March 2, 2008
Anonymous:
First, although I don’t have a problem with your excerpting the comments I leave here, please do so anonymously; I am not quite yet prepared to make a public stance on this issue, and I am only too cognizant both of the extent to which current culture penalizes the pro-life perspective and of the remarkable ability of search engines to successfully index web sites.
Second, I think the initiative your group has chosen to undertake is fantastic. Abortion really shouldn’t be a legal issue, but rather an ethical one – and legal change will take place once the public more fully understands both the physical and emotional implications of the procedure as well as its ethical dimension.
Third, I think there is plenty of evidence to support the contention that public opinion on this matter will gradually reorient itself towards the pro-life position. Frankly, the only reason why abortion-on-demand is currently tenable is because over the past fifty years, the social-welfare role of the traditional family has been eroded in favor of the state providing these kinds of services. A large family is the original welfare state, albeit on a scale that is smaller, more organic, and arguably more responsive than any disinterested government agency can be. The economic condition that advanced the welfare state in the first place is the liberal economic demand for labour mobility, which requires that individuals be disembedded from both organic communities and other traditional social structures. What statists of all stripes never considered, however, is that the welfare state is anathema to demographics; once the need to seek security through progeny is replaced with guarantees of similar security through bureaucracy, the pressure to bear children is substantively reduced. This leads to the situation the west currently faces, where population demographics are currently below replacement levels. In the long run, non-replacement shrinks the tax base and will lead directly to calls for reform due to the fiscal unsustainability of ever-expanding social programs – the situation currently faced by various European states (notably France). As the services provided by the state are curtailed, the family will inevitably re-emerge in the role that it has always occupied; the culture surrounding both marriage and abortion will inexorably become markedly more conservative, and we will see the decline of current phenomena that can only be described as decadent (polyamory, serial monogamy, career-before-family, Peter Pan Syndrome, etc.).
I feel confident in saying that the next decade will represent the cusp of a significant moral and cultural turning-point in the history of the west.
________________________________
Jacqui, on “Airbrushing away diversity“:
More babies that are developing “normally” than those that are screened to have Down Syndrome are being aborted because of false positives of the screenings. I think the statistics are that for every child with Down Syndrome that is aborted, there are 67 normally developing children that are aborted based on a tool that screens for the “possibility” of Down Syndrome and other chromosomal abnormalities.
________________________________
S.K. Fung, on Hell hath no fury like a fool scorned:
Students for Bioethical Awareness at York University organized a debate about abortion between Jojo Ruba and a pro-choice debater from the Freethinkers, Skeptics and Atheists Group at York University. It was to be moderated by the York Debating Society. Simple objective: present a fair debate.
Space at the Student Centre was requested and permitted, posters were printed and posted. A few hours before the debate, the Student Centre pulled the plug. No debate allowed.Turns out the Board of Directors of the York University Student Centre caught wind of the debate at the 11th hour.Turns out the Board of Directors consists mainly of York Federation of Students (YFS) enthusiasts. [YFS = Local 68 member of the Canadian Federation of Students (CFS)– the same body ruling against Lakehead.]So the president of Bioethical Awareness enters a flurry of meetings with some on the Student Centre “Board of Directors.” Their response? Having a debate about abortion is equivalent to having a debate about wife beating. Didn’t you know? Pat on the head. No debate allowed.You see, for the Canadian Federation of Students, two-thirds of Canadians are no better than wife-beating KKK members.
A dangerous precedent has been set. When debate complex issues cannot be tolerated, say goodbye to reasoned dialogue. Say goodbye to informed choices. York University students deserve better.
________________________________
Paul, on Hell hath no fury like a fool scorned:
If the people in your picture support freedom of speech, why are they censoring themselves with (pro)”life” tape? Isn’t that symbolic of the pro-life movement’s suppression of free-thought and submission to a mystical fairy?
Speaking of freedoms, shouldn’t a grown, fully-functioning woman’s right to life and comfort (ie. having a safer option than a back-alley abortion, not being woken at night for no good reason) supersede the right of an unwanted, dependent assembly of simple systems incapable of thought, memory, or emotion? Yes, yes it should. And hey, according to Canadian law, it does. Good for us.
________________________________
TS, on That’s your imagination keeping you up:
It’s amazing how stupid the supposedly “smart” people can be.
________________________________
Alison, on Everything’s relative… absolutely!:
Véronique’s post summarizes my opinions on the subject of bill C-484. A distinction between a wanted or unwanted fetus is logically untenable. And yet, this is the distinction that pro-choice rhetoric would have us maintain. Most can recognize that the murder of a pregnant woman is a double tragedy. This also brings to mind that there has been press recently on the mourning of a miscarriage and how this is a necessary process for women. If one must mourn a miscarriage, why not an abortion?
________________________________
Tanya Zaleski, on Joyce’s choices on Bill C-404:
I can’t take credit for the following heartfelt comment, as I heard another woman express the sentiment: “If I am pregnant and, through an act of violence, someone murders my child, I have been robbed not only of my baby but also of my so-called right to choose. And if I have been robbed of my right to choose, who will stand up for me?” The pro-choice side is not so worried about choice after all. Just abortion.
________________________________
Loretta Westin, on Unhappy:
Yes! Yes!
There IS more to a person than the physical. Its hard to believe so many people cannot recognize a person when they see one. Its also hard to believe that so many feel they are the right person to decide how ‘human’ the experiences of someone else are!
How about the Canadian Medical Assoc. who apparantly think of us all as ‘clients’ and are trying to establish for themselves the right to kill people they feel aren’t living a ‘human(e)’ enough life - whether their family recognizes their humanity or not!