he should film it in canada and get some tax credits...

SWINE!! That SOB should be shot!

That literally made me nauseous.

Regardless of if these are hoaxes or not, the idea is that it is the reaction to the "art" that counts these days. I wonder if Sarah Polley would agree:

"It's the job of artists to provoke and to challenge. Part of the responsibility of being an artist is to create work that will inspire dialogue, suggest that people examine their long-held positions and, yes, occasionally offend in order to do so."

Here's an "art" proposal: we'll deny all these so-called artists any tax money, film their response, call it "Reality Bites", then donate any profit to the Canada 5(or 6)...

I posted this down in reader tips below, but since this is a thread about art that turns your stomach, I'm afraid I've got to one-up you Kate.

This young women impregnated herself repeatedly, then filmed the abortions. It's her final class project.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,351608,00.html

Oops... sorry kate. I thought they linked to the same place. Delete my last if you will.

Even the article brushed over the massive disrespect for reproduction and human life in general. I am unsurprised that even pro-choicers were disgusted. I am also unsurprised that the article makes absolutely no effort to quote any actual people against it - only those supportive of it.

All that is wrong with people's attitudes towards their bodies and towards human life - wrapped up in one tight little art project. Disgusting.

I agree with duffman. The only crime here is that the "artist" did not receive any government funding for his project. Shame on you Costa Rica!

Remember - this is the same arts community that looks down their noses at Robert Bateman.

Is this for real? A so called artist starving a dog to death and calling it art? People walking around with wine glasses critiquing it? Excuse me while I vomit.

If this is real and if I ever had a chance to meet this person I would do some death art on him.

I don't want to be among earthlings anymore.

Actually this one is undetermined.
http://www.snopes.com/critters/crusader/vargas.asp

ah..the mclelland... a fourty year whisky if there was one to be had..

imagine if you can a man who would dare semi hemi devi equivocate about cruelty to a helpless animal..

Flense the bastard.
Starving a dog is art?

how progressive.

Well, with the "death" of God, anything goes. We're reaping the whirlwind of that.

Remember, the Prince of this World is Satan. If one didn't believe in either Satan or his standing here before, maybe these two abominations will cause one to reconsider.

Mental illness at it's finest!

I'd pay good money to see this SOB "artist" at the end of a chain starved.

Let's bail out the Farely Mowat, fuel it up, and send it off to Costa Rica. Everyone comes out a winner.

Good thoughts, lookout. Here is something else to think about.

Proverbs 8
32 "Now therefore, O sons, listen to me,
For blessed are they who keep my ways.
33 "Heed instruction and be wise,
And do not neglect it.
34"Blessed is the man who listens to me,
Watching daily at my gates,
Waiting at my doorposts.
35 "For he who finds me finds life
And obtains favor from the LORD.
36"But he who sins against me injures himself;
All those who hate me love death."

PIMF-Farley

Absolute moral depravity.

Amen, Brent Weston.

"It is a work that leaves a social message, is definitely conceptual art and the people he is still working to digest this type of work," said the director.

I'm not a flasher in a rain coat,
I'm not a dirty old man,
I'm not gonna snatch you from your mother,
I'm an art lover.
Come to daddy,
Ah, come to daddy,
Come to daddy.

He better hope that none of his contemporaries try to one-up him with a performance piece titled "Slow Vivisection of Artist" .

No different than tearing apart children in the womb and calling it "choice".

Well, it certainly isn't 'art'. Around here we call that cruelty to animals and it is a criminal offense (let alone a good example of moral dementia).

I am a deer hunter (among other things) so I can't pretend to unconditionally love all animals, but I do eat what I kill and make sure that I employ the strategy of the 'one-shot hunt'. One clean, humane and quick killing shot.

Starving an animal to death is disgusting. Doing it while the (retarded) public watch is, well, I'm speechless...

I have visited Costa Rica on many occassions. Their number one industry is tourism.

Anybody with any moral conviction whatsoever should write a letter to the President. Believe me, the President is easy to get to and he will read his mail.

This is not just a question of cruelty to animals, or not having this 'artist' represent Costa Rica. It is a question of convicting him as a criminal and him paying the penalty.

It's often been stated that killers start with torturing and killing animals and then move on. This piece of shit is doing it right in the public eye.

He should become a pariah. And any patron or gallery that supports him should suffer the same fate.

Starve the bastard to death.

Sick. No, very sick.

Really hope this is a hoax.

If not, I wish some bad ass karma for that loser of a person.

Having spent more than a few weeks in Costa Rica, I can tell you that people there don't actually have dogs as "pets" the way we do in North America.

They're kept mean and lean, as watch dogs, because any house left empty, even for a few hours, is likely to be robbed.

I can't get myself to watch the video, but am not surprised that this sickening artistic "installation" took place in Costa Rica, where dogs aren't exactly thought of man's best friend.

In this case, man isn't exactly dog's best friend, either.

