sda2.jpg

September 11, 2008

Tommy Douglas: Not Perfect Enough

Scratch a progressive in Canada's socialized medical system, and you'll find a eugenicist;

Dr. Andre Lalonde, executive vice-president of the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada (SOGC), told the Globe and Mail yesterday, "Palin's decision to keep her baby, knowing he would be born with the condition, may inadvertently influence other women who may lack the necessary emotional and financial support to do the same."

"The worry is that this will have an implication for abortion issues in Canada," he said.

Under the facade of "freedom to choose", Lalonde said that "popular messages" about women like Palin, who choose not to kill their unborn children, "could have detrimental effects on women and their families."


The apples, they fall not so far from the tree.

Posted by Kate at September 11, 2008 10:37 AM
Comments

The Weekly Standard dusted off this archived piece from 1996 due to the commotion over Trig Palin:

Tucker Carlson, Eugenics, American Style

Testifying before Congress in the spring of 1990, Arkansas state health director Joycelyn Elders took an unusual tack in her defense of legal abortion. "Abortion," she said, "has had an important, and positive, public- health effect," in that it has reduced "the number of children afflicted with severe defects." As evidence, the future surgeon general cited this statistic: "The number of Down's Syndrome infants in Washington state in 1976 was 64 percent lower than it would have been without legal abortion."

Her remark went all but unnoticed at the time and has received little attention since, even during Elders's contentious tenure as surgeon general in the Clinton administration. But it was a significant statement nonetheless, if only because it represents one of the few occasions on which a public health official has publicly acknowledged the eugenic utility of abortion. Terminating a pregnancy, Elders argued, is not simply a difficult personal decision, an agonizing last resort. When guided by public-health objectives, abortion can also be a positive act -- a means of improving the species...

Of 22,000 women who received prenatal diagnosis in one 1990 study in Canada, 88 percent of those who found they were carrying a child with Down Syndrome aborted the fetus. Other studies have put the rate of Down Syndrome abortions at about 90 percent, some even higher...

Posted by: Charles MacDonald at September 11, 2008 10:56 AM

In this country it seems like everyone has "rights".
I really dont understand why those favoring abortion have somehow got the label "pro-choice".
They're really not about choice they're about killing babies.

I know it must difficult for mothers to be told that their unborn child may be born with a handicap.
However, to even contemplate killing a baby.....
I guess its just evolution right?
Survival of the fittest.

"Rights" in this country, really mean a woman has the right to kill her baby who has no rights.

Posted by: jay-mo at September 11, 2008 11:07 AM

After my wife's triple-screen test during her 3rd pregnancy came back with a suggestion of abnormality, her obstetrician was annoyed that we intended to follow through with the pregnancy. That child, our 4 year son, is just fine. Those tests aren't always accurate in the first place and we wouldn't consider abortion anyways. The obstetrician clearly advised abortion and his attitude is common today in Canada I regret to inform you all.

Posted by: Darryl at September 11, 2008 11:20 AM

"It's very dark," said Krista Flint, executive director of the Canadian Down Syndrome Society. "They hear a lot about the medical conditions that are sometimes associated with Down syndrome. They hear about the burden ... it places on children and a marriage. They hear about things like shortened life expectancy. They hear a lot about the challenges of a life with Down syndrome."

So the abortion crowd, who are worried about a Downs syndrome childs shortened life with challenges, feel it's better to allow no life at all.
You just know the baby's well-being is uppermost in their minds.

Posted by: Doowleb at September 11, 2008 11:24 AM

So raising a child with mental or physical challenges just isn't worth the trouble, is that what the good doctor is trying to say?

Posted by: tower at September 11, 2008 11:31 AM

"Choice" in the abortion fight only belongs to elitist lefties. The trick is convincing the masses to do as they say and keep them ignorant of what they're actually doing. Whitewash it all by letting them think they actually have a choice.

That's why you can watch a cesarean section, hip replacement or open heart surgical procedure on The Learning Channel but never an abortion. They deliberately keep it sanitized so nobody has to think about what it's really about...that is the ending of a life.

