They made a law that women undergoing an abortion must have an ultrasound - possibly an invasive vaginal one - before having the abortion. During the procedure, the person doing the ultrasound is required to describe the fetus out loud.
If that doesn't make it clear - if it wasn't already clear - that anti-abortion advocates are a bunch of assholes out to torment and torture pregnant women, I don't know what could possibly make it clear.
Showing posts with label Abortion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Abortion. Show all posts
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Monday, November 23, 2009
They Ought To Push a Law Against Premarital Sex
Seriously. A Congressman in the U.S. was (not quite) excommunicated because he took the position that abortion ought to remain legal.
Church asks Kennedy to forego Communion.
In case you're not a Christian, here's how it works: symbolically eating Jesus gets you in to heaven; not symbolically eating Jesus means you can't go to heaven; if you're Catholic, it's not symbolic, you're really eating Jesus. Communion is where you eat a cracker and pretend really, really hard that it's Jesus.
So the Catholic Church is upset that Kennedy supports abortion rights and wants to keep him from eating Jesus because the Catholic Church thinks abortion is murder and murder is a sin.
There's a problem, though. (Okay, there are lots of problems, but let's focus on just one).
What if all the Congresspeople simply didn't pass any legislation pertaining to abortion? What if no bills were ever even raised? Wouldn't the Church have to excommunicate all of the Catholic legislators for the sin of not even trying?
I'd think so, just in the name of ethical consistency (not the Church's strong suit, I admit).
The Church also believes that premarital sex is a sin. Should not the Church also be cracking down on any Congressperson who isn't actively trying to pass bills to ban premarital sex?
I don't see that happening though. Know why?
Because it would be stupid, that's why, and people don't like being laughed at.
Church asks Kennedy to forego Communion.
In case you're not a Christian, here's how it works: symbolically eating Jesus gets you in to heaven; not symbolically eating Jesus means you can't go to heaven; if you're Catholic, it's not symbolic, you're really eating Jesus. Communion is where you eat a cracker and pretend really, really hard that it's Jesus.
So the Catholic Church is upset that Kennedy supports abortion rights and wants to keep him from eating Jesus because the Catholic Church thinks abortion is murder and murder is a sin.
There's a problem, though. (Okay, there are lots of problems, but let's focus on just one).
What if all the Congresspeople simply didn't pass any legislation pertaining to abortion? What if no bills were ever even raised? Wouldn't the Church have to excommunicate all of the Catholic legislators for the sin of not even trying?
I'd think so, just in the name of ethical consistency (not the Church's strong suit, I admit).
The Church also believes that premarital sex is a sin. Should not the Church also be cracking down on any Congressperson who isn't actively trying to pass bills to ban premarital sex?
I don't see that happening though. Know why?
Because it would be stupid, that's why, and people don't like being laughed at.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Vatican Always Good for a Laugh
Even a dark, ironic, laughing-at-your-hypocrisy kind of laugh.
Accusations of arrogance?
Accusations of arrogance from the people who think that only the Pope can talk to god and everyone else just has to take cues from him?
Accusations of arrogance from the people who tell you birth control is a sin while the world overpopulates?
Accusations of arrogance from the people who protect paedophiles?
Accusations of arrogance from the people who tell you that the Catholic way is the only way to god and everyone else is going to hell?
Yeah, right. We'll get right on that. Meanwhile, in our considered opinion, we'll just say that moral decisions should stay in the hands of people making them. Abortion's not a nice thing, but a necessary thing. It's also not the sort of thing a bunch of celibate priests should be dictating to the world.
Stick to your holy wafers and stay out of our bedrooms.
It's not arrogance, you idiots, it's a willingness to believe that women are smart enough to make their own decisions. That's the opposite of arrogance. That's liberating. Arrogance would be either forbidding abortion or making it mandatory. Giving women the freedom to choose is humility.
I know we haven't seen humility from a president in a while, but there it is.
A senior Vatican official on Saturday attacked US President Barack Obama for "arrogance" for overturning a ban on state funding for family-planning groups that carry out or facilitate abortions overseas. It is "the arrogance of someone who believes they are right"
Accusations of arrogance?