Ha! He would got have gotten a big fat grant to starve that poor dog if he was in Canada...

Ha! He would got have gotten a big fat grant to starve that poor dog if he was in Canada...

Ha! He would got have gotten a big fat grant to starve that poor dog if he was in Canada...

I think Rob Reiner, Glenn Close, Diane Keaton would be proud look at the new heights artists are reaching they must be in their glory.

All hail the new way. The Left is showing us a glorious new way of enlightenment.

We should kneel and give thanks to our betters for their wisdom, their generosity in allowing us to breath the same sacred air they breath. They are gods who walk among us.

Allowing us to glimpse their wisdom their infallibilty praise be to Hollywood. For they lead us to the light.

Truly sad no matter what animal he may have chosen to abuse.
Even more sad is the fact that he seems to have quite a following equally morally deprived people who find it entertaining.

Al W, John V, Orlin, Pierce, mark peters:

What makes that dog's fate any worse than a lost dog or better yet, a homeless bum in Canada, or the starving rioters in costa rica/haiti? What have you done to change their situation?

If you haven't done fuckall, what makes this dog so special, that you seem to value it so highly above them?

ALL CULTURES ARE EQUAL !
ALL CULTURES ARE EQUAL !
ALL CULTURES ARE EQUAL !
http://www.dack.com/images/weblog/kevin-bacon.jpg

I grew up on a dairy farm. We had dogs, we had cats, cows of course....I hope to God this is a hoax...

Lookout:
My reaction was the same as yours. Without God, all things are not merely possible. Rather, they are certain. If man can do it, he will do it, if only to demonstrate that NO ONE can tell him what he can and cannot do.

However, in the case of the Yale "artist", I wonder where her parents are in all of this. What does her mother think, and what sort of relationship does she have with her daughter? Clearly, the child's actions (and she IS a child, no matter what her chronological age) are defiant and spiteful. However, I thought some of her comments, absurd and superficially "intellectual" as they were, conveyed more about herself than she intended. "I hope it inspires some sort of discourse," she said. Indeed, I hope it does.

I'd pay good money to see this SOB "artist" at the end of a chain starved.

Posted by: Pierce at April 17, 2008 5:29 PM

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

I'd pay even MORE good money to see this SOB "artist" at the end of a rope.

As someone who has three utterly annoying, rambunctious and good natured dogs in the family, I am and remain of the opinion that dogs have a greater right to a good life than many a so-called "human" being, and if this story is true, the moral degenerate in question, and his admirers do not qualify as human, ergo, they are worth less than my dogs. Deliberately causing a living being extended suffering for no conceivable reason other than self-promotion is on the same level as making lamp-shades out of tattooed human skin taken from executed death camp prisoners (choose your dictatorship - it's a common occurrence). Lefties who object to the above can kiss my ass. While they do so, my dogs will urinate on them in disdain and leave some choice doggy doo for them to step in when they're done kissing my ass.

If I remember correctly, years ago a "artist" was going to stomp a puppy in Vancouver, and on the day it was supposed to happen, people showed up with pitbulls and other large breed dogs to let loose on the guy. I think in the end it turned out to be another bullshit attention getting "art" student.

"Release the hounds, Smithers."

I read the article about the fool who thought abortions were art, but I can't bring myself to even open the link about the starving dog as "art". The fitting treatment for such an artist would be that we find five or six very large dogs, put them in a cellar and starve them only half way, then throw the "artiste" in with the ravenous works of art.

Can I be hauled before the Costa Rica equivalent of an HRC for saying such a thing?

Of course, when you have actual cultural grants being given out for such treasures as the famous "hanging rabbits" of south Winnipeg a few years back, well, I guess pretty much anything goes.

irwin daisy: Believe me, the President is easy to get to and he will read his mail.

Jesus Christ, that's the stupidest thing I've ever seen posted on SDA. And this place is pretty fertile ground for stupid.

batb: ...because any house left empty, even for a few hours, is likely to be robbed.

And right on cue, the runner-up stupidity prize goes to batb, who having spent "more than a few weeks" in Costa Rica, figures herself sufficiently knowledgeable to deem the whole country as being infested with criminals.

Hey irwin 'moral conviction' daisy: have you dispatched your letter to the President yet?

It is becoming very hard for a person to accept some of the stuff that the sophists pass an art.
Just hearing and seeing some of the stuff, one wanders what makes people that apparently actually go to school to presumably study art, what is it that makes these people to do these utterly is and completely stupid things. Looks and sounds more like some kind of sadistic and masochistic ritual for no other reason than to get attention.

Consider this for a minute, however outrageous this sounds.

If an American president graduated from an art school, then went to war to express his artistic and intellectual prowess, would that be somehow OK? After all it would be just an artistic expression never mind the consequences, an artist must do, what an artist must do.

As for the Yale freako, apparently it was a hoax, all made up to get famous.

