To any experienced journalist there was always a strange subtext to the abrupt removal of Dr. Larry Reynolds from his posts as Head of the Department of Family Medicine and Professor at the University of Manitoba and Head of the Winnipeg Regional Health Authority’s Family Medicine Program. Something rang wrong in the alleged reasons his contracts were not renewed. And why he was given all of one month’s notice to clear out.
It took a while, but now we can reasonably conclude the real reasons he was axed. (Yes, we know, technically his contract was not renewed, but essentially he was dismissed from jobs he didn’t want to leave without an explanation.)
Watching the university launch a campaign of character assassination against Dr. Reynolds was one thing. But when they breached his legal rights to privacy by leaking bits of his personnel record, it was clear something was up.
Tell you what, Alex:
I’ll support the right to abort a fetus if all laws regarding child support are removed from the books. If a guy has no say if a child is killed or brought into the world, he shouldn’t be forced to pay for the woman’s decision.
It IS her body, after all. She made the choice.
Jema you nailed it.
First off I am agnostic, and I can’t bring myself to inflict my views on what a woman should do with her body. If a woman doesn’t want a baby, she will do what she does regardless of what I think. I know that makes me a hypocrite because I believe a fetus is a human, but I can’t square this issue in my mind.
That being said, I think Jema has gotten to the root of the issue. If I’m a pro-choice doctor who commits murder/abortions I might resent doctors who do not have the burden of conscience for their continued inhumane actions. What better way to alleviate my suffering than to inflict it on others. After all misery loves company.
I believe that everyone knows abortion is killing a baby; but, out of convenience people rationalize the action. I don’t prescribe to right and wrong, or 10 commandments and such. I believe we do what we do, and we shouldn’t do it if we can’t hold our heads up and say what we are doing. What I’m saying is we as Canadians should hold our heads up high and say “We murder babies!” because that is what we do. If this doesn’t sit well with us then I think we should reconsider our collective position on this, but to simply rationalize and lie to ourselves just makes us look foolish.JMO
Posted by: Yukon Gold at December 18, 2008 10:51 AM
I’ve got no problem with that. Canada’s child support and divorce laws are completely sexist, and I agree that they need an overhaul. It’s unlikely to happen any time soon though.
“I believe we do what we do, and we shouldn’t do it if we can’t hold our heads up and say what we are doing.”
I agree completely! So, why don’t you be the first to set a good example? Stop saying “I’m pro-life”. Everyone knows that’s not what you really mean. Stand up proudly, and shout it out:
“I OPPRESS WOMEN!”
You shouldn’t be doing it if you can’t hold your head up and say what you’re doing.
I’m with Indiana. Although I am not religious, I believe that life starts at conception. It may not be sentient or independent life but it is most definitely on the journey to being a thinking, living, breathing person. I have had enough experience with pregnancy and ultrasounds to discard the idea that the fetus is no more than a clump of cells that can be discarded like fingernail clippings.
In that respect I am firmly anti-abortion. OTOH, the thought of giving the state the power over life decisions far scarier. Particularity when politicians are increasingly influenced by environmentalists and budget conscious bureaucrats. Both of whom seem to be in favor of limiting life spans in the name of Gaia and health care rationing.
These types of decisions should be left up to individuals. Free choice to women who have been given all the facts regarding abortion (no sugar-coating). Free choice to doctors and medical students to refuse to be participants in the ending of a human life.
I know that traditionally Canada is a judeo-christian nation, but how would you feel batb if your kids were being taught by a Muslim teacher, and frequently taught lessons found in the Koran?
bar_jebus LOL in my Childrens school they do send home arabic text. We all know damn well no one will be fired for it either.
Jema 54, I’m glad to know that we’re on the same team and that you’re cheering. Many thanks for that and for your blessings, which are, well, a blessing!
Re life starting at conception: I believe it’s a misconception to say that this is a “belief”. That human life starts at the moment of conception is, in fact, a fact!
Think of all the barrier methods of birth control: all designed to keep the ovum and sperm apart. Now, why would that be, and just what starts growing and developing at that moment in time, who needs to be “terminated”?
