Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Meanwhile, the Audacity of Hype is whining again | Main | Obama aide gets fired for doing what Obama said he would do »

Friday, May 09, 2008

Rally? What rally?

A massive anti-abortion protest clogged Ottawa streets yesterday afternoon in one of the largest, most visible signs of public discontent with Canada's abortion lawlessness seen in years.

Meanwhile, in more than half a dozen centres across Canada, thousands more pro-lifers were marching and rallying to protect the lives of the unborn.

None of this ring any bells? That's because (according to my Google News search) only one story about the mammoth, cross-country March for Life campaign appeared in the mainstream press, this one, here, in the Ottawa Sun.

I took part in the March for Life in Victoria yesterday, an event which attracted about 1,000 peaceful but determined participants. Here's a photo I took.

Img_4621

It was a highly unusual affair, and not the sort of tree-hugging, business-bashing march and rally that normally ends up on the lawn in front of the B.C. Legislature. That alone should have made it newsworthy. But I saw not a single TV camera, radio reporter or newspaper journalist during the entire event.

That's one stinking, steaming piece of media bias, if you ask me.

Posted by Terry O'Neill on May 9, 2008 in Media | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e552313c8a8834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Rally? What rally?:

Comments

I choose life.

Posted by: set you free | 2008-05-09 11:05:02 AM


You are right of course. MSM remain in lock-step with the pro-death movement and think that by claiming the matter settled it is thus so. Just pretend the pro-life people do not exist or that they are only a very small unimportant number. The same applies to other issues also such as SSM.

Posted by: Alain | 2008-05-09 11:21:31 AM


I'm on the fence with this issue, but you're absolutely right. These numbers and this kind of organization deserve more attention from all media.

Posted by: dp | 2008-05-09 1:10:20 PM


There was a photo on the cover of the Ottawa freebie Metro (click Canada & Ottawa to see it at http://www.readmetro.com/ )

Yes, that is the only coverage.

A police officer got distracted during the rally and was hit by a car. There were 5 stories.

Posted by: bob | 2008-05-09 1:10:51 PM


As to the pro-life rally at the B.C. legislature. I believe Premier Campbell was a no-show. But hey, he did meet with two "gay men" who wanted "Queer History" taught in the schools. So he does have "priorities." As to the mainstream media across Canada, most of them are pro-abortion. Therefore, 8000 people marching for LIFE in Ottawa does not constitute a "story" for them. But hey, they did give saturation coverage to a few hundred dead ducks killed in the Alberta Tar sands. Most of the "news media" are a joke. I quit buying "newspapers" a number of years ago. To see the killing by abortion that is covered up in Canada and elsewhere go to http://www.AbortionNo.org

Posted by: Stephen J. Gray | 2008-05-09 2:16:36 PM


The main stream media is a dieing decaying entity, killed by their shallowness and bias.The new place for real news is the internet blogosphere.As for the pro abortion death cults,time has a way of getting rid of them.As long as people keep speaking out against abortion justice (for the unborn) will be satisfied.

Posted by: Warren | 2008-05-09 4:18:33 PM


"The new place for real news is the internet blogosphere."

The internet blogosphere? What other blogospheres are there Warren? In any case, run the numbers. How many 'news' blogs actually do primary source news gathering vs. scan the newswires for stories to editorialize on?

Posted by: Pattern Recognition | 2008-05-09 4:27:26 PM


Don't discount the power of the blogs, P.R. Remember the role they played in the last Presidential election, bringing down one of the most respected TV news anchormen of the era. The Internet is democracy personified. Just as the printing press brought books and reading to the masses, so the Internet is bringing the ability to self-publish to the masses. And I say, God bless it!

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-05-09 9:06:01 PM


I live in Washington state, and about three years ago was so happy to see a contingent of students from Trinity Western University and Redeemer Pacific College in Langley, BC show up at our Washngton State March for life in January. This past year year when we marched, we had over 5000 people on the steps of the state capitol and there was no coverage by the press. The State Patrolmen providing security said that ours is the largest demonstration each year, but the press stopped covering us about five years ago. At the national March for LIfe there usually are over 100,000 people marching in Wasington, D.C. None of our local newspaers even report it.