From the Human Society of the United States' website FAQ:

Q. Is it true that a Central American artist used a starving dog in an art exhibit?

We are aware of this story and have asked our contacts in Central America for more information. According to local animal welfare organizations, the dog was in a state of starvation when he was captured from the street for display in the exhibit. We have also been informed that the dog spent one day in the exhibit and later escaped the gallery. We do not condone the actions of this so-called "artist," and condemn the use of live animals in exhibits such as this. An animal welfare organization in Honduras, where the next art show will be held, is keeping close watch on the case and assures us that the artist will not repeat his objectionable exhibit.

Sadly, thousands of street dogs in Central America are in as poor shape as this one. HSI works throughout the world to prevent the circumstances that allow such a tragic event to take place. We encourage you to learn more about our street animal welfare programs.

How many of you have ever passed by a mangy-looking stray dog or cat wandering the street without taking it in and nurturing it back to health? That, after all, was Mr. Vargas' point--that we willfully overlook animal suffering all the time.

It's possible to condemn Mr. Vargas' methods and still take his point.

I wonder where her parents are in all of this.

Mom and dad are tentatively upset, anxious, but, that could pass quickly if they get positive feedback from their liberal friends who understand the soul of an emerging artist.

I bet the parents are affluent "open-minded" liberals whose very special daughter was never subject to anything that would have hurt her self-esteem. How else do you produce a kid that formulates such a stunt and views the world as her stage. Here's a kid, regardless of whether this was a hoax, that is totally devoid of boundaries, social decorum, morals and respect for herself or others. Kids like this aren't forged in a vacuum.

Exhibit your abortion, starve a dog to death.... only in the twisted world of the twisted left's elitist culture can the pathological personality disordered designate their illness as art and get away with it.

He better hope that none of his contemporaries try to one-up him with a performance piece titled "Slow Vivisection of Artist" .
Posted by: shakenat April 17, 2008 6:57 PM

I am encouraged by the words of the Human (sic) Society - that the animal was not let to die. I hope that this is a hoax.

I am inclined to become a performance artist (if it is true), and look to create that beautiful theme that leaves no remnants behind - as is the proper definition of the genre.

Consenting abuse among people is one thing, sadism another.

http://www.sfweekly.com/2000-02-23/news/public-enema-no-2/

And - I'll say it - and debate it with anyone.

No domesticated animal should be bred until all of the shelters are emptied - and the pets adopted or put down.

Period.

Despite the vanity breeding - or 'competition' show animals - let us say it again:

No domesticated animals should be allowed to breed until all of the SPCA's have no animals to adopt.

Pretty simple, no?

Aside from saving thousands of sentient critters from needless suffering, an added bonus sees thousands saved from making needless vanity trophies for those insecure enough to pump out life for a piece of bronze on marble.

A) The Humane Society of the United States is an animal rights group, fashioned after PETA and with a bigger bank account. They run not a single shelter. They are all about legislation, not animal welfare. The only time they get involved in a animal abuse case is to exploit it for fund raising purposes.

See activistcash.com

B) There is no dog over-population in most parts of the United States or Canada. The majority of dogs surrendered these days are old, sick, have temperament issues or of crosses that are difficult to place - pit bulls, in particular.
We see the same phenomenon in purebred rescue. Nobody surrenders a Miniature Schnauzer because it's "unwanted". They dump it because it's old, or bites people.

Ending breeding of purebred dogs will not alter this - show dogs make up less than 5 per cent of the population in most breeds, less in some. In some rare breeds, fewer than a dozen litters are born each year. Suspending breeding for as few as 3 - 4 years would cause some pure breeds to go into extinction, or irreversable genetic decline through collapse of their gene pools and loss of genetic diversity. That's because breeding lifespan of a female dog is usually no more than 6 years at best.

Some humane societies are actually importing dogs from places like Puerto Rico to satisfy the "demand".

hardboiled: there is not one ounce of logic or connect in your diatribe.

For starters ... those who take loving care of their pets are responible for those who don't?

Oh ... I get it ... until there are no more abused children, nobody should ever have children. Now it makes perfect sense.

Dan, I spent more than a few weeks in Costa Rica--a lot more than a few weeks. Isn't that what I said? I know what I'm talking about.

You sure as H*** don't.

I have been to Costa Rica - and despite Dan's contempt, and for all the wonderfulness of the place - the problems with crime there and the attitudes different than ours towards dogs among the population are rather striking. The condo complex we stayed in in Playa del Coco had armed security guards; many of the houses in the town were surrounded by razor wire. There were armed guards (bullet proof vests and shotguns)in all the banks I saw, and even a hardware store I went in had a serious young man with a revolver on his hip checking bags at the door.
That said, I never felt threatened at any time. Probably, Dan, because of all the guns in sight, and not in spite of them.
Playa del Coco had many dogs walking around, rangy mutts of no fixed address looking to cadge food or some show of warmth from anyone. If I had given them either, I might as well have adopted them, at least as far as they were concerned. They weren't feral - just eternally optimistic.

