Comments, February 17, 2008

February 17, 2008

I am sure the Globe is going to back off on their initiative to Give Henry “Morgue and dollar” the Order of Canada. They have to because of the absolute shellacking he is taking on their website. Their poll started out on Friday with roughly 60 % of the 700 people (mostly Globe employees I am sure) who had voted, saying “Yes” he deserves this accolade. Since that time the voting has continued among the general population of Canadian web surfers and it now stands 82% Saying a resounding “NO” to even thinking about such a disgraceful action. More than 23,000 people have now voted Henry OFF the Island. Another strange development is the Globe has now removed this poll from its list of past surveys. I imagine there would be a “Christmas parcel” type rush at the Canada Post with all of the members of the Order of Canada sending their medals back in protest if the issue even comes up again.

________________________________

Tanya Zaleski, on Warning: No one is complaining about this…:

I’m always a little torn in these situations. My daughter saw the image of the brutalized, photoshopped dog before I could shield her eyes, and she had a quizzical look on her face, to say the least. She’s 2, so she didn’t quite process it before I switched pages.

Do I complain? If she were 4 years old, she’s be having nightmares for a week. This image is truly horrifying.

Do I allow them their freedom to express an important issue in a brutally graphic way without interfering? If I do so, perhaps it can then become leverage next time an issue close to my heart wants to use a similar tactic.

Or am I just fooling myself…

________________________________

Loretta Westin , on Values voters and McCain:

McCain supports embryonic stem cell research. He also has a disturbing enthusiasm for ‘global warming’ hype. The first is decidedly not pro-life, and the second will definitely affect his fiscal responsibility (and his credibility.)

Now, people still have someone else to vote for. They should. When (if) McCain becomes the Republican presidential candidate, he’s a better choice than either Obama or Clinton. However, it seems unlikely that he will be able to beat either of them in an election, so your third scenario is the most likely . A sound beating and a refreshed party.

________________________________

Tessa, on Actions speak louder than words:

This is very interesting. One of the arguments I have heard for pushing abortion in developping countries is that if a mother with 4 kids dies giving birthto the 5th it will be very hard on the remaining kids and obviously tragic that she died. So, the logic goes, it would be better to offer her an abortion. (I heard this argument from an organization called ‘Save the Mothers’.) But if abortions cause more death and problems than giving birth, than this argument is crazy!

________________________________

Hanam, on Facilitating immaturity:

This is very sad indeed. How did our expectations get so low? In my university years (some short 40 years ago in the 60s) if relationships ended up in pregnancy the couple got married fast and raised the family. In most cases they are still married and have no regrets. And I thought we were a rebellious generation.

________________________________

Tanya Zaleski, on Information is not a scare tactic:

I cringe when given information like this and told not to use it as a scare tactic.

What is a scare tactic exactly? How would you even use this information as a scare tactic? If I tell a woman this when she is contemplating abortion, if it scares her, it’s because she understood the message…not because I set out to scare her. No! My intention was to inform her. But information can be scary.

There is much to be said for tact. We should always exercise our sensitive nature when discussing sensitive issues. You will not find me walking down the street tomorrow draped in a sandwich board with an “in your face” saying about the issue. But no matter how we present the information, someone somewhere will call it a scare tactic!

Should we, therefore, withhold this information when we think its propagation could be misconstrued as a scare tactic? We would hold our tongues forever! Pro-abortionists will definitely have a field day calling this information “fabricated” and “scare tactic” even before it’s out of the gate. Heavens knows they do it in the case of the abortion breast cancer link. They also dismiss psychological effects of abortion as “exaggerated.”

If we are afraid to spread information for fear that we will be accused of using scare tactics, we might as well give up right now.

“Cautious, careful people, always casting about to preserve their reputation and social standing, never can bring about a reform.” -Susan B. Anthony

________________________________

Michelle M, on “Did you feel this?”:Well, if they anesthetized the developing fetus in order to perform the abortion, would that make the abortion right? The argument that the fetus feels pain can contribute to our understanding of its personhood, but feeling pain in and of itself is not what makes us a person– recall that there are individuals born with a neurological condition in which they are unable to feel pain (dangerous– they don’t know when they’ve been injured!), and this does not make them any less of person.This is related to arguments based on the abortion- breast cancer link. To see that it is linked to breast cancer can contribute to our understanding of the physical harm that it may cause, but this is not what makes abortion wrong. If it was found that abortion protected women from breast cancer, it would still be morally wrong.Abortion is objectively morally wrong independent of the issue of fetal pain.

________________________________

Doctor Psycho, on Mark Steyn wasn’t kidding:

A “family medal” sounds a litle too fascistic for my tastes — that way lies the Lebensborn.

How about a civic committee to which only custodial mothers of children under 18 are invited? It could be both an honor and a useful body to draft reports and manage volunteer activities.

Heck, Robert Heinlein once proposed that only the mothers of young children should be allowed to vote, since only they had an unquestionable stake in the future.

________________________________

Cassie, on Mark Steyn wasn’t kidding:

Re Andrea: ” I believe we should honour motherhood. But how, in this age and era?”

I have an idea: have universal FREE high quality childcare available, make laws so that women and men can work flexible time shifts to raise their kids, go to doctors, etc etc.

See, not so hard. Just make motherhood a normal, respectable part of adult working life.

________________________________

Margaret, on Mark Steyn wasn’t kidding:

What you obviously mean is that only certain kinds of motherhood should be honored. Only “traditional” (white Christian) mothers should bear in bulk. Otherwise there would be no need for the question.

The only way to defang Muslim fundamentalism is the same way we did it with Christianity — by freeing women. Part of that means giving them free access to contraception and abortion. But you can’t express your desire for that without being called a hypocrite — which you most assuredly are, of course, but it’s always unpleasant to admit.

________________________________

Tanya Zaleski, on Something’s fishy:

Scientists and journalists will talk about the harm it is causing the fish until we find a fish with breast cancer linked to the estrogen overload.

http://www.breastcancer.org/treatment/hormonal/what_is_it/hormone_role.jsp

________________________________

Dave, on Why I killed my first child:

That kind of argument is pretty consistent with contemporary philosophical justifications for abortion. It’s still possible to find academics who won’t admit that the unborn child is in fact a human being, but thoughtful abortion-choice advocates have largely moved from that rather naive position to the position that there are some human beings who are not “persons” and who thus do not possess rights. Those human beings can legitimately be killed. Horrifying indeed.

________________________________

Sue, on Why I killed my first child:

A friend of mine who works with people who have Alzheimer’s commented to me the other day in the course of a casual conversation that it would be better for people with Down Syndrome if they were never born, since in most middle-aged people with Down Syndrome there is the evidence of brain changes similar to those of Alzheimer’s. I was stunned that she mentioned this to me, since she knows of my pro-life stance. I told her that I was the wrong person to be telling, especially since another dear friend has a delightful daughter with Down Syndrome who is graduating from high school later this year.

For more information: http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/bhcv2/bhcArticles.nsf/pages/Down_syndrome_and_Alzheimer’s?OpenDocument

________________________________

Tanya Zaleski, on Failing to see the forest for the trees:

While we’re on the topic of “who has the mental capacity to handle an abortion”, I thought it might be a good time to mention the following study:

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/313/7070/1431

It is helpful to note that these statistics are off of a website that seems not to hold a particularly pro-choice stance. They are just facts. And they show that abortion is a definite risk factor for suicide.