Don't be discouraged. I turn 55 tomorrow and I have been working in the pro-life movement since I was 18. I am spending my birthday tomorrow at a pro-life conference in Seattle because we are now mobilizing against an attempt to get a Physician-Assisted suicide measure on our ballot in November. We can use any help you can give us. We really need your prayers, and we also need funding. The supporters of Assisted Suicide have already raked in over $900,000 from all over the world. Our people have only raised about $32,000. We are just getting going in organizing--they have been organizing for almost two years. We beat this down already in 1991, but we were better organized.For more info or to donate, go to www.noassistedsuicide.org

The work doesn't end. It just changes shape. Keep up your hope!

Posted by: Suzanne | 2008-05-09 9:36:30 PM


There were 8000 people at the March in Ottawa, plus hundreds across the country.

How many of these people are blogging about it?

Not that many.

Pro-lifers should be a bit more pro-active in promoting their events.

Posted by: SUZANNE | 2008-05-09 9:54:32 PM


I know I'm pissing into the wind with this crowd but so are the pro-lifers.The vast majority believes it should be a womans choice. The unborn. Whats next?, the unthought of ?. Assisted suicide, nothing like dying in agony and dragging it out as long as possible.We treat our animals with far more respect.

Posted by: peterj | 2008-05-09 10:10:50 PM


Pattern recognition you're nit picking.

Posted by: oldblindpue | 2008-05-09 10:56:11 PM


Nine times out of ten, I'd agree with you peter. Then I wonder how I'd feel about having no voice in the decision to abort a child I fathered. I suppose fetus is the proper term though. I'm not taking sides because I no longer have a stake.

I also wonder how my kids would feel if I decided to opt out of my golden years. Maybe they'd feel I was worth more alive, in whatever condition. I'd like to think someone would at least try to convince me to stick around, rather than smile and hand me the ammunition.

As far as the vast majority goes, I think someone needs to actually do some counting. From what I've seen there are more pro-lifers out there than the media wants to admit.

Posted by: dp | 2008-05-09 10:56:15 PM


dp...It is rare for a woman to have a abortion if there is a relationship with potential. Most abortions are a act of desperation and in all probability the mothers regret it for the rest of their lives. In most cases there is not a father in sight. Speaks volumes on our moral standards today.I strongly believe in assisted suicide BUT only if safeguards are in place, such as requiring 3 doctors to verify that there is no hope of improvement or recovery and the final decision remains with you at all times. If abortions were outlawed it would only mean that the back alley butchers would be in business again.

Posted by: peterj | 2008-05-09 11:46:53 PM


I attended the Pro Life March in Victoria May 8th/08 and about 1000 people marched and I found it amazing not to hear any heckling from the people on the sidewalk's as we passed by , there was a look of sombre on some of the faces in the crowd.When we arrived on the lawn of the Legislature we listened to many fine speaker's who spoke on the right of the unborn to life ( just as member's of the Legislature have the right to life and sit in on the debates in session ) unfortunately Mr Campbell did not appear on the steps to acknowledge the unborn issue and the media did not put in an appearance' ah well we will wait and see and maybe one day they will all join in ,in the preservation of LIFE. Mary T Harrington

Posted by: mary harrington | 2008-05-10 12:14:01 AM


I attended the Pro Life March in Victoria May 8th/08 and about 1000 people marched and I found it amazing not to hear any heckling from the people on the sidewalk's as we passed by , there was a look of sombre on some of the faces in the crowd.When we arrived on the lawn of the Legislature we listened to many fine speaker's who spoke on the right of the unborn to life ( just as member's of the Legislature have the right to life and sit in on the debates in session ) unfortunately Mr Campbell did not appear on the steps to acknowledge the unborn issue and the media did not put in an appearance' ah well we will wait and see and maybe one day they will all join in ,in the preservation of LIFE. Mary T Harrington

Posted by: mary harrington | 2008-05-10 12:14:05 AM


peterj: back alley butchers...good one. Like the butchers that perform abortions in clinics are better?