The locals seemed to ignore them for the most part.

We also went to a less touristy (to coin a word) town in the central part of the country, and I don't recall seeing either as many dogs, guns or razor wire. Great place; we will go back any time.

Actually this one is undetermined.
http://www.snopes.com/critters/crusader/vargas.asp

Check with Barbara Mikkelson (nee Hamel) at spoons @ best dot com for a possible followup; David wrote that piece.

Barbara is a rat (and Sewergator) lover.

Jesus Christ, that's the stupidest thing I've ever seen posted on SDA. And this place is pretty fertile ground for stupid.

Gee Kate are personal attacks, name calling grounds for banning?

Not to mention I should get a human rights commission involved because of the Religious attack.

Remember - this is the same arts community that looks down their noses at Robert Bateman.

In the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy they call them "arts snobbery councils."

It's like the poets today who cant rhyme:

a Shakespeare,
b Dr Seuss,
c or some lame govt funded poet who cant rhyme

Who will people still know about in 500 yrs? Maybe 2 of the above.

Like Ray Davies says "you keep all your smart modern writers give me William Shakespeare."

I have a quick test for art. Is it something I or someone else I know, not a member of the arts community would want in their living room?

Sorry, I disagree - mildly disturbing. What I find really disturbing is my neighbour spending $10,000 he doesn't have just to grant his dog another couple years of life.

I blame Walt Disney.

Perspective, people. Go check out HSUS's 10.30 comment.

The chick at Yale did not get pregnant and have abortions. It was "performance art", also known as a "hoax" among the less educated.

arthur, performance art/hoax, whatever it's still crap.

T. Robert Wolfram: Great place [Costa Rica]; we will go back any time."

I totally agree. For the most part, Costa Ricans are gentle, hospitable, extremely polite and helpful. The people of Costa Rica, however, like tourists and expatriot residents, are at the mercy of a certain, very small, percentage of their population who are "professional" (that is, they are very good at what they do) thieves and con artists.

One of the topics of this thread was the maltreatment of a dog in Costa Rica. I contributed what I know of the treatment of dogs in this small, Central American country, and stand by my observation: Most dogs are "kept"--if kept at all, as Robert T. Wolfram points out--lean and mean because their sole purpose, it seems, is not to be a pet but to be man's best attack dog, should the professional crooks and robbers try jumping that razor-laced fence or back wall.

If you don't have an attack dog, you either hire someone with a machete to guard your house while you're away, or you never leave your house empty--that is, unless you're wealthy enough to live in a gated community, in which case you have a guard on duty 24-7.

Yo lo se.

batb: ...because any house left empty, even for a few hours, is likely to be robbed.

...because any house left empty, even for a few hours, is likely to be robbed.

...because any house left empty, even for a few hours, is likely to be robbed.

...because ANY house left empty, EVEN FOR A FEW HOURS, is LIKELY to be robbed!

I can't believe there are people here actually defending this statement.

But in all seriousness, has irwin daisy dispatched his letter yet?

Is there an echo chamber in here?

Wouldn't it be far more interesting and have a much greater shock effect if he starved himself to death? Now that would be art.

Dan's a pure bread somethin or other,... that bites people.

"Sorry, I disagree - mildly disturbing. What I find really disturbing is my neighbour spending $10,000 he doesn't have just to grant his dog another couple years of life."

If he wasn't good for it he wouldn't spend it and if it doesn't come out of your pocket, what exactly are you bitching about?
Or do you feel an odd compulsion to decide how your neighbour should dispose of his income? Perhaps he's decided to die broke!
But how do you know the neighbour can't afford it? Define "afford", or perhaps just consider for one small moment that perhaps your neighbor can ill afford the loss of his pet/mutt/dog/buddy/ companion/confidant/loyal friend for life.

BTW just spent eight c's on one of my mutts. Guess I could have bought another TV. Nah!

As far as the "Artist" is concerned, I just picture his head as "Rawlings" solid cork/rubber center, slow and lazy, just hangin', and today I'm Willie Mays!

Dan, for all your outrage there are locations in Toronto where your place is likely to be robbed, empty or not.

What are you doing about that?

BTW, are you considered an art vandal if you feed the dog?

You know what? I can't get too excited about this. People do this to their own children. Every other week it seems I read about some goblin who's done some unspeakable thing to a kid, and do I hear the echoes of "I'm gonna kick that guy's ass!" The hell I do.

Our culture values animals above children. That is counter survival (means its STUPID for you Lefties who don't understand these things), and its immoral to boot. Also un-Christian, making a further distinction.

I say that as a former dog owner too. Let's just say I spent money on him, he was a bit sickly. My own grandfather would have told me I was crazy. I should have put the dog down and got a healthy dog that didn't need pills every day. Practical farmer common sense, currently VERY unfashionable.

Its one of the imbecilities of modern life that multi-culturalism would fix... if it worked. Non-Western cultures have a -much- more realistic view, to which we Canadians seem oddly impervious.

