June 8, 2008
Harry834, on Hypocrite, and proud of it:
I did bookmark your post on the “I’m not sorry” women. I’ll look it over. But isn’t it safer to assume that women will have all different kinds of feelings after an abortion? And is the fact that many feel regretful afterwards a reason to ban the choice for everyone?
Women often regret getting married and having children. But we don’t ban those choices. And the women to do regret marriage and children are never allowed to talk about it. There’s no “silent no more” site for the women who regret their marriage and parenthood. And it’s naive to think that’s because no woman has these regrets.
We can’t ban choices for everyone just because some regret them. And don’t many of our non-regretful choices have emotional pain? We’d do them again anyway.
This sounds like a double standard in evaluating people’s choices. Can we at least agree not to outlaw them?
________________________________
Michelle M, on American politics and abortion:
First Things on Barack Obama’s abortion stance, quick and to the point for anyone who didn’t have the time to read the Atlantic article to which you linked:
http://www.firstthings.com/blog/2008/06/05/the-audacity-of-death/
________________________________
Jennifer, on American politics and abortion:
I stumbled on your site by accident, but I’m intrigued. You seem to have a positive approach to this issue and it’s refreshingly logical. What a nice surprise.
________________________________
JustHinting, on Thoughts on Sex and the City (spoilers):
I think this movie portrays women in a dirty way. What do you think about the content or premise of Sex and the City? I found this interview where an Entertainment columnist, James Hirsen, talked about (actress/model) Lauren Hutton who says it portrays “A myth of natural female promiscuity”. She also says it’s because it’s written by guys who are “sluts.”
________________________________
Suzanne A., on What is truth?:
I nearly fell off my chair this morning when I saw this post! “…truthful, fair and accurate” - seems to me the LifeCanada ads were all of the above. So why were they deemed deceptive? I am so confused. Oh I get it - it’s the ASC’s version of the truth, since there is no absolute truth in the world anymore. At least that’s the way the relativism of the world seems to work.
________________________________
SM, on They’re against everything:
C-484 : le Collège des médecins en désaccord
http://www.radiovm.com/Nouvelles/Details.aspx?/=A&n=14286
Le Collège des médecins joint sa voix au concert de réprobations entourant le projet de loi controversé C-484.
Lundi, le Collège a dénoncé le projet de loi conservateur qui donnerait un statut juridique à un foetus et qui pourrait, à terme, criminaliser l’avortement.
Le secrétaire du Collège des médecins, Yves Robert, a envoyé une lettre ouverte aux chefs des quatre principaux partis fédéraux pour affirmer sa désapprobation envers les projets de loi.
Selon M. Robert, si le projet de loi est adopté, cela ferait en sorte que toute interruption volontaire de grossesse, même pour des raisons médicales, exposerait les médecins qui la pratiquent et les femmes qui la demandent à des poursuites criminelles.
Si le projet de loi C-484 était adopté, il créerait une nouvelle catégorie d’infraction au Code criminel, en reconnaissant le foetus comme une victime indépendante de la mère, donc une victime à part entière.
Le meurtrier d’une femme enceinte serait alors accusé de double homicide. Actuellement, la femme et son foetus ne font qu’un, et il n’y a qu’un seul statut juridique.
________________________________
SUZANNE, on This is their side. No really.:
It’s a good thing they’re not sorry. Wow, what would they look like if they were!
________________________________
Abortions are Cool!, on A tempest in a teacup:
“Thank goodness Tanya is on our team.”
Too bad you people can’t realize how illterate [sic] you are before you open your mouths.
________________________________
Suzanne A., on Planned Parenthood: Not so much emphasis on the parent:
Hmmm…. “capable of informed consent”…so, are they handed the fact sheet from unfairchoice.info? That would be informed consent.
“It should be a private matter between a woman and her doctor”, so says Barbara Bailey. Except that we aren’t talking about “women” here, but girls, and anyone who has lived with teenage girls (or been one) knows that they aren’t the most emotionally balanced creatures in the world.
________________________________
Midas, on Two anecdotes on a Saturday morning:
“God in the Christian conception does not run 'on one strike and you’re out!' and is rather a God of love and forgiveness, even when egregious mistakes are made.”
“God of love and forgiveness” is THE favorite Christian shibboleth that Christians, committed or nominal, use with abandon to absolve themselves of responsibility and guilt before, during, and after the commission of all and any “mistakes,” crimes and misdemeanors. This God is wildly popular with both preachers and their audiences for one obvious reason: his convenience.
This picture of the Christian God is also very inaccurate. It represents only one side of an equation. On the other side of the equation is the (ignored) God of Justice, who happens to be the same one as the God of love and forgiveness. And Christianity teaches that God cannot, and will not, allow injustice to go unpunished.
In any event, after decades of legal and/or tolerated abortion, and after tens of millions of kids murdered, can we reasonably expect the God of love and forgiveness to continue being loving and forgiving?
As for “those in the abortion-related business… to address meta-physical questions, and correct misconceptions” - well, let’s just say, it’s a tall order.