"Personally I'm against the death penalty. But we have to keep it legal, otherwise people would be trying to carry out executions in an alley with a coat hangar."

Posted by: Markalta | 2008-05-10 9:47:11 AM


Read this. SJG. full article at url below. SJG
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=63846

MATTERS OF LIFE AND DEATH
Abortionists use Mother's Day for fundraising
'You have to admire the utter chutzpah of the people at Planned Parenthood'
Posted: May 10, 2008
12:30 am Eastern

© 2008 WorldNetDaily
Planned Parenthood, the U.S. abortion industry's biggest presence, is using Mother's Day to promote its conferences and raise funds, triggering a jaw-dropping reaction among those who battle its agenda.
...

Posted by: Stephen J. Gray | 2008-05-10 9:54:53 AM


>"Most abortions are a act of desperation and in all probability the mothers regret it for the rest of their lives."
peterj | 9-May-08 11:46:53 PM

As with the "back alley butchers" statement the above is pure unsupported propaganda.

I say most abortions are had by young professional woman, who have 3 or 4, and use them as a form of birth control.

Posted by: Speller | 2008-05-10 11:37:34 AM


I was on the March in Ottawa. We flooded the streets and bystanders flocked to their windows to watch the procession which begining and end was always out of sight. It was a Huge rally-just as it was the year before and it brought Ottawa to a standstill. I arrived at the flame at 11.45 am and all I could see was a sea of people and signs. Other than Canada Day events there are few rallys and events in ottawa bigger than this March For Life. The crowd was even bigger than last year-and my personal 'count' and estimate was at least 8,000 strong. I did see TV cameras and photographers but all the footage in the world means nothing when the Liberal editors are around and only show the public what they want them to see. A massive show stopping march for life is not one of those. But they will hurray arounfd a dozen pro-abortion or women's rights activists when they go to the hill. As I have said many times before,the Conservatives might have tight hold of the wheel of the ship of state but the Liberals are in the engine room and the NDP is on watch.

The only people who can change this sorry state of affairs is ourselves. The media are nothing more than cowards. There was a time when journalists and their editors served the public interest and more than anything they served the truth. The Fathers Rights movement of which I am a part suffers from media bias ignorance in the same way. The answer is to ignore the MSM and create our own media. The truth will get out eventually.

Posted by: Jeremy Swanson | 2008-05-10 2:41:34 PM


That is not even close to 1000 people.

What are you CONs, commies now?

BTW, when all you pro-life men posting here can carry a baby to term, feel free to keep it. Good luck with that. Otherwise, it's a woman's choice.

And Harpo will not lift a finger to change that.

Posted by: joe bleau | 2008-05-11 2:44:44 AM


Police also estimated 1,000. Looked at a few pictures and seems a reasonable estimate. As for Pattern Rec's comment on original news-gathering being done by the bloggers vs. legitimate media, you'd be surprised how little of what appears in msm is "primary source." And this site qualifies as one that does. O'Neill was there.

Posted by: Paul N. | 2008-05-11 4:11:01 AM


Paul N and Joe Bleau. Police on the hill and RCMP security estimated 7,000=and this according to your own biased Liberal media. The organizers and this writer estimated 8,000 and probably more. When a procession head is turning the corner at Lisgar street when the middle has yet to hot Elgin street what does that tell you? I was there. Where either of you? All you have to say is that it was 1000 because you think it suits your purpose. Its not the truth but it suits you to say it and perhaps makes you feel better-and less nervous about the obvous tide of change. I know a thousand people when I see them just as I know 10,000 when I see them. One has to actualybe on site to bear such witness. Had there been a hundred thats what would have been reported, What has anyone got to gain by 'fudging the figures? On either side of the argument? Well we know what you have to gain. Thankfully the majority of the 8000 on the hill (and I am sure there might have been more than that) are not of the type and character who would lie and obfuscate.
As in all ligfe the truth hurts and in this case irritates. The tide of change is hhuge and its getting bigger, I actiually hope to see the day when a full investifgation is held into the skaughter of human beings on an unprecedented scale and that people responsible-apologists and supporters included are brought to justice-starting with arrests and maybe even down the road and according to hundamental justice-incarceration for murder.