Think of it as perfecting Robespierre's "Terror and Virtue" guillotine without the public square.

Posted by: Martin B. at September 11, 2008 11:36 AM

It is again one of the hypocricies of those who lean so far to the left they fall over.
The far left think they champion the rights of the less fortunate, but if it punctures their lifestyle or comfort zone the truth is quite different.
Speaking from personal experience of course.


Posted by: Andrea at September 11, 2008 11:45 AM

Tommy Douglas came to a fitting end.He got run over by a bus.Would that be an accident or out of the womb abortion!

Posted by: spike 1 at September 11, 2008 11:45 AM

So the noble act of welcoming a disabled child is now evil according to this medical "leader".

I think Andre Lalonde views are down right Satanic and what is most frightening is that I think they are becoming commonplace. John Paul the Great, the last Pope, warned about a culture of death in Western society and this is yet another example.

One day, a doctor like this one might be hovering over your bed saying, "Well this person is so old I don't believe it is in the interests of society, and themselves of course that we keep feeding her. Administer the Compassionate Death Drugs immediately."

As for downs syndrome kids, if people don't want to raise them due to circumstances, there are hundreds of thousands of Christians who would. A friend of mine adopted such a child and five other families wanted to parent her.

There are few unwanted children because there are so many Christians who see even disabled people as gifts from God.

Posted by: John Bigheart at September 11, 2008 11:49 AM

What was that quaint phrase the Nazis used to justify euthanasia of handicapped children? Oh, yeah, "Life unworthy of life." I can easily imagine that phrase coming out of the mouth of Dr. Andre Lalonde.

Can we see how far Western Civilization has come in cheapening Human Life?

"Pro-choice", the euphemism for legalized unlimited infanticide;

an ex-husband wins a US Federal Court battle to kill his brain-damaged EX-wife by having her pulled off life support, despite her natural parents wanting to assume responsibility for her medical care;

in Europe "voluntary" suicide of the elderly is made legal in Holland.

What is ironic is that the same "progressives" who agree with the above acts also oppose executing convicted murderers. THEIR human life is precious, whereas those of unborn babies and elderly infirm people is not.

Posted by: Dave in Pa. at September 11, 2008 11:51 AM

Downs Syndrome kids are expensive on the health care costs, on average. The good doctor is thinking of our public health budget. Like any good socialist, he prefers to bend the population to fit the budget, rather than the reverse.

The idea that people should be allowed to -buy- what they need rather than stand in line like cattle to have it issued to them, this seems not to have occurred to him.

I'm sure the good doctor would be in favor of a program to screen for and remove ALL Downs fetuses (feti?) as a purely humanitarian, progressive step.

Because hey, people are stupid. Some fool woman is going to let her mommy hormones get the best of her and bring another drain on the public purse into the world. Such people must be -controlled-.

Posted by: The Phantom at September 11, 2008 11:53 AM

I have heard these claims that T C Douglas supported eugenics before, usually from Liberals with a very large 'L'. However, the link here under the words "you'll find a eugenicist" provides no information pertaining to Douglas whatsoever.

So where is the source for this continuing urban and/or rural legend?

Posted by: David at September 11, 2008 12:00 PM

I thought doctors were supposed to "do no harm."

Yes, I know they would argue the fetus is not included in this, but what about the mother?

Presurring a mother against her will to have an abortion, surely is (potentially) doing harm to her mental health, ne c'est pas?

Apparently pro choice for some means pro your choice to have an abortion, and no other choice.

Posted by: Shamrock at September 11, 2008 12:03 PM

Here's Dr. Lalonde's contact information:

alalonde@sogc.com
phone extension 227

The Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada
780 Echo Drive, Ottawa, ON K1S 5R7

Tel: 613-730-4192
or 1-800-561-2416
Fax: 613-730-4314

Please do not annoy the secretary however. She just works there.

Posted by: Kathy Shaidle at September 11, 2008 12:07 PM

"I have heard these claims that T C Douglas supported eugenics before, usually from Liberals with a very large 'L'. However, the link here under the words "you'll find a eugenicist" provides no information pertaining to Douglas whatsoever. So where is the source for this continuing urban and/or rural legend?"