Conversely, for those who want to have a baby and can’t, what goes on in those petri dishes anyway? Isn’t it the union of an ovum and a sperm? Those who deny that the dead—because it used to be alive—“product of an abortion” is anything other than a human being are delusional.
I appreciate the honesty of the posters here, who are willing to call a spade a spade.
Alex
I support a woman’s right to choose life or murder, so I suppose I am a hypocrite because I wouldn’t support a woman’s right to murder you.
OT (as always)
Alex, it is agnostics like yourself that are an embarrassment to the rest of us. It is people like you who want to post signs next to other peoples religious displays belittling their beliefs for no other reason other than the ability to do so. I can’t help but think that agnostics such as yourselves are so uncomfortable with their own beliefs, that you can not stand seeing others and the serenity they get from religion( as ridiculous as that may seem to you and I). You are simply a “PLAYA HATER” who likes bringing down to others. Nothing you have said has been constructive at all, the only thing you offer is insults (like the sign in Washington). Furthermore, it is your complete lack of understanding of what faith is that makes your statements ignorant and makes you sound foolish to most people, but of course you don’t know how silly you sound because ignorance is bliss.
Remember Jodie Foster in “Contact” and the lessons her character learned about faith, and try to see the positives that religions brings people of faith. Surely you wouldn’t want to deprive people of the positive benefits, just because you think you are right! Ask yourself “What are my motives when I speak so callously and I presumes so much?”.
Do you even know what the word “agnostic” means?
You’re right in one respect – I DO hate to see religious displays. For instance, the religious display which I got to watch on live TV on 9/11/2001 – that one was particularly annoying. I suppose I could have just shrugged and said “well, they’re just finding happiness in their own religious way”. Maybe that’s what “agnostics” like you did. However, when I see people committing atrocities, oppressing others, and generally opposing the improvement of the human race all due to a bronze-age bit of superstition which should have died out centuries ago, I try to do something about it.
You seem to think that opposing ignorance and irrationality is an evil thing; I think that doing nothing to stop it is far, far worse.
As for this bit of nonsense:
“surely you wouldn’t want to deprive people of the positive benefits, just because you think you are right”
I have yet to see any “positive benefits” of religion which are not achievable through rational means. Moreover, even if there were any, they’d be dwarfed by the negative aspects. I have no interest in depriving people of anything; all I ask is that they base their beliefs on evidence and reason, and that they stop trying to bully everyone who disagrees with them. As I pointed out earlier – most of them are nothing more than protection rackets. “Give us your money or your soul’s gonna get it”.
I don’t care if your belief is Chrstianity, Mormonism, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Communism, or Shintoism – as long as you’re not trying to force your views on others, I’ve got no issue with you. I might laugh in your face when you start making stupid comments based on your beliefs, but that’s about it. The moment you start affecting my life, though, then we’ve got a problem. Unfortunately, that’s exactly what most organized religions want to do, although some are much worse than others. I’m generally willing to side with Christians for the simple reason that we have a much greater common foe, but that doesn’t mean I have to turn a blind eye to their antics, either.
Anyway, I’ve posted way more on this thread than I should have, so I’m going to stop now. You seem like an intelligent guy, even if your ideas about “faith” and “agnosticism” are RTFO. If you want to continue the discussion, feel free to e-mail me: dileas – at – gmail – dot – com. Otherwise, at least go read up on the definitions of “agnosticism”, “atheism”, and “antitheism”. If you’re going to discuss being non-religious, it would be good if you at least knew the difference between them.
Sorry Alex but in my world being 100% sure of anything, even KNOWING there is no god is irrational. I don’t believe in god but there is a possibility I could be wrong, so I’m not an atheist. Not being able to see the + faith brings people is your own shortcoming, and blaming religion for the actions of people is simply scapegoating. The deed is the deed, regardless of the motivator.
Perhaps I can put this into terms you’ll better understand. “Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering” Yoda
I sense much anger in you!
This doctors “dismissal” is another example of the outrageous example of the left controlling our society from the halls of academia.