Posted by: Jeremy Swanson | 2008-05-11 6:38:01 AM


Of course it's media bias, it screams it out.
However, if a rumour were circulated that certain politicos would be there, now you got real focused attention.

Posted by: Liz J | 2008-05-11 7:22:12 AM


I meant 1,000 in Victoria, responding to Joe Bleau's questioning the estimate. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

Posted by: Paul N | 2008-05-11 10:16:46 AM


I see this issue above and beyond the question of abortion. Once again it confirms how MSM are agenda-driven and without any credibility. One can find evidence on just about any issue regardless of where one stands on the issue. MSM determine according to their agenda what is news worthy while important issues are ignored. Of course this is exactly why I long ago stopped all subscriptions to MSM publications.

Posted by: Alain | 2008-05-11 1:57:02 PM


I am just curious, do anti-choice people here believe women would not try to get an abortion (by other means than a medical procedure) when it would be outlawed again?

Where there no abortions before Roe vs. Wade in the US?

There obviously has to be a scientific based legal framework, not a "Free for all", but the way the anti-choice crowd makes things out to be, doctors salivating over the chance to "kill a human being" is ideology.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-05-11 3:41:12 PM


I choose life.

Is that OK with you?

Posted by: set you free | 2008-05-11 5:16:46 PM


It is unfortunate that the incipient new Right in Canada is adopting the failed Christian morality of the American Religious Right.


There is a logical, scientific morality by which the Right - in Canada, the US, or elsewhere- can fight for laissez-faire capitalism; and that morality is contained in Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism. I recommend Miss Rand's "The Virtue of Selfishness" to Western Standard readers.


With regard to the abortion issue specifically, the rational approach is to examine the nature of human life. What kind of entity possesses rights?


Man has rights because of his nature: man's values (food, drink, shelter, etc) are not automatically available to him: he has to produce them. To produce, man must employ his mind - he must think. But, thought is intangible; to realize his thoughts, man requires tangible, physical objects (property) which he may call his own. While these objects are not automatically given to him, if he earns them, then they are his *by right*. Man's *moral* rights, therefore, are conditions of existence required for his survival. Man requires the right to think, judge, and own (property rights), if he is to live.

It is man's mind - his reason - that differentiates him from the non-conceptual living beings. Man can fell trees -- and can kill lions, mosquitoes, or dogs -- without worrying about their rights (they have none); after all, man cannot reason with the animals, insects, or plants.


However, man *can* reason with his fellow men. Which is one more reason why he has to respect their rights as they respect his. The men who do not respect their fellows' rights are punished, and rightly so. Some men, such as murderers, violate man's rights at root, and hence, forfeit all of their own rights.


To repeat, it is man's mind - his reason - that is the source of rights. Which is why a non-adult's rights are in the custody of his parents until he learns to properly use his reason.


Does a baby have rights? Certainly. But, does a foetus? If, as modern medicine tells us, the foetus is in *first trimester* of the women's pregnancy, the answer is NO. A first-trimester foetus has no mind, and is not yet human.

"That would be baby-killing!" some may protest. Which would be hysterical. For, a foetus is *not* a baby. The potential is not the actual.


Consider a man who cuts some flesh off his own arm. Do we lock him up in jail? No. So, what makes this different from a piece of protoplasm aborted in a pregnancy's first trimester?


The foetus is new life, you cry? But, stem-cell research offers the possibility of new life developed from the flesh off a man's arm. What's the difference?


Most important in all this is the pregnant host's right to her own life. She must not be forced to give up her life and future because of a piece of tissue. The religious Right's approach to this issue is counter to the best of Western Civilization and proper only to the medievalism of the barbarians at and inside the gates.


