Please hold your applause...or your boos for a moment and hear me out before you start typing in agreement or disagreement.Before we get into why I think Henry Morgentaler is #1 here on the list of people screwing up Canada, a little background on the issue of abortion itself. This is background rarely seen in media stories if you see stories about abortion at all.
Since 1969, when then Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau allowed provisions for abortion, there have been 3,000,000 abortions performed in Canada. That's about 10% of our entire current population. Currently there are more than 100,000 abortions performed each and every year in this country. That's about 30 for every 100 live births. I think we can all agree that's a lot. The baby (or fetus for some of you) is either mummified or dismembered. The procedure itself isn’t pretty.
There are no laws in Canada restricting abortion. NONE. We’re one of only a few nations that have no restrictions. If you could find a doctor willing to perform it, you could legally have an abortion up to the second before the baby is born. That's why when, for example, a pregnant woman is murdered; there are no charges in connection with the baby's death. To lay charges, the courts would have to recognize that the baby was a person. That would then mean that all of those abortions being carried out are also murder and the Court has decided that’s not the case.
Abortion hasn't just come down to not wanting the baby (by the way adoption of babies is never an issue. The waiting list is a decade or more in most areas) it's now selecting your baby. The number of Down Syndrome babies has dropped by 90% in recent years for the simple reason that they're being systematically removed in the womb. There are a few issues with this. A) The testing isn't perfect and perfectly healthy babies are being killed too, and B) The message to those with Down Syndrome is that they don't deserve to live because society has deemed them defective. Want a boy instead of a girl or a girl instead of a boy. Get an abortion if it didn’t go the way you want and that DOES happen.
However I think there are two very distinct camps on this issue and to understand one, you must understand where the other is coming from even if you don't agree. Those who agree with abortion don’t view the unborn baby as a baby. They view it as an extension of the women. I’ve debated this issue many times and I have yet to meet a supporter of abortion who wouldn’t agree that they would be a monster if they thought the unborn child WAS a human being and killed it anyway. But they don’t believe the baby is a human being so it’s been rationalized. For that reason I don’t think supporters of abortion are monsters but I do disagree with the rationale. On the other side are those against abortion. These are people who believe the baby is a human being and as such it’s the equivalent to murder. Naturally they’re going to speak out as anyone would in a murder situation. Sure it’s a bit more complicated but in a nutshell that is the view of both sides.
The background is important and brings us to the most public face of the abortion issue in Canada, Dr. Henry Morgentaler who almost single handedly has brought Canada to this point.
Henry Morgentaler runs eight abortion clinics across the country. In 2002 it was estimated that his abortion clinics made $11-million dollars in gross revenue. There is money to be had. Planned Parenthood knows this. In the United States where Planned Parenthood actually runs abortion clinics, abortions are their number one revenue generator accounting for more than a third of their money (donations and government funding make up the rest). Morgentaler wants the government (through Medicare) funding him too by paying for the procedure at HIS private abortion clinics. This already takes place in most of the country even though Medicare already pays for the procedure at hospitals. Currently Morgentaler is fighting the last province, New Brunswick to pay his private clinic to do the procedures. People may be waiting in line, literally dying of cancer and unable to go to private clinics paid for by Medicare, but Morgentaler wants his private clinics to have a special privilege and be paid for by taxpayers anyway.
Okay there’s disagreement there but here’s where we should all be at least a bit concerned. Anyone with a god complex needs to be paid close attention to. Crime is down in this country. Do you know why? Is it good police work? Is it communities acting together to rid their streets of crime? Nope. According to Henry Morgentaler, you can thank him for taking out the criminals before they breathe their first breath. “The decrease in crime will continue as long as access to abortion remains good,” wrote Morgentaler. “The fact that fewer unwanted children were born who may have been abused or brutalized has resulted in a drop in the number of young men with a rage in their hearts. The decline in crime has continued unabated over the last eight years and I predict it will continue. This has resulted in fewer unwanted and abused children, a decrease in crime and most probably a decrease in emotional and mental illness as well.”
Has Morgentaler removed criminals from our society before they can commit the crime? Probably. The law of averages would suggest that. However he may have also removed the person who would cure cancer. There’s a great ethical question that ethics professors sometimes use to illustrate this conundrum. If a woman was pregnant, already had eight children and of those children three were deaf, two were blind, one mentally retarded, and the mother had syphilis, what would you recommend? Someone, if not several students, always recommends an abortion. They are usually floored when the professor informs them that they just killed Beethoven.
That's the problem when you start playing god and believe you have that type of impact on society. The stakes are too high and the risk is that you do more harm than good. How much harm has Henry Morgentaler done to Canada? It’s enormous and will continue long after he’s gone. Number one? There was never even a contest.