I personally believe in “pro-choice” which isn’t to say “pro-abortion” but what I am against is the control of our societies by these left winged nuts and their agenda’s. Same goes for the far right winged nuts if they ever had a say.
The reasons for pro-choice is not at all a religious one. Our overpopulating planet simply can’t sustain the current population growth, our resources and infrastructure can’t cope for one. The fact that the majority of children who would otherwise have been aborted by choice by their mothers will be born into poverty and abusive situations is another. Compounding the global overpopulation and dysfunctional family situations only leads to more crime, and more unwanted babies in the longer run. This should be the decision of the mothers and hers alone to bare, and nature will take its balanced course.
To take a religious stance and force mothers to birth their unwanted babies whether their decisions was made due to economics, rape, defective gene’s or what have you – is one of force and totalitarianism. There seems to be no room for sympathy towards the mother, her mental status and well being in the religious realm.
If an all seeing, all knowing god wanted that child to be born, it would be born. If an all loving god allowed a soul to be consummated from nothing or somewhere, he would receive it back to that place from whence it came. Birthed or not.
Posted by: Alex at December 18, 2008 1:59 PM>
“I’m generally willing to side with Christians for the simple reason that we have a much greater common foe”
Great point and I would have to agree!
I also consider myself an Agnostic. The difference to me is that I don’t dismiss outright that there may be a greater being/energy/creator or whatever you chose to call it. We simply just don’t know. And although I do not believe in any religious claims to that knowledge by man, I do see an inherent value in religion “to keep the flocks in line” and to serve as a community function outside of government. Of course I disagree 100% with the abuse of power within most religions, using guilt and fear to control the masses and fill the pockets. Islam on the other hand I take as an archaic death cult in its infancy, unlike Christianity that has smoothed out the edges of its bloody tribal roots.
With the compounding growth of Islam in the world and our western societies, we need to be vigilant and aware of this looming danger. The most probable way to defend our society is to fight fire with fire, which means to hold onto the Judeo Christian values that formulate our society.
Alex, I really dont like saying things like this, but, you’re a bully.
You’re bullying all of the pro-lifers here just because they dont share your opinion. We get it, you dont believe that the human heartbeat has the right to keep beating once it has started (The heartbeat begins beating in the first month after conception, doctors are allowed to stop it up until birth). You seem to compare people who are anti-abortion to people who are anti-masturbation, but that’s apples and oranges. A fetus has the genetic material of both parents, and is in a stage of rapid growth and development. Without the mother it would not survive, but it requires no further genetic “add-ons” to become a full human, it already IS a human. Sperm and Eggs both require the addition of further genetic material in order to form a full life, Sperm are nothing but HALF of a man’s DNA, and would not be able to grow into a person without the addition of further material. Eggs are a finite source within a woman, but every month one disappears from the body, it is a NATURAL process, the egg is not alive, it is half a cell. Please go look up the percentage of boys aborted compared to girls aborted every year (the number is staggering, lots more girls than boys die every year) and then look up the number of ethnic people compared to caucasians (again, you might be surprised). Its eugenics, and its cruel and discriminatory.
I cant remember which president said it, but: All the people in favor of abortion have already been born.
Strange how that works out.
Along with being rude to the pro-lifers, you’re bullying all of the Christians on here just because you dont believe in God. Its not their fault you have no faith, and you have no right to belittle them for having any. Faith and religion does bring a lot of good to the world, people with faith are twice as likely to donate to a good cause, do charity work, volunteer. People of faith tend to be happier with their lives (I know in my case its because I am never alone, and there’s always someone there who is willing to listen if I am upset) and strangely enough, people with faith have this annoying tendency to be TOLERANT. They may not like something, but they will often turn the other cheek and tolerate the discrimination of their own beliefs because they are taught to be good, to be kind and to be tolerant of others.
When only one set of views is tolerated, its not tolerance, its tyranny. Learn some damn tolerance!