Let us disavow this emotionalism, Canada, and lift up this great nation!

Posted by: ANewMorality | 2008-05-11 7:59:04 PM


I choose life.

Posted by: set you free | 2008-05-11 8:03:19 PM


ANewMorality, if you cannot see the difference between "the flesh off a man's arm" and a "foetus", I feel sorry for you. Please pick a different nic as what you are pushing is not morality of any kind.

By the way this is not about the "religious Right", since there is no religion or belief system which supports your view.

Posted by: Alain | 2008-05-11 8:34:21 PM


Alain,

I look forward to your fact-based, non-fallacious rebuttal of my position. Religion is not the source of morality - morality arises from the requirements of man's life. Aristotle, the father of Western Civilization, was not religious.

Thank you, sir.

Posted by: ANewMorality | 2008-05-11 9:14:35 PM


I hardly think owning a shipping company and marrying a murdered presidents widow elevates Aristotle to such a lofty position.

Posted by: dp | 2008-05-11 9:42:26 PM


I choose life.

Is that OK with you?

Posted by: set you free | 11-May-08 5:16:46 PM

For yourself you can chose whatever you want. Why should I care?

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-05-11 9:42:43 PM


It is man's mind - his reason - that differentiates him from the non-conceptual living beings.

Yeah, as a species. Not individually. There are individuals who are devoid of reason, such as mentally ill patients. Unborn children share in the same nature as born human beings, which is why they're valuable. We were all fetuses once, and our value is not instrumental but intrinsic. A fetus is not ontologically different than a born human being.

Most important in all this is the pregnant host's right to her own life.

I am 30 weeks pregnant. I am not a "host". My unborn child is not a "parasite". A parasite is of a different species than a host. My unborn child is my progeny. A host is not biologically designed to welcome a parasite, whereas a woman is biologically designed to carry a fetus.

The notion that all human beings are equal is a notion that can be acknowledged by all, religious or not. Fetuses are human beings. That's a fact. They therefore are entitled to the same rights as other human beings,including the right not to be killed. Owning a uterus doesn't give you the right to kill.

Posted by: SUZANNE | 2008-05-11 9:46:44 PM


Posted by: SUZANNE | 11-May-08 9:46:44 PM

Suzanne,

I am curious, where do you draw the line when the cells in a womans womb become a human being? What, in your opinion / expertise, is the point at which human life begins?

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-05-11 9:49:06 PM


I was at the March in Ottawa and there were over 7800 people. I even got interviewed by a guy from A-Channel...not that any of the footage they took was actually shown on TV. Both A-Channel and CityTv trucks were there...yet no coverage was broadcasted.
What are they trying to protect society from? Abortion is there, like it or not...and the world needs to see it.

Posted by: Jennifer P | 2008-05-11 10:18:24 PM


Suzanne wrote:-

"Yeah, as a species. Not individually. There are individuals who are devoid of reason, such as mentally ill patients. Unborn children share in the same nature as born human beings, which is why they're valuable. We were all fetuses once, and our value is not instrumental but intrinsic. A fetus is not ontologically different than a born human being."


This is incorrect. Mentally-ill patients are not "devoid of reason" -- their reason is hampered or diseased, but they do possess reason. An adult without reason is a vegetable, such as Terry Schiavo, which is why her husband's actions were fully moral. There is no such thing as "unborn children": when a foetus is carried to term, it becomes a child; while it is a foetus, it is a foetus. A is A. A thing is itself.


Furthermore, values are objective, not intrinsic or subjective: the concept "value" presupposes the questions "for whom?" and "for what?" For example: The sun is not a value in and of itself. The sun is, generally, a value *to* man, since man derives energy from it, needs sunlight to grow crops, etc. However, the sun's value *to* any given individual man could vary: one man's summer suntan could be another's visit to a dermatologist. So, the sun's value is contextual, yet not subjective; the sun's value is *contextually absolute* i.e., objective. (For a full discussion of this point, please see Ayn Rand's "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.")