Lefties, take note. Your sacred cow is a steer.

Greg G - "...and if it doesn't come out of your pocket, what exactly are you bitching about?
Or do you feel an odd compulsion to decide how your neighbour should dispose of his income..."

Goose, meet gander. You have no grounds to condemn said "artist" because it was not your dog. (Where's the logical flaw?)

Sigh. Another libertarian getting objectivist rather than objective. I got a free right to bitch. Says so in the owners manual. If I did not like the guy, I would not bother. Oh, and this "odd compulsion" thing? Not so odd...I happen to think incomes are not disposable.

Back to the point: Dogs aren't people.

Some people get more than a little dyslexic about their dogs. Yes, what the fellow did was, at the least, ill-considered. I'll even stipulate disgusting. But he is nowhere near the top of my "vile specimens of humanity" list.

Take a pill, people. You're acting like Hitler wed Stalin here.

Tenebris,

With respect, I believe that people look down particularly harshly against people who pick on the weak.

This is why we look down extra-harshly on men who beat women and children and people who abuse animals. It's cowardly and low.

This "artist" deserves public torture followed by a painful, slow death.

As for someone who can't differentiate between someone who spoils their dog and someone who tortures one, it's beneath comment and isn't worthy of a response.

Hey irwin 'moral conviction' daisy: have you dispatched your letter to the President yet?

Posted by: Dan at April 17, 2008 10:17 PM

Apparently Dan is defending the artists work. Otherwise, what's with his outrage?

Actually, I've met a former President of Costa Rica, I've been to Costa Rica oh about a dozen times and know many important people there both in government and industry. And yes, I sent a letter, which I'm sure will be read.

Now, lets deal with your stunted brain, which is only cabable of making the stupidest, most ignorant statements ever read on this blog or anywhere else, shall we?

Care to comment further?

Irwin, you dared to suggest that Costa Rica was other than a beautiful Worker's Paradise of the tropics.

Dude, you're such a meany!

Assuming the audience is left leaning. What do you think Guillermo meant by 'eres lo que lees'? My Spanish is basic but it could translate into 'you are what you read', or 'this is what you read'.

I was unaware of the HSUS of the US - according to activistcash.com.

I was also unaware of breed fragility.

But to clarify my point, I oppose the commoditization of domesticated life, and unmet needs of existing animals.

It'd take me awhile to get numbers (they appear hard to get) on dog populations, and attrition due to manageability/unintended breeding. For what it's worth, using the HSUS numbers there is some 4 million dogs euthanized annually in the USA.

I am inclined to believe that is an overpopulation. (From the time I've volunteered at the Calgary Humane Society, they usually put down some 60 healthy dogs per week. Monthly sales of dogs from retailers in the Calgary region over the past 2 years is estimated at 450 (Herald, Nov 15 2007) I'd suggest there is no need to destroy this many heathly animals, unless there is an overpopulation as well).

When a family heads to PetSmart to buy a new pooch - or spends a bunch of 'ka-ching' on the breed in latest fashion - while healthy, viable animals are being put down, this shows a commoditization of life, devaluing it. To me, euthanization of healthy, viable dogs is a poor reflection on our society's values.

A dog has become no more than a can of Coke, or a nice flower vase, equally disposable.

And that is why I feel strongly about it, and suggest people to educate, educate, educate all new pet owners or those considering obtaining one to go their SPCA, make a donation, and take their new family member to a loving and caring household.

That will also have the bonus of reducing the supply available to gerbils who call themselves performance artists.

http://www.hsus.org/pets/issues_affecting_our_pets/pet_overpopulation_and_ownership_statistics/hsus_pet_overpopulation_estimates.html

hardboiled:
Well said. Some so-called dog "fanciers" talk about their "property" as though it were no more animate or sensitive than a high-definition television set. Confronted with a newer, more fashionable model, they wouldn't hesitate to throw the old one away. Parents who buy jumping horses for their trophy kids can be even worse.

Warwick

Two really good words - learned'em from a liberal: "disproportionate response".

"This "artist" deserves public torture followed by a painful, slow death."

No, he does not. Or, if so, then we all do. Depends on your standard.

Dog != God

The man is merely odious, and only mildly so in comparison with some of the more recent examples previously hidden under the CHRC rocks.

i thought kate would want another small dead animal.

I'm appalled by this "art" and so are most of us here.

But let's remember, paid for by you and I, almost no wait times, in private clinics, over 100 000 pre-born Canadians are killed each year: abortion causes the violent and often painful death of huge numbers of small human beings, future citizens of this country (in Canada, the only Western country with no abortion law, abortions's legal up until natural labour starts). And, like the Germans who didn't "know about" the concentration camps, most Canadians avert their eyes. This is another topic that one's never supposed to mention.

What a country! "Entertaining ourselves to death." (I think Neil Postman said that.) Kyrie eleison--except most people aren't into that any more.

I've been out and thought maybe someone would have said something regarding my 5:25 post.