(Wrap up on 101 still to come)
59 comments:
The Beethoven example is egregiously misleading. Beethoven was born well over two hundred years ago, in an era when the infant mortality was quite high by modern standards, and even infants who survived were often afflicted with serious health problems. Children didn't die or experience physical problems so frequently back then simply because they were all born to mothers who were themselves in poor health, as is implied here. Offering an 18th century example in a 20th century setting is a very poor way of making a serious point.
Also, Beethoven was not born to a woman who "had 8 kids already." Although his mother, Maria Magdalena Laym (nee Kewerich) gave birth a total of eight times during her lifetime, Ludwig was only her third child. (Her first two children, one from a previous marriage, both died in infancy.) Only two of Beethoven's five younger siblings survived beyond their first few years of their life.
Even if we take this example at face value, its message is still problematic. If the woman in the example had been advised to abort her pregnancy based on the (mis)information supplied here, the world would never have known the magic of Beethoven's music. But maybe a different woman who did opt to terminate her pregnancy might have spared the world another Stalin or Hitler.
Well, that should generate a bit of debate, I would think...
The crime argument was made quite well in Freakonomics. Statistically speaking, abortions do help curb crime because a lot of the fetuses being aborted would have been growing up in socio-economic situations that would be more likely to lead them to crime. Even when other variables are controled for, the link is there. Now, that's certainly not a justification for it. Executing troubled youth and shoplifters would probably decrease crime too, but it's not something anyone would ethically support.
The Bethoven argument also falls a bit flat too since I'm sure everyone on either side would recomend to the parents to use birth control, thereby preventing the world from seeing Bethoven too.
Anyways, it's been a fun list - thanks for putting the time into it.
That was one awesome list, Spinks. Good job.
I guess given that abortion took #1 and #2 spots in the CBC Great Canadian Wishlist, this might at least be appropriate.
But I take issue.
First off, I never seen anything reasonably factual that corroborates the 100,000 abortions per year figure, let alone the 3,000,000 since 1969.
As a matter of fact, for 100,000 abortions to be had per year in Canada, one in 300 people would have to have an abortion. If you reduce this figure to women alone, it would have to be 1 in 150.
Even though 1 in 150 seems like a really small number, I personally view it as a stretch. I've never seen any non-politicized figures on abortion produced that I can trust.
That being said, should there be some sort of regulation of abortion in Canada? You bet there should be. But it has to be planned and executed very meticulously. There comes a degree to which regulating something like abortion is very much regulating morality, and government has no right to regulate the range of moral choices a person can make.
That being said, abortion is a moral choice. While I wouldn't argue that the abortion/no-abortion choice constitutes the immediate morality of the choice, I would argue that the reasons for which that choice is made do.
Choosing abortion because the person making the choice feels it is the best choice for everyone involved (including the unborn child) does constitute a moral choice.
On the other hand, using abortion as a form of retroactive birth control is an immoral choice, for reasons that need not be explained.
With all the superior options to abortion, I don't know why anyone chooses it. But I won't begrudge them their right to make that choice, even if I don't agree with it. I've never been in a situation where I've had to make a choice anywhere near involving the magnitude of abortion, so I'm not a fit judge.
This is the right choice, I've always thought he is pure evil. Killing babies and making a profit from it is evil. It's not about "choice" with him, it's about money.
I could not agree more with your choice of Dr Morgentaler for the #1 slot on your list. But while this man is a despicable excuse for a human being, he could not have wielded his baleful influence upon our nation if he were not enabled by a morally bankrupt society. I submit to you that Dr. Morgentaler and, for that matter, most of the other people on this list are merely symptoms of a deeper problem: An effete, decadent civilization sinking into its death throes.
Good job on the 101, Spinks.
By the by, I heard (anecdotally) recently that (at least here in Fredericton) the class or age of women who have the most abortions is not 13 and 14 year old girls, but middle class, middle age women in their 40's.
Women who've already had their children long ago and got pregnant again by accident.
Patrick Ross, the next time you dispute a fact or figure don't just blurt out nonsense; do what I and other intelligent people do and search "abortion rate canada" at google. The first hits tell you everything you need to know and corroborate Spinks 100%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Canada
http://www.webhart.net/vandee/abortstat.shtml
Shame on you for spreading Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt when others have taken the time to inform themsleves.
Although you were wrong on #2, your choice here is worthy of it's placement.
As I read the article and comments a few things came to mind, particularly the subject of adoption. I have known young people who had to wait so long to adopt, that when their turn finally came, they were refused because they were too old by regulatory standard. Some go overseas to adopt children as a result.
Further, the comments made largely reflect societies attitudes once again. Many of which are self serving and simply put, negate the right to life. Justifications abound, but at the core, are largely selfish motivations.
If and when society returns to an approach which more closely resembles taking responsibility for one's actions, then many of the issues would become moot. This is especially conceivable in our times as unwed pregnancy bears little or no stigma, and there is a good deal of support offered to those who choose to give life.
