger; yet over time they managed to change their image, and by the eighteenth century were summoned to attend even the uncomplicated deliveries of wealthy, urban clients. In this study, Lianne McTavish explores how surgeons strove to transform the perception of their midwifery practices, claiming to be experts who embodied obstetrical authority instead of intruders in a traditionally feminine domain."


and

2)
http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/166/13/1700

The Left Atrium De L´oreille gauche
Lifeworks


Picturing the dead

Lianne McTavish


questions abound:


Does “Oppressed Lianne's" obsession with death indicate some very serious mental problems?


Is it possible that she shares with Dr. Morgentaler his philosophy of abortion as crime prevention tool or is it more necrophilia aspect of abortion that turns her on???

Posted by: joyce | 2008-04-13 5:05:27 PM


I don't believe Emery's claim that he had to name his fetus. That is ridiculous, and I hope someone with the authority to debunk that claim will get wind of this article at some point, but I suspect that since Emery isn't on the mainstream radar, he may actually get away with this fib as he has with so many previous tall tales...

Posted by: jinkies | 2008-04-14 6:55:48 AM


Anonymous miscreants identifying their unhappiness with the veracity of one picayune detail amongst hundreds of details is just hateful. What no empathy for a couple of kids going through a trauma together? Just, "I bet the dead fetus never got named!" As if thats some pathetic gothcha that undermines the story! The Hospital in those days recorded the abortion as a miscarriage or still birth (dead on birth) as a result of politics (hospital boards in those days were political committees that battled back and forth between abortion advocates and prohibitionists).

Posted by: Marc Scott Emery | 2008-04-14 7:04:51 PM


Mr. Emery, you are not a kid going through a trauma. The event you described allegedly took place 31 years ago. Now, I don't expect one to ever 'get over' something like that, but it would be nice if you would someday 'get over' demanding empathy for hamming up a maudlin tale from your long-gone youth.

Your response echoes the 'but I'm the real victim here!' response from James Frey when a few details he insisted weren't relevent in the 'big picture' were determined to be fabricated in his so-called autobiography. The fact that you don't insists that you really did name a fetus 'Ben Emery' leads me to believe my suspicions of narrative fabrication are correct. What gave it away is when you said that 2nd trimester abortions were legal (but for some reason only in London Ontario, not Chatam Ontario), but even though they were legal, the nurse claimed that 'because they are still controversial you have to name the fetus'. Now look, either an abortion is legal or its not and if its a legal abortion, you don't have to 'name a fetus' because the chattering classes find the whole ordeal to be 'controversial'.

I'm sure the ordeal sucked, whether it occurred exactly as you described or whether you hammed it up with or without conscious fabrication (for example, calling the needle the 'coldest steel' you'd ever seen was silly. Do you always judge the temperature of various articles of steel you see?). Hamming it up like that just lessens the impact of what you obviously feel is an important narrative, and fabricating parts is simply inexcusable. It may be trendy to fabricate stories and pass them off as non-fiction these days (afterall the book The Secret has sat on the top of Canada's non-fiction charts for over a year, when everything in it is in fact fiction). But that doesn't make it right, nor does it mean that I have to empathize with liars just because those same liars insist that the ends justify the means.

Any by the way, you criticize me for picking out a single claim in your 4-page narrative for closer examination, but in fact, I simply chose to reference what I felt was the most obvious, or most likely fabrication. I actually don't believe the whole part about the crazy family doctor who lied to you about your girlfriend being pregnant because he thought you two would make a nice couple and needed some nice kids around, too. But that part is simply somewhat more plausible than the part about being told to name the fetus. The part about naming the fetus was the least plausible part of the narrative as a whole, and that is why I addressed it specifically.

And also, I personally do not like you. I would empathize more for a perfect stranger going through the ordeal that you described than I would for you, not the least of which is because I consider you to be a pathological fibber with such a high degree of neurosis that you probably believe many of your fictional accounts. That alone should trigger empathy, but coupled with your extreme narcissism and self-admitted messiah complex, it is hard for me to find much compassion for you. But realize that even if you are as wonderful as you say you are, and even if you are capable of doing no wrong since 1977, there will always be a large contingent of people who idolize you, and people who despise you. Every great person throughout history has had to deal with that, especially while they're still alive. If you really are as great as you say you are, you will not be lauded as great by the majority of the population until long after you're dead. History will determine your worth its annuls, and if you can't reconcile to yourself that you will not be universally idolized within your lifetime, well, maybe you aren't the second-coming of christ afterall...