3W.smalldeadanimals.com/mt/mt-search.cgi?IncludeBlogs=1&search=TOMMY+DOUGLAS

Lots more reading there...

C

Posted by: Chris in Ontario at September 11, 2008 12:14 PM

I have a few things to say about this. Dr. Lalonde should be ashamed of himself. What kind of 'doctor' is that? There are many programs set up by gov't to assist and encourage special needs kids.

What many people don't consider is that you rise to the challenge when faced with this situation. As a mom with a Down's son (did not find out until birth), I knew our lives would change immediately. Of course I was terrified and sad. But you can choose to be miserable or you can "bloom where you are planted". It's one day at a time, and slowly, you become the person you were meant to be. You become more compassionate, more sympathetic to others, and more loving. You see the world through different eyes. You experience life in a fuller and more complete way.

I have only received kind comments throughout all of this, words of encouragement and many times I have heard "You have a beautiful son!" from complete strangers. God sends these people to brighten your day and help you along the way. You find out that you are not alone and there are so many out there who are willing to help. And I can say without a doubt that I have never known anyone as loving as my little guy. He has blessed our lives immensely and we completely treasure him. No, it has not been easy (I don't think life's journey is MEANT to be easy) but has been very rewarding. Every time he gives me one of his 100 watt smiles, I know he's here for a reason! We are meant to learn throughout life and to face challenges, not run from them.

God places these children here for a purpose and it's up to us whether we run and hide or rise up to it and choose to love and learn. It's very sad to me to think that some physicians in higher ranks in this country have basically stated that kids like my son are not worthy of life because it's too difficult for their families. Shame shame shame. What a sad, compassionless society we have made for ourselves.

Posted by: Soccermom at September 11, 2008 12:32 PM

The Hippocratic Oath, which doctors used to mandate (I'm guessing to prevent the seedier side of medicine from breaking out), explicitly stated that doctors would not perform abortions (ok, 'give a pessary to procure and abortion').

It seems the decision to remove this particular oath from our medical establishment has resulted in easily foreseen consequences.

Posted by: Shane O. at September 11, 2008 12:36 PM

Truly despicable piece -- imagine, abortions going down! Quelle Horreur!

"Tommy Douglas came to a fitting end.He got run over by a bus.Would that be an accident or out of the womb abortion!"

Tommy Douglas died of cancer, no?

Posted by: Richard Romano at September 11, 2008 12:53 PM

why not kill them all. sarc off.

Posted by: old white guy at September 11, 2008 12:54 PM

it is do no harm.

Posted by: old white guy at September 11, 2008 12:55 PM

i used to do alot of fund raising for special olympics. what a great bunch of people. athletes as well as those working with them. why kill a valuable human being?

Posted by: old white guy at September 11, 2008 12:58 PM

Chris in Ontario
you'll have to search for Tommy's masters thesis from McMaster University. It was on line somewhere in its entirety however that link is long broken. Perhaps the Douglas family isn't so proud of this document and I would think they had a hand in stopping others from printing it for those reasons, I've never heard the CBC mention the contents of the thesis either. (not that I study the CBC).

His ideas were well laid out there.
it's perhaps 36 pages, so it shouldn't take so much time.

Posted by: marc in calgary at September 11, 2008 1:36 PM

richard,no.He got hit by a bus in BC

Posted by: spike 1 at September 11, 2008 1:38 PM

I hope that Dr. Lalonde has a good alibi as there is a 10-year-old, IIRC, girl with Down Syndrome currently missing in Toronto.

Posted by: andycanuck at September 11, 2008 1:45 PM

So let me get this straight, choice means choosing an abortion but not choosing life. My mother used to send me to the grocery store and tell me that could buy any flavor ice cream I wanted as long as it was vanilla but I was a kid and she could get away with that kind of crap. BTW, if Tommy was alive today he would not have been run over by a bus he would have been run over while being thrown under the bus.

Posted by: Brian Mallard at September 11, 2008 1:49 PM

"And just as you saw the iron mixed with baked clay, so the people will be a mixture and will not remain united, any more than iron mixes with clay."