As to Morgentaler, those who endeavor to conduct experiments on the human condition without due regard for the most basic of rights, the right to life, should face a justice befitting their acts.
When a society develops such callous attitudes toward the most vulnerable of its members, what does that indicate for it's future?
I will echo 8:28 and say that intelligent people always depend on Google and Wikipedia when it comes to facts. There is no source more reliable than the internet.
The 100,000 annual figure is based on Statistics Canada information found here. I appreciate the skepticism given that the number is so high. However when media rarely if ever puts out those numbers or the fact that there are no legal restrictions, I can understand why so many would not know this. Carry on.
Would 9:44 consider Stats Canada to be part of the google\wikipedia anti-abortion conspiracy too? Read em and weep, buddy:
"Canadian women obtained 105,154 abortions in 2002, down 1% from 106,270 in 2001. The rate of abortion has also marginally fallen from 15.6 abortions per 1,000 women in 2001 to 15.4 abortions per 1,000 women in 2002. These numbers exclude data related to residents of Nunavut.
The number of induced abortions per 100 live births was 32.1 in 2002, virtually unchanged from 2001."
Source: Stats Canada
http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/050211/d050211a.htm
I think you hit a sore spot with the pro-abortion freaks, Spinks. Seems they don't want the facts to get out.
Hmmm, as a pro-choice "freak", I am aware of the numbers. So no need for me to "read 'em and weep, buddy."
Actually, I would suggest that a lot of people know what the numbers are, as pro-choice people are generally as competent to discuss it as anti-choice people are.
The rationale that "oh, if you're pro-choice you're just buying into the groupthink mentality that the MSM feeds you, etc etc etc and you just simply can't understand." doesn't hold water with me.
Spinks actually said it in his entry that it's mostly a battle of belief and morality. Ours i just different than yours.
However, your comments about people being "pro abortion freaks" pretty well demonstrates how interested you are in rational discourse.
Wow. What a stunner that is.
Patrick:
How is killing someone "the best choice for him"?
And since when do other people have the right to make the choice to kill someone else?
And abortion IS birth control, no matter how you spin it. It's BIRTH control-- there's no "retroactive" about it-- it's to stop birth.
Human beings are intrinsically valuable-- that means from the moment of their existence--not consciousnes, EXISTENCE-- they are valuable and equal.
Spinks: you made a good choice.
I have always contended that the abortion (non)debate is linked directly to perception of what "that unborn thing" is or is not.
Good job highlighting this basic and most influential of perceptions, spinks. And great choice for number one.
3,000,000,000 abortions ... and 100,000 per year on-going ... some of them may have been criminals. True.
However, the hundreds of thousands of Muslim, Jamaican, Haitian, Central and South American, African and Asian immigrants we have had to import to replace them have brought us one or two bad apples as well would you agree?
I have not seen much in the way of a Beethoven claiming refugee status lately either.
Great line up.
I enjoyed your list and admire your dedication even though I disagree with a good 80% of your picks and 90% of your reasons.
Dr. Morganteller is one of your picks that I dont feel belongs there as I am pro-choice. I think the Beethoven argument is pretty weak because following your reasoning we should all be procreating as much as physically possible to increase the chances of creating the next Beethoven.
You make a good point when you say that if anti-abortion folks think a fetus is a person and thus abortion is murder can't be expected to stay quiet. One of your most interesting and obscure picks for your list was Katy McIntyre who led the "No funding to 'anti-choice' groups" at Carleton thing. Even as someone who is pro-'choice' (I dont like those terms) I was livid when I heard about that nonsense. CUSA's reasoning was so flimsy and incoherent. As supporters of a right to abortion we have to continue to defend our position and counter the arguments of opponents; not just throw a fit, call opposition to abortion 'harassment', and expect it to go away. Both sides in the debate have reasonable positions (so long, IMHO, as "God" isnt dragged into the debate) that follow logically from whether or not we think a fetus has the equivalent moral standing as a human. Neither of us would disagree that "choice" does not extend to killing people and neither of us would disagree that 'killing' something that isnt a "life" is defensible. Its really all just rhetoric.
PS Given your obvious ideological proclivities I am surprised that Stephane Dion didnt make your list. Or maybe I just missed him.
I regret to say that abortion clincs are the last bastien of private health care that the loonie left allows to grow. All others have to be grandfathered in.
I don't care if a woman has an abortion or not. But, it is elective surgery and I shouldn't have to pay for it. Let the user pay for it. It's not a necessary medical procedure - otherwise it is would be unelective and that is covered by medicare.
I think we should also have a term period on abortions so that murders like the idiot in Carleton Place, Ontario do not get away with trying to kill her baby 1 day before the delivery date with a pellet in the head while still in her womb. If the child can live on it's own without a caring mother then we should protect the child from that mother.
Is it comic justice that this degenerate creature has come to resemble what his philosophy serves?