Accusations of arrogance from the people who think that only the Pope can talk to god and everyone else just has to take cues from him?
Accusations of arrogance from the people who tell you birth control is a sin while the world overpopulates?
Accusations of arrogance from the people who protect paedophiles?
Accusations of arrogance from the people who tell you that the Catholic way is the only way to god and everyone else is going to hell?
Yeah, right. We'll get right on that. Meanwhile, in our considered opinion, we'll just say that moral decisions should stay in the hands of people making them. Abortion's not a nice thing, but a necessary thing. It's also not the sort of thing a bunch of celibate priests should be dictating to the world.
Stick to your holy wafers and stay out of our bedrooms.
It's not arrogance, you idiots, it's a willingness to believe that women are smart enough to make their own decisions. That's the opposite of arrogance. That's liberating. Arrogance would be either forbidding abortion or making it mandatory. Giving women the freedom to choose is humility.
I know we haven't seen humility from a president in a while, but there it is.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Obama make Bishop Angry, grrrrr!
Us bishops fight Obama! Grrrrr!
In case you've forgotten that the Catholic Church opposes abortion, it does.
Of course it's not that catholics oppose abortion.
I'm sure that's the fault of atheists ... somehow.
But onward. The Catholic Bishops, whom I don't recall ever chastising George Bush over his failure to implement any anti-abortion legislation, are now going to "forcefully confront the Obama administration over its support for abortion rights".
I don't think it matters to them what anyone does. It only matters what a guy says.
Bush opposed abortion. He said so. He made it a lot more annoying to get an abortion. He probably even made it so annoying that a number of unwanted children were forced in to existence. With his opposition to sex education, he probably caused a lot of unwanted pregnancies. But he never really, in his eight years, did anything serious to illegalize abortion.
Obama, on the other hand, supports the current Roe v. Wade detente that draws a fuzzy line at the third trimester with exceptions. That is what the bishops oppose. Not the fact that neither presidential candidate would have done anything to change the law. They'll ignore the fact that the liberal approach of teaching sex education is actually better at reducing abortions than trying to legislate them out of existence.
Logic doesn't apply. The Bishops want a frothing at the mouth religious fanatic decrying the evils of abortion. If you want to approach the issue in any other way, they'll "forcefully confront" you about it.
Apparently that might include excommunicating Joe Biden, a man who claims Catholicism as his faith. Apparently you can't be Catholic while supporting legal abortion. I'm going to ahead and guess that the Bishops have never "forcefully confronted" politicians who work on Sundays. I hear that's an important commandment too.
It'll be such a wonderful world when we can shed all of this nonsense and make decisions based on logic, reason, empathy and fairness instead of the ramblings of a bunch of old men, sexually deprived and straining to derive morality from a two-thousand year old book written by one nomadic cult with another cult's nonsense tacked on helter skelter.
In case you've forgotten that the Catholic Church opposes abortion, it does.
Of course it's not that catholics oppose abortion.
Sixty-five percent of non-practicing Catholics identified themselves as "pro-choice" on abortion, compared to 36% of practicing Catholics.
I'm sure that's the fault of atheists ... somehow.
But onward. The Catholic Bishops, whom I don't recall ever chastising George Bush over his failure to implement any anti-abortion legislation, are now going to "forcefully confront the Obama administration over its support for abortion rights".
I don't think it matters to them what anyone does. It only matters what a guy says.
Bush opposed abortion. He said so. He made it a lot more annoying to get an abortion. He probably even made it so annoying that a number of unwanted children were forced in to existence. With his opposition to sex education, he probably caused a lot of unwanted pregnancies. But he never really, in his eight years, did anything serious to illegalize abortion.
Obama, on the other hand, supports the current Roe v. Wade detente that draws a fuzzy line at the third trimester with exceptions. That is what the bishops oppose. Not the fact that neither presidential candidate would have done anything to change the law. They'll ignore the fact that the liberal approach of teaching sex education is actually better at reducing abortions than trying to legislate them out of existence.