Posted by: E at September 11, 2008 1:51 PM

"And just as you saw the iron mixed with baked clay, so the people will be a mixture and will not remain united, any more than iron mixes with clay."

Posted by: Edward Teach at September 11, 2008 1:53 PM

I have heard these claims that T C Douglas supported eugenics before....

But you'll have to look to Alberta for a province that actually practiced eugenics. You know, Alberta, the land of Ernest Manning, Ted Byfield, Stephen Harper, etc. Scratch a conservative religious nutcase, find a hypocrite.

Posted by: manny at September 11, 2008 2:01 PM

Andy that was hilarious!

Posted by: Kathy Shaidle at September 11, 2008 2:18 PM

Jayzhchrist.Some of the comments here are beyond disgusting.I have worked with,and know,many so-called disabled people.They will literaly give you the shirt off their back if it will help you.I helped raise a beautiful,loving,salt of the earth dearheart child who had Down's.She unfortunately died way to early(30).I would say she was more of an adult then the whole lot of so-called leftie rights are,or will ever be.Yeah.She had her problems,usually caused by bigots who thought she looked funny(Mongloid)or couldn't function properly because she needed help in her daily life.In that case,may God bless us all with a long healthy life without need for help.The truth of life is seen,and will only be seen,through the eye's of those who we wish to destroy.
Kingstonlad....God bless,and you have one of the true gifts of life,a loving,forgiving child who is more precious then you or I will ever know.

Posted by: Justthinkin at September 11, 2008 2:26 PM

I've met Down's people that I'd MUCH rather spend time with over a long list of so-called "normal" people.

Posted by: Edward Teach at September 11, 2008 2:40 PM

Phantom

Well said.

Where are the activists that protested the Ben Stiller movie? Surly these statistics are commonly known. Conflict of interest?

WRT doctors

I do not understand why women are so infatuated with doctors, like they are higher on the evolutionary scale. I am tired of listening to doctors bloviating on issues that they have no expertise in ex... morality, economics, politics ect... We don't ask economists what to take for a headache so why do we ask doctors about their preferences in healthcare delivery or moral issues?

Posted by: Indiana Homez at September 11, 2008 2:43 PM

Little Tommy was quite the scary dude even for a socialist if you think about it. He was an ordained Baptist Minister before he wrote his MA thesis which recalls Hitler like doctrine.

Question is did he ever detract from this?

Posted by: Liz J at September 11, 2008 2:44 PM

Opppppsss....sorry...meant to put Kinstonlad's post below :(.....but....and sorry for rant Kate...Has anybody sat with a "should-have-been-aborted child" outside at night and watched the stars? Sat with him/her and seen a spider kill a moth? I did. I went to save the moth,and she told me,no Uncle,the spider has to eat to.It is only nature. Only nature? From a seven year-old,23 years ago,who saw things way different then the rest of us? She told me that wait and watch.Baby spiders would be born,and some moths wold eat them as babies,and some spiders would eat the moths.And some of you guys say these people do not have intelligence?

Posted by: Justthinkin at September 11, 2008 2:44 PM

Dr. Lalonde was quoted by Rush Limbaugh this morning (Sept. 11, hour 2 of the show). His brush with greatness.

Posted by: CJ at September 11, 2008 3:21 PM

WHO LATER ABANDONED EUGENICS, WAS ONE OF THE FIRST CANADIANS IN A SENIOR POSITION TO RECOGNIZE HITLER'S THREAT AFTER MEETING HIM, VOLUNTEERED TO SERVE IN THE ARMY, WAS TURNED DOWN DUE TO A MEDICAL CONDITION, HELPED MCKENZIE-KING SELL THE DRAFT, SUPPORTED CANADA'S WAR EFFORT AGAINST FASCISTS, AS PREMIER OF SASKATCHEWAN REFUSED TO SIGN STERILIZATION EUGENICS LEGISLATION SIMILAR TO LEGISLATION USED TO EVIL EFFECT IN BOTH ALBERTA AND BRITISH COLUMBIA, AND HE CHAMPIONED THE RIGHTS OF THE MENTALLY ILL!