I see most of the commentators have not actually read the post, given that they seem not to have grasped one of the reasons why HM is #1: because he is a d**n hypocrite, as are his supporters. In no other major medical area have we failed to provide a legislative framework - think organ donations. Also, despite the vaunted universality of the Canadian medical system, abortion is the only procedure that is systemically exempt.
If Canadian supporters of abortion (pro-choice is the polite term for what they mean as the disposal of parasitic tissue) want even my minimal respect, they need to argue for legislation and closing private clinics.
Tenebris - I don't think Henry Morgantaller can be held wholly responsible for the fact that no legislation has been enacted to fill the vacuum left by the Supreme Court ruling. That is the fault of legislators (if it is a fault).
I respectfully disagree with you for the number 1 spot. I'm pro-choice, but I believe there should be reasonable limits on abortion, and that since it is a controversial procedure, it shouldn't be covered by medicare. I think its fair to say that after 20 weeks it should not be allowed unless the life of the mother is in danger, but before that it should be wide open. Depending on the situation, it is often better for both the parents and the future life of the kid if the pregnancy is aborted.
Just think about it, the pill doesn't work 100% of the time, and say two 18 year olds are having regular sex and accidentaly the girl gets pregnant. If she has the baby she could miss out on going to university, and being immature and not be able to provide the best life for the child, she aborts the fetus it works out better for everybody.
Before coming to these strong pro-life positions, think about what you would do if you were in that situation, or how your life would be different if that choice wasn't avaliable for your girlfriend.
That being said, women should not use abortion, or the morning after pill as a form of birth control. It should be an option avaliable if regular birth control methods fail.
pro-choicers bristle when I draw comparison between what they do, rob the unborn of status as human, and what the nazis did to an entire race and culture, the jews, and also to a lesser extent what the americans did to the viet cong in that dustup: take away their humanity.
jews became rats scurrying out of the sewer grate, and communist geurillas became, well whatever the slang phrase was.
now that they arent human anymore you can do a great deal of harm scot free because, well, that big impediment, respect for HUMAN life isnt there!
they veritably bristle at the comparison but so far havent been able to argue against it.
any takers here?
Well, Andrew, I guess I would marry the woman and take responsibility for my actions instead of acting like a coddled child that needs to be protected from all the consequences of my actions.
And if you think 20 weeks is a good cutoff, why not 19? You into numerology or something?
It's a simple question: Is a woman pregnant with a human being or a parasitic blob of useless tissue? Of course the answer is...a human. All the sophisty in the world can't avoid the logical conclusion. The question that needs to be asked is: Under what circumstances can one kill a human? "Pro-choice" proponents answer: Whenever it's convenient and still in the womb.
Tenebris:
The reason I said 20 weeks is because that is the shortest time in the womb that a baby has survived. In fact in many hospitals the doctors will not even try to save a baby that has been born before 22 or 24 weeks. If the fetus has no chance of surviving outside of its mother's womb, then the only logical conclusion is that its still part of the mother.
Sorry, Andrew. - no soap. That a human being may depend on another for survival is no logical grounds for abortion. Neither is location.
By this argument, if my dad 3000 km away has a stroke and cannot feed himself, I should tell the docs to off him?
The issue is very simple: Most people do not wish to take any responsibility for their actions, nor suffer any consequences. People are generally selfish.
OK, fine - I can understand not giving a hoot. But if one has to do the old soft-shoe, twist words and (il)logic all pretzel-like, then I stgrongly suspect that deep down the whole issue bothers even its proponents, many of whom go stark raving mad when someone happens to firmly take the opposite position. Classic signs of denial.
It is difficult to pretend that a life has not been snuffed out, regardless of ones linguistic gymnastics.
Andrew
You're not getting the debate.
It does not matter what the circumstances are. Arguments like "gee you'd want an abortion in this case" evade the issue.
It's about whether the unborn child is a human being who deserves protection or not.
Arguments that boil down to: oh, this situation would be so horrible you would chuck your beliefs in an instant don't address the crux of the debate.
Well, you blew it. Where a lot of your posts were well thought out and entertaining, this one just showed the narrowminded misogynists another place to rant.
I note with interest that most of the naysaying commentors are either men or anonymous that certainly sound like men--the kind that would like to see women barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen with their heads down.
Men are some of my favourite people, but let's face it: they don't bleed monthly. They don't know what it's like to be pregnant. It's not like having a pimple on your butt. It's a long, uncomfortable, frightening and joyous situation. But no man can understand what it's like to be pregnant, and no person of either sex will ever convince me that a lump of cells that have been dividing for a few days or weeks is a human being, any more than a cluster of precancerous cells is.
And no self-righteous neocon male has any right to dictate what happens to my body. I've been pregnant, and given birth and raised two lovely children who are the joy of my life. I've also had an abortion. Do I feel remorse over the latter? No more than I did over the mole I had removed from my arm. They were both just cells.