Logic doesn't apply. The Bishops want a frothing at the mouth religious fanatic decrying the evils of abortion. If you want to approach the issue in any other way, they'll "forcefully confront" you about it.
Apparently that might include excommunicating Joe Biden, a man who claims Catholicism as his faith. Apparently you can't be Catholic while supporting legal abortion. I'm going to ahead and guess that the Bishops have never "forcefully confronted" politicians who work on Sundays. I hear that's an important commandment too.
It'll be such a wonderful world when we can shed all of this nonsense and make decisions based on logic, reason, empathy and fairness instead of the ramblings of a bunch of old men, sexually deprived and straining to derive morality from a two-thousand year old book written by one nomadic cult with another cult's nonsense tacked on helter skelter.
Friday, September 19, 2008
We Don't Like Abortion Either
People like Barbara Kay drive me nuts.
I like to think that, on the left, we actually try to understand what the right wingers are thinking. It's a big help when you're arguing with someone to understand her motivations.
So when I read an anti-abortion advocate (okay, "pro-life" advocate), I read with the intent to understand. Unfortunately, I immediately hit a title which shows that she has no understanding of those who favour legalized abortion. The title contains the phrase "Sanctity of Abortion".
Sanctity? Do you really think that there is anyone on this planet who thinks abortion is some kind of holy sacrament? Do you think there's anyone in this country who rejoices to see large numbers of abortions? Do you think any woman has ever gone skipping off to the clinic, rejoicing in the opportunity to take part in some great and holy mystery?
It doesn't work that way.
No one on either side of this equation likes abortion. No one wants large numbers of abortions. Ideally, I'd like there to be zero abortions.
The difference between us and you is that we have a way to get there that might just work. You don't. Your ideas simply cause a lot of illegal abortions and butchered women. Ours involve sex education, birth control and research in to even better birth control. Ours is not perfect, but yours is worse.
Onward. I can see that the author feels persecuted. Apparently, anytime anyone espouses a pro-life point of view, they are shunned from politics. That's news to me. That's also news to George Bush and Sarah Palin who are welcomed with open arms - at least on this issue - by a large chunk of the American population. In Canada, of course Gilles Duceppe is going to attack on this issue. He's a politician. It's his job to point out flaws in his opponents and exploit them for votes.
On the subject of persecution, I'm afraid that you merely have a persecution complex. Most Canadians simply don't support your point of view. If you want to have babies accidentally, that's your lookout. Hell, we'll even support you with child care benefits, a free public education and healthcare. That's our lookout. We're nice people that way.
In order to support your feeling of persecution, you offer a quote from a significant medical figure who says of Sarah Palin:
So what? This is entirely accurate. Without some kind of context, there's no way to know what he meant by this. All we have is your clearly biased opinion that he expressed this statement with "thinly veiled contempt".
I have never once heard Sarah Palin being held up for public chastisement for carrying a Down's Syndrome baby to term. All I've heard are right wing blowhards complaining about her persecution. But again, there is no evidence of actual persecution. Her choice is her choice.
Why should I wish to force an abortion on someone? This is where we clearly have a disconnect. Does Barbara Kay really believe that people on the pro-choice side would want to force abortions on women?
Then we move to the CPSO. I don't have access to the document of which she speaks. It's fiendishly hard to find for such an important document that everyone is talking about. But even this guy admits that it won't force doctors to perform abortions.
What it does is prevent doctors from telling a woman that abortion is evil, sinful or in doing anything else that might unfairly intimidate a woman. If the doctor is unable, for personal reasons, to counsel a woman on the subject, he should refer her to a doctor that will.
There's nothing nefarious there. Abortion is a personal moral decision for the pregnant woman. That being the case, the moral opinion of her doctor should not be interfering with her decision. The doctor's job is to provide medical advice and treatment, not moral guidance.
And we wind up with this bit:
Could anything be more callous than this disregard of a pregnant teenager, lied to or tricked by a boyfriend? Could anything be more uncivil than ignoring the need of a woman who has found that her much wanted child is nonviable? Could anything be more heartless than this treatment of a woman, desperate for a way out of a loveless marriage?