Those of us in circumstances disquieting similar to Dr. Reynold’s situation sometimes take refuge in letting others speak for us. These authors have said it better than I could anyway…
Margaret Sommerville in the Calgary Herald, Sept 18, 2008:
http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=3794616b-c515-4a87-84a2-6773c0f2c6cb&p=1
“In Canada, pro-choice advocates are not content with having the freedom to act according to their values; they want to make others act likewise. And they want their beliefs publicly affirmed. These people claim freedom of values for themselves, but refuse to respect others’ freedom. That’s why they will not tolerate a respect-for-freedom-of-conscience exception. No matter what our values or views, we should all be concerned by such totalitarianism.”
Sam Solomon, in the National Review of Medicine, January 15, 2008:
http://www.nationalreviewofmedicine.com/issue/special_sections/2008/patients_practice/5_abortion_rights_2.html
“[There was] an article in the CMAJ in 2006 that claimed, incorrectly, that physicians would be committing malpractice by refusing to refer patients for abortions. Several months after the article, and subsequent angry letters, appeared in print, Dr Jeff Blackmer, the director of the CMA Office of Ethics, had to issue a clarification to make clear that physicians have no obligation to refer patients.”
Posted by: Irene Swain at December 18, 2008 7:01 PM>
I’m sure after assessing your strong views that I’m making a BIG mistake by responding to your comment. But what the hell it’s Thur evening.
You stated:
“When only one set of views is tolerated, its not tolerance, its tyranny. Learn some damn tolerance!”
I’m sorry but I think I missed something there.
You also stated:
“Its eugenics, and its cruel and discriminatory.”
Actually it’s called “cultural reality”! Which is a term more people need to understand more clearly when accepting other cultures at face value. I presume you are referring to the indigenous cultures of India and Bangladesh (not withstanding) which pays homage to males and aborts females as worthless fodder? If so then you are also referring to absolutely hopelessly impoverished societies with almost 2 billion mostly worthless human beings by their account.
In other words – “Caucasians “as you infer are not responsible or accountable for the fact that these cultures choose to kill their unborn in favor of whatever tribal and economic belief system they prescribe to. If you are “white” you do not need to feel guilty for this belief system. It has been this way for thousands of years, long before we advanced to the bleeding heart consciousness of the planet.
For every one baby that dies or is aborted, there will be ten or more born on the planet every day. The world is now suffering a global humanitarian crisis that will sweep all of its modern day problems away if we do not get the unsustainable population growth under control.
More to the point the focus should be on rights and freedoms, including the woman’s right to choose and be accounted for in our western countries. That was a precious gift hard won by the women of our societies not that long ago, and those rights are in an extremely fragile state considering WHO their letting in the doors these days.
Knight99
Obviously you don’t know what agnostic means either. I suggest you email Alex for “education”.
That being said I believe you are wrong wrt human over population. With current technology we can actually feed 50 billion people, food shortages are because of politics. There is no food shortage or resource shortage. The human population will continue to grow to about 20billion people, at that time the population will start to shrink because of the large # of old people. Working in the potash industry these numbers are important for projecting future demand for our products. These numbers are regularly discussed in quarterly meetings because we feel our industry is vital to humanity. I know intuitively it feels like humans will keep growing and growing but that just isn’t the case.
Indiana Homez>
“With current technology we can actually feed 50 billion people”.
Well I’m not a food expert so I won’t question where you got that number, but I will doubt it. The issue of overpopulation is not a food problem alone. The main problem is fresh water from which food is grown and in a finite supply. Every one ton of grain produced requires 10 tons of fresh water to grow and that supply is diminishing.
I do find your potash industry calculations of 20 billion people unnerving. With the state we’re in with 6.5B – we will be in big doodo by then me thinks.
Indy: 50 billion people? Ok. Forget what I said about you being an intelligent guy.
Knight: I know I said earlier I wouldn’t comment on this article any more, but after seeing your comment I had to fire off one more. I think you’re wrong about the overpopulation problem (although you’re certainly a lot closer than Homey over there) and I know you’re wrong about how you classify yourself as far as religion goes. The word “agnostic” says nothing about what your beliefs are – it’s only a commentary on methodology. If I ask you whether the sky is blue, you can say you’re agnostic but all you’re really saying is that you’re not 100% sure. That does nothing to address the issue of what you think or believe. They’re completely separate questions.