Believe what you wish, make up lists like this railing against anyone who might disagree with you--but know that there are more of us thinking centrist-types in this country than redneck right of centre Harpenistas, bible thumpers and women-haters like some of the posters who have feasted over each of these enumerations of yours.
Abortion causes psychological damage in not only women but men as well.
As someone who has to work with these people of varying states of mental well-being, I am entirely justified in pointing out the negative externalities associated with abortion which may make the moral debate moot.
this one just showed the narrowminded misogynists another place to rant.
Excellent. You don't know the meaning of the word "misogynist". Either that, or you are a false accuser! Lovely!
I note with interest that most of the naysaying commentors are either men or anonymous that certainly sound like men--the kind that would like to see women barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen with their heads down.
I'm not a man, neither is Suzanne. If you even pay attention to the stats (especially the most recent ones)- which, I bet you don't - women are about as strongly prolife as men are.
As for your false accusation about wanting to oppress women, I'm a libertarian so, I kindly invite you to screw off.
they don't bleed monthly.
Irrelevant. Whatever discomfort you feel has nothing to do with whether you are responsible for that human being. I bleed monthly, too, but I recognize that if a man or woman can make a valid point about whether I would have a human being inside of me or not, I should listen. You are turning into the sexists you hate so much..in that you are engaging in stereotyping behaviour. Enjoy your self-imposed martyrdom.
no person of either sex will ever convince me that a lump of cells that have been dividing for a few days or weeks is a human being, any more than a cluster of precancerous cells is.
You enjoy the comfort of ignorance about human embryological development. Clue: it's about as much a lump of cells as you are.
And no self-righteous neocon male has any right to dictate what happens to my body.
Good, because I'm a libertarian female, and I tell you that you have as much right to murder your child as you have a right to kick your children out of your house. Re: "self-righteousnessness". Yes, it's kind of hard not to be self-righteous when confronted with evil such as yours.
I've been pregnant, and given birth and raised two lovely children who are the joy of my life.
The joy of your life. Is that supposed to give you some sort of moral authority or something?
I've also had an abortion. Do I feel remorse over the latter? No more than I did over the mole I had removed from my arm. They were both just cells.
We're all *just* cells, you twit. And the fact you don't feel remorse substantiates my claim that you are evil.
Believe what you wish,
You may believe what you wish as well, but don't expect everyone to smile and congratulate you over your lovely act of murder and your continual examples of false accusations.
Depending on the situation, it is often better for both the parents and the future life of the kid if the pregnancy is aborted.
I don't think so. The point made in another comment above is valid. That would be playing god with that kid's life. I think that almost any life is better than none.
Just think about it, the pill doesn't work 100% of the time, and say two 18 year olds are having regular sex and accidentaly the girl gets pregnant.
:) It's not an accident. They knew what they were getting into and they knew the possibility exists. Anyone who isn't responsible enough to do the research prob. shouldn't be having sex.
If she has the baby she could miss out on going to university, and being immature
But it stops being about her when she gets pregnant. Parents are to look to their children first.
and not be able to provide the best life for the child, she aborts the fetus it works out better for everybody.
I doubt many abortions are committed for the child's sake, but even if it was from such "selfless" motives, adoption would have been better.
Before coming to these strong pro-life positions, think about what you would do if you were in that situation, or how your life would be different if that choice wasn't avaliable for your girlfriend.
I can't imagine my life being all about *me*, and I don't think it's right for selfishness to extend to the point of murder.
...did we all forget who screwed Canada's Aerospace program for life?
Diefenbaker cancelled not only the Avro Arrow but also the Iroquois engine programs.
Excellent choice and very a propos with regard to the war with Islam ( whose members we are reporting).
I wish that Morgentler was not Jewish as well as the relatively high number of Jews on the list compared to their numbers in Canada but I cannot argue with your logic.
What Morgentaler has done, is doing, at a huge profit, has helped robbed a lot of DNA from the country.
I am not racist but we have brought into the country large numbers of immigrants from the Muslim World. I am very much against that. They are here because those aborted (white?)babies are not here.
Look at the Khadr family- known in many American websites as "Canadian" terrorists. Many muslims here are very sympathetic to Al-Qaeda and many Imams are here also, indirectly because of Morgentaler.
If there were far less abortions than 1969 and are populace was much greater ( those fetuses killed might have had children) would Imams be here? Every 6 months I hear of an Imam calling Jews apes and pigs and Christians dogs and rats.
Too many women want to have slim butts. Too them that is more important than a son or a daughter.
Too many men want to drive BMWs. To them that too is more important than a son.
There are also other ways of having sexual pleasure than intercourse with your partner(s).
White people are commiting social suicide wiht help from Morgentaler.
Spinks actually said it in his entry that it's mostly a battle of belief and morality. Ours i just different than yours.
Posted by Anonymous | 10:10 AM
It was also a battle of belief and morality for Dr. Josef Mengele.
Michelle said...