Yes, you foolish women, your desire to control your reproductive organs, to keep your life sane, is morally irrelevant. Your only way to rectify your desperate situation is merely a "service of convenience".
Thus spake the conservative movement, and therefore it must be true. At least it's reassuring to see that no one on their side has enough intelligence to even attempt to understand our side.
I like to think that, on the left, we actually try to understand what the right wingers are thinking. It's a big help when you're arguing with someone to understand her motivations.
So when I read an anti-abortion advocate (okay, "pro-life" advocate), I read with the intent to understand. Unfortunately, I immediately hit a title which shows that she has no understanding of those who favour legalized abortion. The title contains the phrase "Sanctity of Abortion".
Sanctity? Do you really think that there is anyone on this planet who thinks abortion is some kind of holy sacrament? Do you think there's anyone in this country who rejoices to see large numbers of abortions? Do you think any woman has ever gone skipping off to the clinic, rejoicing in the opportunity to take part in some great and holy mystery?
It doesn't work that way.
No one on either side of this equation likes abortion. No one wants large numbers of abortions. Ideally, I'd like there to be zero abortions.
The difference between us and you is that we have a way to get there that might just work. You don't. Your ideas simply cause a lot of illegal abortions and butchered women. Ours involve sex education, birth control and research in to even better birth control. Ours is not perfect, but yours is worse.
Onward. I can see that the author feels persecuted. Apparently, anytime anyone espouses a pro-life point of view, they are shunned from politics. That's news to me. That's also news to George Bush and Sarah Palin who are welcomed with open arms - at least on this issue - by a large chunk of the American population. In Canada, of course Gilles Duceppe is going to attack on this issue. He's a politician. It's his job to point out flaws in his opponents and exploit them for votes.
On the subject of persecution, I'm afraid that you merely have a persecution complex. Most Canadians simply don't support your point of view. If you want to have babies accidentally, that's your lookout. Hell, we'll even support you with child care benefits, a free public education and healthcare. That's our lookout. We're nice people that way.
In order to support your feeling of persecution, you offer a quote from a significant medical figure who says of Sarah Palin:
“[Her decision to carry Trig to term] will have an implication for abortion issues in Canada.”
So what? This is entirely accurate. Without some kind of context, there's no way to know what he meant by this. All we have is your clearly biased opinion that he expressed this statement with "thinly veiled contempt".
I have never once heard Sarah Palin being held up for public chastisement for carrying a Down's Syndrome baby to term. All I've heard are right wing blowhards complaining about her persecution. But again, there is no evidence of actual persecution. Her choice is her choice.
Why should I wish to force an abortion on someone? This is where we clearly have a disconnect. Does Barbara Kay really believe that people on the pro-choice side would want to force abortions on women?
Then we move to the CPSO. I don't have access to the document of which she speaks. It's fiendishly hard to find for such an important document that everyone is talking about. But even this guy admits that it won't force doctors to perform abortions.
What it does is prevent doctors from telling a woman that abortion is evil, sinful or in doing anything else that might unfairly intimidate a woman. If the doctor is unable, for personal reasons, to counsel a woman on the subject, he should refer her to a doctor that will.
There's nothing nefarious there. Abortion is a personal moral decision for the pregnant woman. That being the case, the moral opinion of her doctor should not be interfering with her decision. The doctor's job is to provide medical advice and treatment, not moral guidance.
And we wind up with this bit:
In the end, the almost cultish aura that has been whipped up around the sanctity of abortion by politicians and medical bodies comes down to the morally irrelevant cause of satisfying consumer demand for a service of convenience.
Could anything be more callous than this disregard of a pregnant teenager, lied to or tricked by a boyfriend? Could anything be more uncivil than ignoring the need of a woman who has found that her much wanted child is nonviable? Could anything be more heartless than this treatment of a woman, desperate for a way out of a loveless marriage?
Yes, you foolish women, your desire to control your reproductive organs, to keep your life sane, is morally irrelevant. Your only way to rectify your desperate situation is merely a "service of convenience".