A fetus which does not possess *consciousness* *is* metaphysically [ontologically] different from a human being. All human beings are "born"; there aren't any otherwise, so your qualifier is invalid.

Suzanne wrote:-

"I am 30 weeks pregnant. I am not a "host". My unborn child is not a "parasite". A parasite is of a different species than a host. My unborn child is my progeny. A host is not biologically designed to welcome a parasite, whereas a woman is biologically designed to carry a fetus."


Dictionary.com has, as one of its definitions of the word "host," the following:

"The animal or plant on which or in which another organism lives."

It is in this sense I used the word "host," so your protestations are unpremised.


Suzanne wrote:-

"The notion that all human beings are equal is a notion that can be acknowledged by all, religious or not. Fetuses are human beings. That's a fact. They therefore are entitled to the same rights as other human beings,including the right not to be killed. Owning a uterus doesn't give you the right to kill."

No. I did not - and would not - say that "all human beings are equal." Such imprecise language has led to many social evils. I hold that all human beings possess certain inalienable rights which exist as a result of their nature. As I have demonstrated with the "arm flesh" concrete, fetuses are *not* human beings. They are only *potentially* so. A potential is not an actual. A is not non-A. Hence, a foetus in its 1st trimester can be rightfully terminated by its owner/host. The owner has actual rights, rights which cannot be infringed by any man or mob.

Posted by: ANewMorality | 2008-05-11 10:55:07 PM


The sickness of the self proclaimed "enlightened" mind never ceases to amaze me.

Allow me to lift up your rock so you crawl back under it anm.

Posted by: deepblue | 2008-05-11 11:32:50 PM


Joe Blow wrote: "BTW, when all you pro-life men posting here can carry a baby to term, feel free to keep it. Good luck with that. Otherwise, it's a woman's choice."

Cut the self-righteous crap, Joe. You could use the same logic to allow parents to slaughter their children rather than have to spend 20-plus years of their lives in bringing them up. Or to allow husbands to beat their wives, and ignore any criticism from those who are not married on the grounds that "they don't know what it's like."

Women don't like it when mean speak up about what they see as women's issues, but it is strange how vocal women become when it comes to men's issues.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-05-12 7:57:22 AM


A New Morality wrote: “It is unfortunate that the incipient new Right in Canada is adopting the failed Christian morality of the American Religious Right.”

That “failed” morality describes over 40 percent of Americans, and was instrumental in making the U.S. the most powerful country on Earth. What has Canada to show with its flirtation with socialism?

A New Morality wrote: “There is a logical, scientific morality by which the Right - in Canada, the US, or elsewhere- can fight for laissez-faire capitalism; and that morality is contained in Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism. I recommend Miss Rand's "The Virtue of Selfishness" to Western Standard readers.”

Morality is, by definition, subjective and therefore neither scientific nor logical. Simply put, moral behaviour is that which does not outrage.

A New Morality wrote: “With regard to the abortion issue specifically, the rational approach is to examine the nature of human life. What kind of entity possesses rights? Man has rights because of his nature…”

Man has rights because he gave himself those rights.

A New Morality wrote: “Man's *moral* rights, therefore, are conditions of existence required for his survival. Man requires the right to think, judge, and own (property rights), if he is to live. It is man's mind - his reason - that differentiates him from the non-conceptual living beings.”

So only sapient creatures (as opposed to most other animals, which are merely sentient) have rights?

A New Morality wrote: “Does a baby have rights? Certainly. But, does a foetus? If, as modern medicine tells us, the foetus is in *first trimester* of the women's pregnancy, the answer is NO. A first-trimester foetus has no mind, and is not yet human. "That would be baby-killing!" some may protest. Which would be hysterical. For, a foetus is *not* a baby. The potential is not the actual.”

Bottlecrap. When a baby is born, only its brain stem is operational. There is little difference, cognitively speaking, between a first-trimester fetus and a newborn. A person in a coma essentially has no mind, and may only potentially be brought back; does that person lose his rights as well?