“Well, you blew it. Where a lot of your posts were well thought out and entertaining, this one just showed the narrowminded misogynists another place to rant.
I note with interest that most of the naysaying commentors are either men or anonymous that certainly sound like men--the kind that would like to see women barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen with their heads down. “
“no person of either sex will ever convince me that a lump of cells that have been dividing for a few days or weeks is a human being, any more than a cluster of precancerous cells is.”
“I've also had an abortion. Do I feel remorse over the latter? No more than I did over the mole I had removed from my arm. They were both just cells.”
“but know that there are more of us thinking centrist-types in this country than redneck right of centre Harpenistas”
Speaking of rantings;
You do realize that you just proved every pro life advocates point of view don’t you?
As to the cancerous cells, they will never be a Child.
Speaking as a person who raised a Child who was placed for adoption as an infant, I can tell you I thank God or whatever other force was present that his 17 year old birth Mother didn’t view him as an insignificant grease spot.
My Mother worked in a Hospital in the 70's and 80's when free for all abortion was beginning and I recall her coming home one day thoroughly angry and disheartened by a 30 something yr old woman who had just received an abortion. She was married, had 2 children and told staff she had the abortion because she and hubby had a cruise planned for March break and she wouldn't be able to wear her Bikini. Of course that's not what she told the Hospital authority who approved the abortion.
I've always found the abortion issue to be an interesting one, probably because I do not fall in the black / white categories of the pro-life or pro-choice camps. I am gray on this issue for two reasons:
1. I have read stories of teens committing suicide where abortion was not available, or dying from a back alley metal coat hanger abortion, these stories have always disturbed me and still do
2. Bringing a pregnancy to term is a huge responsibility and risk for a woman. I have had a miscarriage and probably would not be alive today if it weren't for prompt medical attention. The first question asked by the resident in the emergency room was: "Was the pregnancy a desired one?"
No legislation will resolve this debate, but the fact that there is no legislation should be disturbing, even for pro-choice advocates. It is also very coward of our legislators not to do their job, just because the result will be unpopular.
Also disturbing, is the fact that someone is profiting from this legislative vacuum to make money. This is enough to have Dr. Morgentaller somewhere on the list, even if your beliefs are pro-choice
I do have a question for the pro-life camp:
Why are you so silent on IUDs? It is the most promoted form of birth control offered to women who have given birth. It is not a contraceptive, it does not prevent conception. It makes the uterus an unlivable place for a conceived embryo. It is an embryo murder weapon.
Am I not murdering an unborn child every month, by choosing this form of birth control?
Good point on the IUD.
I don't think this man should be #1 and the fact that he is #1 in the light of so many more important issues belies this blog's nature.
People can choose to have an abortion and if it means less crime and improved/protected society - so be it.
We live in a world where such things need to be considered.
Wow Henry? That was a surprise but a good choice! I'm pro-life myself and I think abortion is just totally selfish. Anyway great job on the list, it was a lot of fun to read!
Mom in Mtl:
The issue is: is the unborn child an equal human being?
Teens committing suicide and mothers dying from self-inflicted abortions are terrible, but should that mean that we should sanction the notion that unborn children are not human beings and not equals?
That's wrong.
Pro-life groups do denounce IUDS and other abortifacient methods of abortion. Women who wear these devices do not kill embryos every month-- you don't get pregnant every month. You may not even get pregnant every year.
The big issue with contraception is not just the act, but the whole mentality in our culture that requires SUCH control over childbearing, that children conceived at "the wrong time" are not considered blessings-- as they should be-- but curses. They're liabilities, not people to love. Nobody is saying women have to have many children, or that spacing between kids is not allowed-- only that such a quest for control is exaggerated in our culture that is has justified the contraceptive mentality, which in turn justifies contraception and then abortion.
to bad ol' morty didnt get to work earlier; he could have dispensed with many of the previous 100......
Kudos, Spinks, for sticking with your list. An epic work indeed.
I agree with your #1 pick. The devil himself.
Delete this "Frank discussion. No spin".
My number one pick for people who are screwing up Canada are those who slavishly ape American models, rather than articulating the Canadian experience. As such "101 people who are screwing up Canada" is only the empty shadow of the "101 people who are screwing up America", who, as it turns out, are all "unAmerican non-neoconservative types". Pretty petty and self-serving in the American context. But completely derivative, imitative, and monkey-see, monkey-do in the Canadian context.
I suspect your beef is more with the choices than the format longsword and if all 101 entries were Stephen Harper, there would be far-left winged fetes in my honour across the nation.
Regardless, read the FAQ's in the sidebar. On topic is welcome, agree or disagree. Off topic is not.
So this is where you ended up?
...Piece of garbage from 101 to 1.