Thus spake the conservative movement, and therefore it must be true. At least it's reassuring to see that no one on their side has enough intelligence to even attempt to understand our side.
Thursday, September 04, 2008
B.C. Bubbles
So the British Columbian Appeals court upheld the "bubble zone", that 30 metre protective barrier that keeps protestors from physically blocking access to abortion clinics.
Good. You can have your free speech from within shouting distance of the clinic. You just can't physically intimidate the women who are making this choice.
The anti-abortion people, the ones who call themselves "pro-life", are trotting out their standard set of arguments, presenting their standard set of straw men.
"Can any "pro-choice" supporter out there please answer the simple basic question of when life begins?"
"Is the baby really going to change so much in 12 hours that now it's OK to kill it* but killing *him/her a few hours later would be murder?"
... and whining about how Canada is the only country in the world without an abortion law.
Even if that last were true, so what? What that means is that a woman is free to choose her course of action. What this leads to is a very, very small number of late-term abortions in extremely risky or nonviable situations and a larger number of early-term abortions. The system is trusting women to make moral decisions and (surprise, you fundamentalist misogynist loons) they are making moral decisions, so what's the problem?
As for when life begins, you'd think that this would be the whole crux of the matter, wouldn't you? Unfortunately, you aren't helping if you aren't going to define life either. Human sperm and eggs are alive. They move and respond to stimulus. They do all sorts of things that living things do. Combined, they represent a unique genetic combination and continue to do things that living things do. And then 60 to 80% of them spontaneously miscarry. What makes the fertilized egg so much more special than the sperm and the egg when they were separated?
But it doesn't even matter, does it? Illegalizing abortion has only ever produced illegal and dangerous abortions. Try reading some of the stories of abortion doctors when they explain why they got in to the business. It's usually because they saw the horrors that women inflicted on themselves attempting to end an unwanted pregnancy.
Women who don't want babies won't have babies. Making abortion illegal won't change that.
If you want to stop abortions - as everyone does - the answer is to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Birth control would be a lot more effective if people weren't lying about condom effectiveness, the side effects of the pill or, worse, simply refusing to teach it.
You want to stop abortions? Then start teaching sex education. Start making more effective forms of birth control. The abortions will stop when people are educated and technology advances to the point where abortions are unnecessary.
Good. You can have your free speech from within shouting distance of the clinic. You just can't physically intimidate the women who are making this choice.
The anti-abortion people, the ones who call themselves "pro-life", are trotting out their standard set of arguments, presenting their standard set of straw men.
"Can any "pro-choice" supporter out there please answer the simple basic question of when life begins?"
"Is the baby really going to change so much in 12 hours that now it's OK to kill it* but killing *him/her a few hours later would be murder?"
... and whining about how Canada is the only country in the world without an abortion law.
Even if that last were true, so what? What that means is that a woman is free to choose her course of action. What this leads to is a very, very small number of late-term abortions in extremely risky or nonviable situations and a larger number of early-term abortions. The system is trusting women to make moral decisions and (surprise, you fundamentalist misogynist loons) they are making moral decisions, so what's the problem?
As for when life begins, you'd think that this would be the whole crux of the matter, wouldn't you? Unfortunately, you aren't helping if you aren't going to define life either. Human sperm and eggs are alive. They move and respond to stimulus. They do all sorts of things that living things do. Combined, they represent a unique genetic combination and continue to do things that living things do. And then 60 to 80% of them spontaneously miscarry. What makes the fertilized egg so much more special than the sperm and the egg when they were separated?
But it doesn't even matter, does it? Illegalizing abortion has only ever produced illegal and dangerous abortions. Try reading some of the stories of abortion doctors when they explain why they got in to the business. It's usually because they saw the horrors that women inflicted on themselves attempting to end an unwanted pregnancy.
Women who don't want babies won't have babies. Making abortion illegal won't change that.
If you want to stop abortions - as everyone does - the answer is to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Birth control would be a lot more effective if people weren't lying about condom effectiveness, the side effects of the pill or, worse, simply refusing to teach it.