Can you not be fair and admit Tommy Douglas wrote a horrible thesis we've both read, bought into evil ideas not uncommon in his day, and reversed himself toward the latter half of his life, and even later admitting the problem with his socialized medicine is they could never figure out how to make central planning work?

Can't you admit Tommy Douglas reformed himself?

Signed,

Irate Conservative

Posted by: Christoph at September 11, 2008 3:23 PM

manny:

Abolished in 1971 by Peter Lougheed, a Progressive Conservative premier.

Still alive in the minds of those who would kill those not as perfect as they are ... such as today's judegemental, pro-abortion left.

I choose life.

Posted by: set you free at September 11, 2008 3:41 PM

Indiana Homez said: "I am tired of listening to doctors bloviating on issues that they have no expertise in ex... morality, economics, politics ect... We don't ask economists what to take for a headache so why do we ask doctors about their preferences in healthcare delivery or moral issues?"

The problem with many doctors is they really ARE higher on the evolutionary scale. They are brilliant. We're talking the top 5% of the population brilliant. They know a stunning volume of stuff too, masses of information and skills that normal people simply don't have. They'd run you into the ground if you tried to follow themn around for a day.

The problem with that is, they sometimes assume they know more than they actually do, leading to unforgivably stupid comments like this darb from Dr. Lalonde.

I've seen this countless times with my reading in gun control. I met one of these guys one time, a trauma surgeon who was The Man on the US eastern seaboard for patching up accident victims. He'd written a biiiiiig textbook on gunshot care (which is really excellent), but the first article in the book was a piece of anti-gun propaganda by Dr. Arthur Kellerman, he of "a gun in the home is 47 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder" fame.

When I asked the surgeon if he was aware of some of the problems with the article, it was clear that A) no he wasn't, and B) he didn't care a damn. Kellerman's article confirmed his opinion that guns cause murder, and that better be damned well good enough for me. If he had his way every damn gun in the country would be melted down, today.

Brilliant people sometimes are like that. It would take a major life-altering event to change that guy's mind about guns. This Lalonde guy, I've never met him but he's probably cut from the same cloth. Not big on freedom of choice for the lowly peons, not big on being cautious in his opinions in case he might be wrong.

Posted by: The Phantom at September 11, 2008 3:45 PM

Tommy Douglas was then. This is now.

Posted by: MsMew at September 11, 2008 3:56 PM

WHO LATER ABANDONED EUGENICS, WAS ONE OF THE FIRST CANADIANS IN A SENIOR POSITION TO RECOGNIZE HITLER'S THREAT AFTER MEETING HIM, VOLUNTEERED TO SERVE IN THE ARMY, WAS TURNED DOWN DUE TO A MEDICAL CONDITION, HELPED MCKENZIE-KING SELL THE DRAFT, SUPPORTED CANADA'S WAR EFFORT AGAINST FASCISTS, AS PREMIER OF SASKATCHEWAN REFUSED TO SIGN STERILIZATION EUGENICS LEGISLATION SIMILAR TO LEGISLATION USED TO EVIL EFFECT IN BOTH ALBERTA AND BRITISH COLUMBIA, AND HE CHAMPIONED THE RIGHTS OF THE MENTALLY ILL!

While Ernest Manning never volunteered for shite and then maintained Alberta's eugenics program to the end of his career, even after learning of the holocaust, until it was eliminated by Red Tory Lougheed. Nice try, yahoos.

Posted by: manny at September 11, 2008 4:19 PM

I can only imagine the impact of Dr Lalonde's remarks on thousands of families with Downs or other disabled children and the thousands of children and adults who Dr Lalonde would gladly have seen killed.

It is difficult to imagine what sort of twisted mind and vacant soul would criticize a family for welcoming and loving a child, and castigate them for setting a bad example.

Posted by: Roseberry at September 11, 2008 4:30 PM

*shrug*

Big deal. We've got no problems screwing around with the evolution of other species, so why should we treat humans any differently? Hell, choosing whom you breed with is a form of eugenics in and of itself, since you're selectively breeding for the traits which you find admirable. Dumping malformed fetuses just speeds up the process.