When talking about religion, there are only 4 general categories which you could fall into: Theist, Deist, Atheist, and Antitheist. I’ll explain them real quick:
Theist – You believe in a religion, usually involving an active, personal god(s).
Deist – You don’t subscribe to religion, but believe in some sort of supernatural “higher power”, usually one which doesn’t take an active role in the universe.
Atheist – You do not believe in religion, or any sort of supernatural “higher power”.
Antitheist – You believe that no gods exist.
Out of the four categories, you would (probably) be an Atheist, and I would be an Antitheist. However, the word “agnostic” can also be applied to any one of those categories. So you could be an Agnostic Atheist, while I’d be an Agnostic Antitheist, and some religious fellow could be an Agnostic Theist. That’s because agnosticism simply means admitting that you accept some uncertainty when it comes to your beliefs. The only people whom you would NOT apply that word to are the religious fundies who insist that they KNOW god exists, or to the unthinking antitheists who insist that they know for certain that no god exists.
That’s why, generally, the word “agnostic” is meaningless. ANY thinking human being should be agnostic when it comes to answering ANY question. Eventually, though, no matter how much uncertainty exists, you have to come to a conclusion as to what you believe. That’s why I can say that, while I admit there is a very small probability that some kind of god exists, I am an antitheist. I could call myself an agnostic antitheist, but in a way that’s almost redundant.
As for you, since you are not a Theist, and you are (apparently) not a Deist, you are by default an Atheist. You need to realize that Atheism is not the opposite of Theism, but simply the absence of it. Just like amorality is not the opposite of morality, but simply the absence of it. If you do not believe in a god of any type, you are an Atheist. Period, full stop. Whether you admit to a degree of uncertainty is a totally different question.
Indiana suggested (however sarcastically) that you e-mail me, and I’d like to extend that invitation personally. You definitely seem like someone I could have a productive discussion with. My e-mail addresses is listed a dozen comments back – if you’re interested in further conversation you can reach me there. Take care!
Apologies for the long delay in replying to you comment. I just happened to relook back on this particular thread.
I suppose thanks for the clarification is in order, although you need to understand I don’t give much thought or credence to labeling myself as this or that when it comes to religious matters. The issue of belief or religion or lack thereof is a personal matter in my opinion and I only make comments about it when it serves another purpose – to get my point across. I normally distain remarks about religion on SDA because it’s guaranteed to draw out the “god squad” along with the lefty trolls whom each takes their fundamentalist stances and ruins any kind of legitimate discussions.
My interests in these blogs are of concrete concerns which will affect our societies and children’s welfare in the future. Not mine per say, because I’m still quite ok living in an open relatively prosperous and crime free society where people can breath and enjoy the fruits and labors of our gifted ancestors. I feel that our carefree, well organized and civil lifestyle is under attack and coveted on many fronts. Not to chastise the “have not’s” in the world but to chastise the anarchist and fundamentalists that have proven nothing of consequence in the history of mankind or within the borders of their countries and societies.
It’s my belief that it’s our duty to educate our young to the pearls of the world environmentally, economically, politically and culturally. The culture of North America and what’s remaining of indigenous Europe are the last bastions of real human societal development and the attainment of greatness through knowledge and science. All other cultures are simply none productive tribal sects or great imitators as with Asia (not to be unkind to Asia it’s a lovely place and people, but all that is modern Asia today is a western imitation or design).
As we weaken our societies with third world labor, and third world religions we achieve the socialist’s dream of third world equality. Anyway not to rant too long about the insanity of losing our place in the world, I simply wanted to explain that whether I’m labeled a deist, atheist or agnostic by myself or yourself, it is a moot issue and unimportant to me. I have my spiritual beliefs or ideas and keep them to myself where I believe they belong. I do believe that I will neither go to hell or have 72 virgins when I eventually die, and that of course is the one thing we can all bank on.