Nope.

I can't bring myself to use the word "artist" to describe someone who starves a dog to death.

Since this took place in public, it's a good thing he didn't meet John Thornton.

To those people walking around the sadism exhibit of the starving dog doing nothing, I say shame on you. Shame.

Kate, I just placed a comment that I think is relevant and it has an important hyperlink to explain it... can you please rescue this one comment from moderation?

lookout: "over 100 000 pre-born Canadians are killed each year"

[citation needed]

The dog story AND the abortion story are complete hoaxes. The dos story has already been investigated by the Humane Society International.

themusicgod1 quotes me, incredulously (in italics), "over 100 000 pre-born Canadians are killed each year" and says a citation is needed.

Fine.

Being a god, I'm surprised that this person isn’t aware of the truth of the matter. Any grade six student of average intelligence could have discovered the facts within a few minutes. But seeing as god, for one reason or another, didn’t, here are the steps:

Google “Canadian Abortion Statistics”
Scroll down to the fifth heading, in red, “Statistics Canada – Summary Tables”

Le voila! What the citation god wants is there.

Quick summary here: In 1970—about the year the baby boomers were becoming sexually active—the number of abortions in Canada was 11 152. Since 1992, the numbers have been well over 100 000 per year. A quick look: the statistics from 2000-2004 (it seems that’s the last year reported) are as follows:

2000: 105 454
2001: 106 323
2002: 105 383
2003: 104 099
2004: 100 763

Total abortions in Canada since 1970: 2 792 355

Canadians get all upset about baby seals, whales, and starved dogs—the latter, if true, is truly despicable—but could give a toss, it seems, for dead, pre-born, Canadian babies. (Interesting, when the woman chooses to have her child, it’s always called a “baby”. If not, it becomes the dehumanizing term “foetus”.)

Besides the morality of this, there are all kinds of practical drawbacks.

god’s response, demonstrating both ignorance and a lack of due diligence, perfectly demonstrates my point: Canadians avert their eyes from this national disgrace, shared by every “progressive”, Western nation in the world (USA: 1973-now: over 40 000 000 abortions).

If the measure of a society’s morals and compassion rests on how the most vulnerable are treated, we in the West, despite our pats on the back and self-assurances that we’re kind and compassionate, fail miserably.

Our smug complacence indicts us.

themusicgod1:

'You want proof, it seems, of the rising abortion rates in Canada, from @ 11,000/year in 1969 to the present rate of over 100,000/year (combined number from abortions performed in hospitals and clinics). Check out this Web site:

http://www.lifecanada.org/html/abortion/stats/2001AbortionStatsSheet.pdf

Then do your own Google Search. It's not rocket science to verify how many abortions take place in Canada every year.

Another problem in Canada, aside from the fact that there is NO abortion law in place to protect the unborn child AT ANY TIME during gestation right up to the time that a woman's labour begins, is that unlike with other surgery, where informed consent papers must be signed by the person undergoing a surgical procedure to ensure that they are fully aware of any possible side-effects of the surgery, there are no informed consent papers women must sign before an abortion.

This means that many women are undergoing a surgical procedure with no idea of the possible negative side-effects such as incontinent cervix, embedded body parts in the uterus which can lead to infection, scarred fallopian tubes and uterus, etc.

There are a great many people getting rich off abortions, including doctors at abortion clinics and cosmetic companies which buy the "products of abortion" for the collagen and other components which are used in facial creams and other cosmetics.

And, don't forget: Women in Canada have abortions AT THE TAXPAYERS' EXPENSE. We all pay. So no one can say they aren't complicit in this yearly cull of small, defenceless human beings.

lookout's right: While we wax indignant over the slow, cruel death of a dog (granted, a terrible thing), too many of us remain silent in the wake of over 100,000 deaths of innocent, defenceless children in the womb.

Addendum to above post.

Calculating a yearly cost to Canadian taxpayers of 100,000 abortions multiplied by $500 (the MINIMUM cost of an abortion at a clinic or in a hospital--with untold hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on post-op complications) the staggering figure is:

$50,000,000

THAT'S $50,000,000 EVERY YEAR. That figure reprsents a lot of health care and dental care to Canadian families--that they're not benefitting from.

$50,000,000 spent yearly to ensure that Canada has 100,000+ fewer children while, at the same time, we're bringing in hundreds of thousands of immigrants to occupy jobs we don't have Canadians enough to fill is LUDICROUS.

batb, I appreciate your input.

Hey, god, where are you?

"god" looked upon the research he had not done and saw that it was good. And so he rested. Again.

batb and lookout, these statistics should be frequently posted on blogs so that folks like "god" can develop some awareness. And there may be more and more who, if they encounter them frequently enough, will no longer be able to turn their heads away from this holocaust of the unborn.

fc, THANK YOU: great to hear from you and God bless you!