Apparently, you have a lot time to waste.
morgentaller is a jew. i highly doubt if he's ever aborted a jewish baby (rabbis would forbid this), but only the babies of the "goy" gentiles. and he get's special funding from our "lap-dog" gov't because they pander and dance to any jewish demand, since to do otherwise would be labelled "anti-semitic".
He deserves to be here.I don't think women are really aware of the consequences of having an abortion,spiritually or emotionally,until it is too late.
I do understand why it happens and I divide these women into two groups:
1)The desperate, who really are in a bad situation eg. being abused, very young or emotionally not able to handle pregnancy, economically disadvantaged comes to mind too.In the old days adoption did just fine.Some women who would not normally have an abortion do because they are desperate.
2)The brainwashed, selfish woman who just doesn't want a disruption in her life.Of course medically necessary is completely different.
But there are a hell of alot of abortions that happen in Canada every year.All of their blood is on the hands of this creep.
There is an old jewish proverb, that I guess old Morgue-ie has never heard either, something like "be careful not to make a woman cry, for God counts every one of her tears".All the babies and all those tears Morgue-ie, are your doing.
There is a book called the secret life of the fetus, I think.It really does prove that a "fetus" is a baby, for those who need the proof.
I am a woman.
This is a real shame.
You had an opportunity to highlight the real lowlifes of Canada and you choose Suzuki and Morgentaler? Fo' real?
Morgentaler is a Holocaust survivor. You think he doesn't know the value of "life"? But he also knows that every life should be a wanted and valued life.
A Holocaust survivor who went to jail for his beliefs. And he's the hundred and first person to screw up Canada? Wow.
Correction, Morgentaler isn't the 101st. He's No. 1 by a mile and his negative impact on Canada will be felt for decades.
Although you make an excellent point about Morgentaler being a Holocaust survivor. Frankly that makes what he does even more appalling. Mummifying or dismembering a baby to get rid of it is horrific stuff.
While I am not surprised in the slightest by the top two entries in the 101, I am most assuredly appalled. I believe the #1 spot in this list should go to the Canadian taxpayers. Why? Because it is just so typical of Canadians to get caught up in the ethical and moral grey areas of issues like abortion and the environment, while our Socialist leaders, whose bloated salaries we fund with our very sweat, systematically strip us of our individual freedoms with increasingly invasive laws designed to "protect" us. Immigrants are brought in by the hundreds, and treated like visiting royalty, while Canadian Citizens are hungry, jobless, and homeless.
This placement of Dr. Henry Morgentaler at the head of the list puts forth the notion that the lack of legislation to govern abortion is the #1 issue facing Canadian Society as a whole, and the fact that several of the folks who commented above agreed with this placement... well, it makes me very sad when I think of the future of "The True North, Strong and Free." Does nobody THINK?
If it is immoral for a person to have an abortion because that "kills a human life" surely it is equally immoral for a person to not donate organs for those in need. So I trust those that refuse abortion for those reasons also support mandatory organ donation, especially from the deceased.
You are entitled to the ownership of your own body, and NOBODY should be allowed to impinge on that. Whether it is a baby or not is immaterial. Yes, that sounds horribly cruel and heartless, but it's the only position that doesn't leave us in the hypocritical conundrum of having to say "This person is allowed to live off of your body, and this person is not"
Let's be honest, this argument has nothing to do with life or death in reality. It has to do with puritanical control over what a woman can do. It has to do with punishing women for making the mistake of spreading her legs and enjoying herself. If it didn't, the anti-abortionists would be clamoring to have these threatened "babies" implanted into their own bodies to feed off for the nine months, or at the very least for increased medical funding so that any unwanted children could be removed and taken care of until such a point as they were viable for adoption.
Morgentaler pushing for public funding of a private clinic is a *good* thing. We need more doctors like him doing different procedures. Private clinics are the only way our health-care system is going to survive, and public funding is the only way that it will continue to be fairly distributed.
I have yet to meet a person who is against abortion who believes women should be punished anon 3:14. You're of course free to believe that but if you have cases where someone does truly believe that, they would be in the minority. For the vast majority being against abortion is about being against killing the baby plain and simple.
“The decrease in crime will continue as long as access to abortion remains good,” wrote Morgentaler. “The fact that fewer unwanted children were born who may have been abused or brutalized has resulted in a drop in the number of young men with a rage in their hearts.
This is a total myth.
This fallacious argument was discussed by John Lott, Ph.D. in his book "Freedomnomics," (p. 117-126) a rebuttal to "Freakonomics" by Levitt and Dubner.
In the case of the United States, Lott explains that prior to the legalization of abortion in all 50 states, the cost of engaging in pre-martial sex was much higher. After legalization, pre-martial sex increased. The women engaging in pre-martial sex naturally including women who would refuse to have an abortion. Hence, the number of unmarried women giving birth increased dramatically.
Also because of the availability of abortion, men are less likely marry the women they impregnate.
With children being raised by mothers who almost always have to work atleast one job, children often have little supervision, do less homework, study less, have more time to get into all sorts of "extracurricular" activity.