FORCED eugenics is a different matter entirely - there's no excuse for any government or organization to ever use force in order to control human reproductive activity - but you certainly can't blame a doctor for trying to save you the grief and difficulty which goes along with having to raise a disabled child.

Really, the argument here isn't about eugenics, it's about abortion. Don't pretend that you give a damn about whether it's wrong to try and control human evolution - what you're REALLY concerned with is forcing your religious ideals on other people.

Posted by: Alex at September 11, 2008 4:48 PM

You do not have to put up my previous post on this subject, because I am going to fire off a new one.

Who the hell made this doctor God? How dare he even question whether a certain type of human being has a right to live or die. These people make me sick to my stomach. I am literally in a state of shock. Am I returning to the playground of my youth where I had to physically defend my down's brother from predators, punks and elitists?

Extra medical costs? Compared to whom? Aids patients? Terminally ill immigrants who come here on the family reunification program? Fat slobs or alcoholics?

If I said the same thing about any other identifiable group I would be labeled a racist/bigot/fascist/nazi.

I guess we have not come that far as a society after all.

SICKENING!

Posted by: kingstonlad at September 11, 2008 5:04 PM

There's no stronger ‘force play' than a taking of an innocent life.

Religious values acknowledge that life is a gift. Nobody can force a gift onto anybody else. Nobody can take away a gift that is not theirs.

I have made my choice and I choose life.

I choose to work for the betterment of humanity, not for the murder of the defenceless.

WIll you respect my choice?


Posted by: set you free at September 11, 2008 5:15 PM

I know four cases of down syndrom children before:

one may cause for genetic background they had in their family before and

second one the pregenent woman keep travel while she knows she should not she always had early pregancy and for third child the early pregency was occured this time it was too early and it affect to brain of child she was not carefull that woman to care she is pregant and she msut stop doing regular activities or go travel for fun every where adn her child has down syndrom and his brain is not act like his age group the eye of child has twoard left and they did srugery and stock may belly out they did suegery too and still the kind has problems talk like age group and now that woman regret for rest of her life why she did not listen to docotre warning

the third case i saw was the woman who went to warm not helathy country and Maliria bite her two years sona nd got so much high fever and not know exactly what is the case after9 month the good doctore noticed the baby got marliria and affect to brain of child not grow and the child grow look nice but not able to act like age like he was 17 but act like 3 years boy finaly the boy got cancer and died of cancer later in age 20 as I know that case was too sad story

and one other I know teh baby born all body was disable only head can undertand but totalb body is num and not able to move


now choice of woman choose baby is not up to them in above they did not know the baboy is going to born with disability or down sydrom but
look people pay so much money for dog or cat and they are dieing every few years and down sysdrom baby is not live long too in most of case their life if may go maximum up to 20 to 25 most of them will die early age I heard I am not sure

the only thing it affect all family emotionaly to see the kid is not able to talk or act like normal kida nd some times emrasement as well or limit the familyu
if you call Palin in mid of night or if some emergency happenbd she must take care of baby or go to meeting

we saw Brad and Angelina or rich actore has their own childrena nd has also adop more from poor countires but they have lots of money

peopel in poltic are not get enough paid as Palins aid she dreive herself to work everyday

people who do big job need million dollor spend for take care of their child other wise most busy mom htey have child pregent ealry or too trobule with teenge child if only they work and not pay enough moeny for baby siter or family mameber to take care of child

I am not sure from relgion prespective aboriotn for down sydndrom child is allow or not but we have to also ask ourself morally what is best or waht is choice htey like to take

the fmaily must go to center and if they can not handle the child like people has the animal then not l ike it bring to animal socity to take their cat to take care said I do not have money ot liek to keep my cat any more

if you have down sysdrom child and you can not afford money ot loose your paiten or not have time to take care of child what you can do is goverment shoud put money to take care of those child or not?