Yes, abortion is the new holocaust, not in grubby concentration camps, carried out by Nazi fanatics, but right here, in the midst of us, in sterile, state of the art, taxpayer funded clinics, carried out by a doctor who might be one's friendly neighbour. (And don’t dare mention one disapproves that this is happening.) Ernst Zundel and his ilk are treated, justifiably, as freaks and outcasts for denying the Jewish Holocaust in Nazi Germany.

And who's the saviour of the pro-abortion, and tolerated by the “go along to get along” majority in Canada? A Jewish doctor, the son of holocaust survivors. Canadians including, sadly, most people at SDA, it seems—I'm probably being sidelined, as I say this—turn a blind eye.

Abortion’s one of those “it’s all settled”, PC issues that dare not—not if one wants to have friends or be invited out—be publicly discussed. Disgusting.

I meant to say, "And who's the saviour of the pro-abortion CROWD, and tolerated by the “go along to get along” majority in Canada?

(Firstly, I wrote a reply here and my browser crashed. Hurray for improper wiring in houses)

lookout: apologies for not responding to you immediately, you see, I have a life.

In the meanwhile, Where was my lack of due diligence? I did not claim that you were incorrect, merely that you made a claim that was not cited(which is provably true), and in the interests of further discussion I thought it would be helpful if you clarified where your information was coming from a little. StatsCan has a history of hiding information on it's website behind a for-pay wall. However in the past five years or so I've found an increasing amount of information is available free of charge in the form of pdf files on their website; and I think in the future I will reconsider my general policy of stopping researching further once I hit a StatsCan link, since they no longer seem to be a dead end.

I admit that the statscan statistics are impressive, both in terms of the sheer numbers, and the proportion of canadian women that must be involved. I also agree that these numbers should be made more prominent, and I will probably do something to that effect in the future. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and that you and batb have provided. Thank you.

I agree that these small human beings should not be killed*. However that's a moral issue. Ignoring moral issues, However, I think it's incorrect to portray 50Million$/yr as a large amount. Even ignoring the fact that, if they were forced to be born from an unwilling mother, they would likely be poor, and suck up taxpayer money via welfare and other social services(unless we just left them to die, which is kind of what we are doing now so there wouldn't be much of a difference), 500$ per child is a small amount compared to the amount of effort and time required to raise a child, the amount of food that child would need over the course of a lifetime(and it's cost), the amount of energy consumption it's birth would set in motion, and even the amount of bureaucratic overhead involved in living in a democracy. Ignoring the moral issues, it's a great deal, child for child.

*But of course, we should not ignore the moral issues; those children should be Cryogenically frozen so that later on, when society is ready for them, they may be born.

Lookout; sorry I don't respond immediately to your
posts, you see, I have a life.

I agree that these statscan results should be more prominent; I am impressed at the sheer number, and also the proportion of women in Canada that must be involved. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and that you and batb have provided. Thanks.

Usually when I trawl around statscan I wind up with articles that cost money(which I do not have). However I've noticed in the past five years or so that they have been publishing more and more stuff in publicly available pdf files. Perhaps I should reconsider my general policy of stopping further research when I find a statscan link(since it's no longer the case that statscan is a dead end).

However, 50$million dollars is small compared to paying for welfare for those very same people. While I'll admit that these tiny people should not be killed*, we've got ourselves a bargain going, if you just consider the taxation issues involved, and ignore the moral issues. 500$ in terms of effort is extremely cheap compared to the long hours it takes to raise a child, the large amounts of food require to feed someone throughout life, and hell even the bureaucratic overhead in living in a democratic society. But that's ignoring the moral issue, that is, not giving them the chance to live.

*Of course, the solution to the moral problem is that those fetuses should be cyrogenically frozen.

Does this thing work? *taps mic*

Sorry for the crosspost, technical difficulties :(

it's -> its. Today not a good day.

tmgod1, I appreciate your response, though I find your reasoning to be specious.

Actually, large numbers of abortions are carried out on non teenagers, but also on teenagers: these people know all about contraception. How about talking responsibility here? You let the cognizant mothers—and fathers—and doctors off the hook and seem to have no problem at all allowing the tiny, innocent human being to pay with his/her life. No problem here, move on. What moral pygmyism! (As is your attempt at humour, I guess, re freezing the embryos.)

You conveniently ignore some of the most significant costs of aborting a critical mass of each generation: the effect on the population is exponential. The baby boomers are getting old and the tax base to support their decline is dwindling. Think of all those aborted “workers” not working, not having kids, not paying taxes. Think of all the jobs that are also aborted when the kids aren’t there.

I think you need to broaden your horizon.

mucsigod!: Another myth: that most women who have abortions are poor. The poor, in fact, often have their children--a) because they get welfare benefits for each child (at least in Canada) and b) because their children are often "all" they have.

They may not be able to provide them with the best of everything, but they often don't like the option of abortion--and some really smart and disadvantaged women understand, all too well, that the more affluent in society--the demographic, BTW, which is usually at the forefront of the movement to keep "abortion on demand"--would like to rid society of "the poor" and, frankly, see abortion as justifiable genocide of their "kind."