You want to stop abortions? Then start teaching sex education. Start making more effective forms of birth control. The abortions will stop when people are educated and technology advances to the point where abortions are unnecessary.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
C-484 and Cranial Explosions
I can't remember where I read it but I do recall clearly a prediction that the social conservative wing of the Canadian Conservative party could not long survive alongside the libertarian wing of the same party.
One wing wants to tell you what to do with your body. The other doesn't want anything to do with you at all. The reason the leadership long kept the abortion question off the platform and out of the media was that it shone a bright spotlight on the fissure between the Ontario-style PCs (who were neither progressive nor conservative, when you get down to it) and a certain number of Alberta style conservatives (former Reformers) who believe in a 6000-year-old earth and the government having the right to tell people when to have sex.
Bill C-484 shone a light on that fissure. It was an attempt to sneak language in to our laws that would give a fetus the same rights as a human being. Yes, it would be done sideways - simply by making it a crime to assault a pregnant woman. But it would use language that would refer to the fetus as a "child", damage to which must be accounted. The CMA came out and declared that the bill could be used to limit a woman's choice to have an abortion.
This is dangerous. Not so much for women once everyone realized how the bill could be manipulated. It probably wouldn't make it past its last reading now that the information is out. It's much more dangerous to the Conservative party as a hand grenade dropped in that long-hidden fissure. So Stephen Harper came out and did the politically prudent thing: he canned the bill.
At least we can now see who the social conservatives are in the party and who are the "don't tax me, I'm rich and I don't want to help you out" conservatives. The social conservatives are exploding as I write.
Yep. Without anti-abortion, the conservative party is "soulless". Apparently, the only morals are the morals of the social conservative. The rest of us, with our abhorrence of the death penalty and admiration of drug rehab programs, sex education and rehabilitative prisons, don't count.
I'll be the last to argue that the Conservative party has a soul. As far as I'm concerned - and the evidence in ditching C-484 supports this - the social conservative "soul" of the party was never anything more to the neo-conservative leadership than a useful voting block. No working class people in their right minds would ever think about supporting a party made up of rich, old, white men who do nothing but give themselves tax cuts and take us in to war for the profit of private companies. It's just not smart.
But if you can make them believe, on a confusion of the meaning of the word "conservative" that blowing up a path for a pipeline in Afghanistan, making war with muslims far away and cutting taxes and social services has something in common with Jesus ... well ... you can run a government.
At least for a little while. Then that social conservative base notices that you're a hypocrite and they dump your ass at the next election.
One wing wants to tell you what to do with your body. The other doesn't want anything to do with you at all. The reason the leadership long kept the abortion question off the platform and out of the media was that it shone a bright spotlight on the fissure between the Ontario-style PCs (who were neither progressive nor conservative, when you get down to it) and a certain number of Alberta style conservatives (former Reformers) who believe in a 6000-year-old earth and the government having the right to tell people when to have sex.
Bill C-484 shone a light on that fissure. It was an attempt to sneak language in to our laws that would give a fetus the same rights as a human being. Yes, it would be done sideways - simply by making it a crime to assault a pregnant woman. But it would use language that would refer to the fetus as a "child", damage to which must be accounted. The CMA came out and declared that the bill could be used to limit a woman's choice to have an abortion.
This is dangerous. Not so much for women once everyone realized how the bill could be manipulated. It probably wouldn't make it past its last reading now that the information is out. It's much more dangerous to the Conservative party as a hand grenade dropped in that long-hidden fissure. So Stephen Harper came out and did the politically prudent thing: he canned the bill.
At least we can now see who the social conservatives are in the party and who are the "don't tax me, I'm rich and I don't want to help you out" conservatives. The social conservatives are exploding as I write.
Yep. Without anti-abortion, the conservative party is "soulless". Apparently, the only morals are the morals of the social conservative. The rest of us, with our abhorrence of the death penalty and admiration of drug rehab programs, sex education and rehabilitative prisons, don't count.