A New Morality wrote: “Consider a man who cuts some flesh off his own arm. Do we lock him up in jail? No. So, what makes this different from a piece of protoplasm aborted in a pregnancy's first trimester?”

The fact that the fetus is a human individual with all the attributes used by physicians to determine life and police to identify persons—heartbeat, brain waves, fingerprints, DNA.

A New Morality wrote: “The foetus is new life, you cry? But, stem-cell research offers the possibility of new life developed from the flesh off a man's arm. What's the difference?”

How about the fact that the man had a say in lopping off his arm? And the fact that the organism as a whole does not perish?

A New Morality wrote: “Most important in all this is the pregnant host's right to her own life. She must not be forced to give up her life and future because of a piece of tissue. The religious Right's approach to this issue is counter to the best of Western Civilization and proper only to the medievalism of the barbarians at and inside the gates.”

You are not permitted to conflate life continuation with future. The number of pregnancies that pose health risks to the mother is way down in the single digits. Hell, crack whores have babies all the time. And your comparison to barbarians is emotional hyperbole and not suitable for the crafting of policy.

Such a pedantic, long-winded treatise to communicate a basic premise: Only thinking beings have rights, which presumably excludes unborn humans. However, that is not the way the Charter is drawn up. Fetuses had their status as persons removed purely for political reasons; there was no scientific basis for it. To sum up, “New Morality,” the only real difference between your morals and that of the Christian Right is that the latter has some.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-05-12 8:10:03 AM


A New Morality wrote: “Mentally-ill patients are not "devoid of reason" -- their reason is hampered or diseased, but they do possess reason. An adult without reason is a vegetable, such as Terry Schiavo, which is why her husband's actions were fully moral.”

So you’re a psychologist now? Terry Shiavo was devoid of CONSCIOUSNESS, which is not the same as possessing no reason. Animals possess little if any reason, but they’re very conscious.

A New Morality wrote: “There is no such thing as "unborn children": when a foetus is carried to term, it becomes a child; while it is a foetus, it is a foetus. A is A. A thing is itself.”

Semantics. You can’t change facts with wordplay.

A New Morality wrote: “Furthermore, values are objective, not intrinsic or subjective.”

Says Ayn Rand. Are you going to do some thinking for yourself, hotshot, or do you allow dead intellectuals to do all of your talking and, it seems, your thinking?

A New Morality wrote: “A fetus which does not possess *consciousness* *is* metaphysically [ontologically] different from a human being. All human beings are "born"; there aren't any otherwise, so your qualifier is invalid.”

That is opinion, not fact, and in fact is an opinion held in spite of numerous scientific facts established since Rand was actively publishing (or even alive for that matter).

A New Morality wrote: “Dictionary.com has, as one of its definitions of the word "host," the following: "The animal or plant on which or in which another organism lives." It is in this sense I used the word "host," so your protestations are unpremised.”

So according to the criteria you lay down above, all welfare recipients are “hosts” of the Canadian taxpayer, and therefore may be excised at will? I’ll remember you said that, my friend.

A New Morality wrote: “No. I did not - and would not - say that "all human beings are equal." Such imprecise language has led to many social evils. I hold that all human beings possess certain inalienable rights which exist as a result of their nature. As I have demonstrated with the "arm flesh" concrete, fetuses are *not* human beings. They are only *potentially* so. A potential is not an actual. A is not non-A. Hence, a foetus in its 1st trimester can be rightfully terminated by its owner/host. The owner has actual rights, rights which cannot be infringed by any man or mob.”

True, some human beings are worth less to society than others. But unless they actually begin to prey on that society, they still have rights. Such rights derive from laws and ultimately from morality, not some vaguely philosophical notion of their “nature.” Go back to the Ivory Tower, ANM; discussing policy is properly the preserve of well-grounded realists, not airy-fairy intellectuals.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-05-12 8:20:23 AM



The comments to this entry are closed.