Posted by: jinkies | 2008-04-14 11:46:36 PM


By the way, you claim in your response:

"The Hospital in those days recorded the abortion as a miscarriage or still birth (dead on birth) as a result of politics "

Politics or no politics, I don't believe that they ever required people to name their miscarriages or still births, either. In fact, many healthy births don't get named for a week after their birth, and I believe there is a grace period in which the parents can apply for the birth certificate, and babies are not officially 'named' anywhere until their name is placed on a birth certificate, and a miscarriage or still birth would not generate a birth certificate. What you're saying makes no sense. What kind of cruel hoax would it be if medical professionals insisted that would-be parents name their miscarriages and stillbirths because the 'paperwork requires it'. Ridiculous. And you know you only get away with making such ridiculous claims on a regular basis because your audience consists primarily of stoners who wouldnt know the first thing about how to think critically, let alone find worth in fact checking (too much work, maaaan).

Posted by: jinkies | 2008-04-15 12:17:03 AM


One more comment:

Recently, US-presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton has been taken to task for falsely recalling debarking from a plane during the Bosnian War, under sniper fire, afterwhich videotape footage of the debarking was uncovered which showed no sniper-fire whatsoever. Like you, Clinton shrugged off the gaffe as being irrelevent when caught. Some people seem to think her fabrication matters, some don't. Mostly people who don't like her think it matters, and those who do like her, think it doesn't matter. But should we really accept fabrications from public figures on the basis of whether we like them or not, or whether we agree with their platform at large? It's no crime to fall victim of false-memory syndrome, and when the memory is of a highly emotional event, the likelihood of false-memories is far greater. Not to mention the current emotional turmoil you must be feeling over your legal troubles. The fact that you can even come up with a halfway coherent narrative about abortion at this particular time is rather impressive in itself, regardless of the veracity of the claims made therewithin.

And by the way, I don't dislike you or anyone else for pot use. I denigrated stoners in my previous post because I do think that a lot of pot smokers turn to smoking pot in order to be happy about their own stupidity. I smoke pot daily, but I still feel motivated to fact-check things I read on the internet. Not that pot-smokers have a monopoly on believing everything they read on the internet, but lets face, it there is preponderance of pot smokers who believe in nutty conspiracy theories which simply don't pass muster under scrutiny. And pot smokers, like you, think they're on such a moral crusade that they can't even change their damn minds once in a while - which is equivelent to admitting being wrong - something no self-righteous pot crusader ever does. When rigid personality-types get their hands on weed, it seems to be a recipe for disaster. Your rigid personality oozes out of everything you write. When you write about your vasectomy, you are proud as punch that you made such a final, life-changing decision at such a young age, and have never once wondered if you might change your mind later on and want it reversed. Because you knew that once you have your mind made up about something, nothing can sway you. Sadly, you consider that to be a position of strength. There's nothing wrong with someone not changing his mind, I mean, maybe you did make the right choice, but I'll bet you never challenge your own choices, you simply reinforce them. I'm just wondering, is there any big decision you've ever made in your life that you now think might have been the wrong decision? Seriously, I'd like to know. Because I doubt you can think of one. John Kerry lost the last US election because he changed his mind about the Iraq war, and the majority of voters consider that to be a weakness, rather than a strength. George W. Bush spent a better part of a year of his presidency dancing around having to admit that the choices he made based on 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' in Iraq were the wrong choices. So there's no great mystery as to what would motivate a person to adopt a rigid personality, and interpret their rigid behavior as strong behavior. The fact is most people on this planet, pot smokers or not, are stupid. So it's easy for people who are a little smarter than average, to benefit by pandering to the less intelligent with what the less intelligent seem to want. And if the less intelligent majority wants leaders who never change their minds, there will always be plenty of people willing to fill that mould. I wonder how many of your most ardent supporters find that quality to be one of your best. Afterall, a leader who changes his mind confuses and loses supporters.

Posted by: jinkies | 2008-04-15 2:18:56 AM


jinkies - you know not of what you speak.

It is in fact policy in Ontario (in 2008!) that a still-born baby has to be named; no ifs ands or buts about it. I speak from experience.

Posted by: Jay | 2008-04-15 9:32:25 AM



The comments to this entry are closed.