Palin came in first day for VP she must tell the kid take care by babysister that was not profeesional to birng young child in show this is not circus this is smal child who has down sydnrom mrs. Palin you are show yor child for get more vote form woman that si not fair for your children they are innocnet I do not like parent take advantage of hteir chilldren for get more pay cheqe I personal not support those woman

pregencay is very importnat time for woman who are not take care of thier 9 moht or drink alcohol or smoke, bad nutrtion, desease during pregancy or so many otehr reason or gentic or travel alot it affect the babies devlopemetn brain take care.

Posted by: new at September 11, 2008 5:16 PM

See what I mean? It all comes down to abortion. If you've managed to convince yourself that a fetus is a human being, then you're going to start frothing at the mouth and complaining loudly about murder, genocide, "who made this person God", yadda yadda yadda. On the other hand, if you acknowledge that a fetus is not a human being, then you're going to have a completely different take on the issue. Eugenics has little to do with it - the core issue is abortion, and the definition of "human life".

Posted by: Alex at September 11, 2008 5:17 PM

Here's a personal take on the whole thing:

"Trisomophobia: What Palin Triggered"

Posted by: Leslie at September 11, 2008 5:33 PM

The Liberals ran B.C. from 1916-1952 with the exception of one Conservative government of 1928-33.

The Roman Catholic Church always fought eugenics movements.

Feminist movements, that also supported Whites Only immigration, all supported the eugenics movements.

Social Credit in the 1930s was conservative???

Posted by: andycanuck at September 11, 2008 5:33 PM

Alex:

I assume, then, that you were never a mother.

Neither was I, for that part, but as a father of three, the mothers of my children knew something was alive and growing, in them.

I choose life.

Where have your choices, accorded to you through your God-give free will, taken you?

Posted by: set you free at September 11, 2008 6:21 PM

lol

I chose life too, thanks. I just don't accept your definition of life. I'm not sure why you're having such a tough time understanding that.

As for what your wife knew or didn't know ... whether something was growing inside of her isn't in question. Bot flies lay their larvae under your skin, which are very much alive, and which grow to become full-fledged flies. I somehow doubt you'd have a problem "aborting" their larvae, though.

If, on the other hand, you're trying to tell me that your wife "knew" there was a full-fledged human being inside of her ... well, that's just nonsense. She knew no such thing. Your assumptions and feelings are not knowledge.

Posted by: Alex at September 11, 2008 6:39 PM

Some of you are misinterpreting what 'pro-choice' means. It doesn't signify, as,for example, Darryl suggests that people who say 'choice' is the way to go want to pressure people into having abortions. It merely, with strict stipulations, leaves the decision with the woman.
I don't like the idea of abortions myself but I'm not all so fired up that I can't acknowledge a different point of view. I'm just as wary of strident types on the right as I am of crazy leftists--in fact, they're related.

Posted by: Nabi at September 11, 2008 6:39 PM

Alex:

Your question is answered by the fact of primacy of human life.

Humans are the only life form which can make conscious decisions and make choices.

All humans are capable of making mistakes and therefore of making bad choices.

If you consider yourself equivalent to a fly, I feel sorry for you.

I know that you have the potential to display an intellect higher than a gnat's and I'm anxiously awaiting to see your ability to demonstrate that fact.

Posted by: set you free at September 11, 2008 7:05 PM

Alex

I'm not a Christian, my religion is NFL. That being said, I think it is you who is splitting heirs(I can spell, pun intended). Someone commented a few days ago that life starts when is starts; and life ends when it ends(paraphrasing). True, I'm only speaking opinion and feelings but this seems like intuitive common sense. It is you who would like to focus on words like "human being" and definitions; whereas those you accuse of pushing religion on others are just trying to articulate this common knowledge. The bottom line IMO is pro-abortion arguments are irrelevant to the issue, but they are much more palatable than the real issues. I have stated that I respect a woman's right to do as she will with her body, but I don't rationalize it by putting lipstick on a pig. I just embrace the pig for what it is and accept the personal consequences for my position, just as women will endure the consequences of their actions. One thing is for certain, none of the parents, doctors or advocates who council women to have abortions are around when it's time to pay the piper.

Posted by: Indiana Homez at September 11, 2008 7:08 PM

I oppose Tommy Douglas's drive toward universal single payer socialized medicine, now a fact of life in Canada, even though, yes, it has helped some people.