Because of the far greater number of social problems which children born out of wedlock tend to experience, abortion on demand in America has actually resulted in INCREASED crime.
According to Lott, the Canadian Supreme Court legalized abortion across Canada in 1988. If it is true that the legalization of abortion in the U.S. (in 1973) caused crime to drop 18 years later, why did the crime rate fall a mere THREE years after legalization of abortion in Canada?
For more on this, see "Oops-onomics," The Economist, December 1, 2005.
Your nutshell summary of the two abortion ideologies makes no mention of the reasons why people who are pro-choice support a woman's right to have an abortion. You only comment on how the pro-choice camp justifies their position. I hope that, in the time since you wrote this, someone has talked to you about why women might want that right.
The reason for every woman who decides to have an abortion can be very different anon 12:16. The end result tragically is the same. A baby has to die. Thus the reason most who oppose abortion do. It's not about taking away a woman's right to make a choice. It's about allowing the unborn child to live.
This is a terrible list. Morgenthaler is NOT screwing up Canada. He is a hero.
I think we should get this issue into some perspective. Morgentaler was campaigning for legal abortion to end the terrible harm done by back-street abortionists because it was illegal. Remember, abortion is not new, it has been done by humanity since they understood what pregnancy was.
He was a campaigner for enlightenment.
However, and this is a ginormous however, abortion was then con sidered as a last, desperate resort; today it is just another method ofbirth control. As an adopted kid, I am obbviously opposaed to this casual approach.
The fact that we are aborting Down's syndrome kids is a good thing; also an ancient human rite.
Good grief, the earth is brimming at the seams with humans, most countries are reproducing like catholics on viagra, and this page is opposing the despatch of unwanted kids before they're born!
There are already too many human beings, especially in the wealthy countries where individuals are responsible for hugely more environmental damage than in the poorer locales. Why insist on people bringing children into the world that they don't want, perhaps can't afford to bring up and certainly aren't going to love as much as a child that's desired?
That's before we get to the level of actually thinking that disabled children (where such can be predicted before birth) should be given resources that could just as easily be devoted to fully fit and healthy babies.
It's all very well to point out the odd few disabled folk who've produced brilliance of one sort or another, but statistically, when we lump the downs syndrome and cerebrally damaged children in with the rest, which is group likeliest to produce something that contributes to humanity? A thousand crippled/disabled unwanted kids or a thousand fit, healthy, children born to parents that really want them?
Dave
longtooth wrote:
"This is especially conceivable in our times as unwed pregnancy bears little or no stigma, and there is a good deal of support offered to those who choose to give life."
Have you yourself chosen to "give life" and found there was a good deal of support, or provided that support to another? Frankly, I'd be very surprised and count your situation an anomaly. A common reason why women choose abortions is because of a lack of support.
Speaking of stigma, that is what many adoptees deal with; from the outcast-on-the-playground years to adulthood when people react to the simple information that one is adopted as if it should be kept a shameful secret. Being treated as if the circumstances of your birth and family life is shamefully "abnormal" is itself psychologically damaging. As with other factors. Ever heard of a "rejection complex?" Not saying you shouldn't carry a baby to term for someone else to adopt, not saying you shouldn't adopt that child. Just, please, don't consider adoption the perfect solution to unwanted pregancies. Trust an adoptee and her adopted friends.
If you wish children to be born at all costs, perhaps you should focus on making society more amenable to these children and their prospective parents, rather than take a moral high ground against women who choose to abort according to their real-world situation.
I strongly suspect there's also a far overestimation of the numbers of women who might carelessly use abortion as their first-line birth control. Uh, no, most do not. Some women have their attempts at birth control sabotaged by partners ("oops, I guess the condom slipped off"), some women and their partners have genuine accidents, some women are not given the choice because of rape or incest... It is worth considering that there are a variety of scenarios where women may get pregnant despite having taken precautions or having had that prerogative denied.
Regardless of how conception took place, I would much sooner see a *fetus* (and no, masses of cells without cognitive or sensory awareness do not constitute 'babies'!) be aborted, than develop into an unwanted baby, an emotionally and/or physically abused child, to a deeply troubled adult. Yes, sometimes those troubled adults turn their insights and channel their pain into works of art or other great contributions to society, but many more do not. Is the pain of the majority and the osmotic effects of their misery on society worth the very few Beethovens? Really?
Also worth noting... People who support access to abortion do not therefore automatically support abortions in all situations or at all stages of pregnancy.
I have found that typical "pro-life" supporters, seeing the situation in stark black-and-white terms themselves, assume that their opponents also have a black-and-white position. Not necessarily. People are complex. Society is complex. Understanding the world requires perceiving and understanding that complexity. Calling "evil" on someone's choice to prevent further misery, calling them the devil even, betrays an immature and tragic inability to comprehend the world as it is.
Post a Comment