I'll be the last to argue that the Conservative party has a soul. As far as I'm concerned - and the evidence in ditching C-484 supports this - the social conservative "soul" of the party was never anything more to the neo-conservative leadership than a useful voting block. No working class people in their right minds would ever think about supporting a party made up of rich, old, white men who do nothing but give themselves tax cuts and take us in to war for the profit of private companies. It's just not smart.
But if you can make them believe, on a confusion of the meaning of the word "conservative" that blowing up a path for a pipeline in Afghanistan, making war with muslims far away and cutting taxes and social services has something in common with Jesus ... well ... you can run a government.
At least for a little while. Then that social conservative base notices that you're a hypocrite and they dump your ass at the next election.
Wednesday, July 02, 2008
Morgentaler and the Hypocrites
Why is it that the right wing people can get away with being so hypocritical on the matter of abortion?
In every other matter, the state is apparently not allowed to interfere in your actions in any way. If the government makes you belt your kids in, wear a motorcycle helmet, pay extra taxes on cigarettes, then it's immorally imposing on you. If they illegalize trans fats, it's a sign of communism. If they require an employer to stop discriminating against people who look different, it's evil secularism.
But, oh, wait! If it's a woman who wants control of her own body - if it's a woman who wants to decide whether to continue a pregnancy that was started involuntarily - then we need to lock up her uterus. Then we need to call the thing in her womb a person, give it rights and protect it with all of our energy.
Yes, people have the right to do whatever they want ... except for pregnant women.
And if a man receives the Order of Canada for protecting a woman's right to control her own body, he should be vilified. In fact, the award and the entire nation are shamed by his receipt of the award. Other people are just in denial.
You'd think Morgentaler would be a hero to the right, with all the "personal freedoms" and libertarianism they support. But no. We know that they're hypocrites. We know that personal freedoms and libertarianism are just codewords for lowering their taxes and cutting social services for the poor. These people don't care about your freedom. They just care about keeping more for themselves and too bad for everyone else.
In every other matter, the state is apparently not allowed to interfere in your actions in any way. If the government makes you belt your kids in, wear a motorcycle helmet, pay extra taxes on cigarettes, then it's immorally imposing on you. If they illegalize trans fats, it's a sign of communism. If they require an employer to stop discriminating against people who look different, it's evil secularism.
But, oh, wait! If it's a woman who wants control of her own body - if it's a woman who wants to decide whether to continue a pregnancy that was started involuntarily - then we need to lock up her uterus. Then we need to call the thing in her womb a person, give it rights and protect it with all of our energy.
Yes, people have the right to do whatever they want ... except for pregnant women.
And if a man receives the Order of Canada for protecting a woman's right to control her own body, he should be vilified. In fact, the award and the entire nation are shamed by his receipt of the award. Other people are just in denial.
You'd think Morgentaler would be a hero to the right, with all the "personal freedoms" and libertarianism they support. But no. We know that they're hypocrites. We know that personal freedoms and libertarianism are just codewords for lowering their taxes and cutting social services for the poor. These people don't care about your freedom. They just care about keeping more for themselves and too bad for everyone else.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Good News on Abortion
Take it for what you will, a drop in the abortion rate is good news for pretty much everybody.
The key here is that they're looking at abortion rate, not just abortions which might decline simply because we have an aging population. What "rate" means is that there are fewer abortions per the number of women of child-bearing age.
Excellent new, really. It means, one way or another, that sex education is slowly but surely doing its job. Women and men, and even boys and girls, are being more responsible with their bodies.
Are there too many unwanted pregnancies still? Yes, of course there are. A lot of them could be prevented in the first place with better and more thorough education, but at least this tells us that we are going in the right direction.
The key here is that they're looking at abortion rate, not just abortions which might decline simply because we have an aging population. What "rate" means is that there are fewer abortions per the number of women of child-bearing age.
Excellent new, really. It means, one way or another, that sex education is slowly but surely doing its job. Women and men, and even boys and girls, are being more responsible with their bodies.
Are there too many unwanted pregnancies still? Yes, of course there are. A lot of them could be prevented in the first place with better and more thorough education, but at least this tells us that we are going in the right direction.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)