Check out Daniel Berrigan's profound ideas on abortion (sorry, I tried to find a pertinent link; you seem cognizant with Googling things, so try Daniel Berrigan, sojourners, abortion, etc.; you may come up with something). He was/is a Christian peace activist and, as such, profoundly anti-abortion.

He pointed out, many times, from his discussions with inner-city women living in poverty, often black women, their anger at affluent folk who pushed abortion at them, as a "fix" for "problem pregnancies," rather than the kind of support they needed to raise themselves above poverty.

There is a misplaced "compassion" when rich folks tell poor folks "just have an abortion"--and we'll pay for it (well, we'll make sure that the taxpayers pay for it), their reasoning being, just like yours, musicgod1, that $500 is a small price to pay for a child who, if s/he lives, will cost society much more.

Chilling. Daniel Berrigan concurrs.

I have known many women who have had abortions. They are not poor or disadvantaged. Just the opposite. They come from families of considerable means and abortion was their solution to an "inconvenient" pregnancy. Some have had more than one abortion--not because they or their families could not afford to bring up a child.

Houston, we have a problem. When we see unborn children simply as commodities which can be had or not had at our whim, we have sunk into the swamp of crass indifference.

Sadly, we're seeing all around us the misshapen fruit of that mindset: the me-me-me-and-only-me generation, in which demographic altruism is pretty much a no-starter. ('Case in point: in a recent Canadian study stats are that 45% of Canadians volunteer. Of those 45%, 77% are over the age of 65. 'Makes you wonder, doesn't it? What happened?)

Abortion is a scourge on an "enlightened" and "civil" society. The fruit of abortion on demand? Widespread acceptance of casual sex in younger and younger people, increasing numbers of STDS (Sexually Transmitted Diseases), a drastically reduced birth rate, a casual disregard for the uniqueness/sacredness of human life, and the list goes on.

It saddens me to see the world my own daughters are living in. Me first. Outta my way. I do what I want, when I want. And YOU (the taxpayer) will pay for all of my mistakes. Responsibility? What's that? Accountability? Fawgettaboutit.

Lovely.

Right on, batb. I appreciate your insights.

I hope god can process this.

First of all, volunteering is another term for
"I'm a sucker who wants to misallocate my resources while feeling good about myself". If you really want to make a difference(And I'm starting to wonder if a good part of the 55% of Canadians who don't volunteer have clued into this), stop volunteering, and start working on something that needs to be done, for which the market has allocated resources for. If you can afford to, afterwards, then cause good things to happen(like say, providing food for the unwanted people of the world). If you have an hour or two of spare time and can't think of anything to do with it, that's one thing, but chances are you can get a job, and work with that. That's of course, if you want to make the world a better place; there's of course, no compulsion to do so.

"and doctors off the hook and seem to have no problem at all allowing the tiny, innocent human being to pay with his/her life"..."...justified genocide..."

Did you two even read my post? I was arguing against abortion. But even when you argue against something you have to be aware of the potential costs *and* benefits, so that you can compare the two. In my case, I think the moral imperatives outweigh the benefits that are involved.

""workers" not working, not having kids, not paying taxes....jobs aborted..."

Who the hell are you to demand that someone be forced to work their entire life(I'm talking about both child and parent here...parent to raise the child, child in order to survive)? You simply cannot justify forcing a child into the world from an unwilling mother on the argument that they could be used to work. That's an argument for slavery, and nothing else. The amount of money and effort that is involved in raising a child could be going towards technological research and material infrastructure, so that once the child is born, they won't have to be forced into a life of servitude to the dollar, or starve.

I mean, you're trying to argue *for* job creation for SERVER's sake! Here, I have three dozen jobs for you and your family. They are called 'cleaning the side of the road next to my house with a toothbrush'. I'll pay you each 2 cents per hour. Bingo, a dozen jobs created.

Oh wait, you don't want to do that? Why should your forcing people to raise children be any different? You'll probably call it "taking responsibility". Well, come take responsibility for the road. You probably have a car, so it's there because of you.

Extra Mouths to feed are *not* what this world, and this country needs. There's more than enough people, and more than enough workers, and we're heading head first into a water shortage, a global fuel shortage, and a global food shortage. There is already not enough resources to go around, and adding more people, more energy needs will make the problem worse, not better.

Thankfully, however people aren't listening to your advise; excluding immigration the canadian population is going down, and is moving to a number that is sustainable. Canadians aren't stupid; 'the market' in this case knows where the equilibrium should be, and is moving there.

As for casual sex I'll agree to disagree here(I think it's a wonderful experience, that everyone should have, and credit should be given for it in a standard highschool curriculum), but only because there's too damn much else to do -- that problem is pretty much academic compared to say, ending world poverty, and gross economic disoptima

Especially gross economic disoptima caused by an exponential, unsustainable increase in population level.