Socialism feeds a reliance on the state I believe is unhealthy and very damaging to the individual spirit... what makes life most worth living.

I agree with the majority of Kate's position on various issues and compliment her writing and insightfulness from time to time.

I certainly despise Tommy Douglas' thesis. It was a despicable, heartless, evil document.

But for God's sake. When she criticizes Douglas's thesis and eugenics views, would it hurt Kate to at least throw in a pro forma acknowledgment he changed a lot of his positions later in life? (She can even question the sincerity of his conversion of she likes. I, for one, think it was mostly sincere. Intelligent people can disagree.)

Consistently not doing so is being intellectually dishonest.

Posted by: Christoph at September 11, 2008 7:25 PM

"""" Where have your choices, accorded to you through your God-give free will, taken you? """"


this god only lives in YOUR (christian's) mind , so my free will is not derived from YOUR god , as it does not live in my mind


so god does not equate in this discussion , except in the chritian mind

Posted by: GYM at September 11, 2008 10:59 PM

So, if a human fetus is not a human being, then I'd like Alex to explain exactly what it is...a gopher, perhaps?

"if you've managed to convince yourself that a fetus is a human being..."

So, according to this pretzel logic a fetus is a gopher, unless you erroneously convince yourself otherwise. It's hard to believe people that 'think' like this actually have the mental capacity to draw air.


Posted by: irwin Daisy at September 11, 2008 11:04 PM

In fact, Alex's twisted thought pattern is potentially criminally dangerous. If, indeed, a fetus has the worth of say, a gopher, or less, then what worth does Alex place on a human being which came forth from a fetus?

Posted by: irwin Daisy at September 11, 2008 11:15 PM

I recently went to the eugenics exhibit at the War Museum in Ottawa (sponsored, I believe, by the Holocaust Museum.) It was very depressing. I found it hard to fathom that so many supposedly intelligent people (all those scientists, researchers, and community leaders) could be so stupid. I am appalled to discover that such ignorant people are still among us -- pretending wisdom and intelligence. The message from these "doctors" is very reminiscent of the push for eugenics in the 30's. Very sad.

Posted by: LindaL at September 12, 2008 12:11 AM

Chris in Ontario: ""I have heard these claims that T C Douglas supported eugenics." -- Material written by Douglas (may have been his thesis) was included in the eugenics exhibit recently held at the War Museum. This was a rather wide-spread social sickness.

Posted by: LindaL at September 12, 2008 12:22 AM

If we are all perfect , than how do we learn empathy, paitence, love?

Posted by: Revnant Dream at September 12, 2008 12:24 AM

"set you free":

"Humans are the only life form which can make conscious decisions and make choices."

Which fetuses can't, ergo they're not human. They have the potential to BECOME human, but so does sperm. You're not making a very convincing argument here.


"Indiana Homez":

"It is you who would like to focus on words like 'human being' and definitions; whereas those you accuse of pushing religion on others are just trying to articulate this common knowledge."

Like they once attempted to articulate the "common knowledge" that the sun revolves around the earth?

Sorry, "common knowledge" turns out to be wrong WAY too often for my taste. I'll take fact, logic, and science, over gut instinct any day.

You make a decent argument otherwise, but regardless of what your gut feeling may be, there is a massive difference between a fetus and a fully functional human infant, just like there is a big difference between a fetus and a sperm or an ovum. As "Nabi" mentioned earlier, nobody is advocating forced abortions - we're simply stating that equating abortion with murder is irrational and ridiculous, and that women should be able to make the choice for themselves.

Irwin:

"So, if a human fetus is not a human being, then I'd like Alex to explain exactly what it is...a gopher, perhaps?"

It's a human fetus. I'm not sure how you managed to confuse yourself about that ...

"So, according to this pretzel logic a fetus is a gopher, unless you erroneously convince yourself otherwise."

Err .... are you alright?

"If, indeed, a fetus has the worth of say, a gopher, or less, then what worth does Alex place on a human being which came forth from a fetus?"

Infinitely more. I place quite a bit of value on my car, but very little on the iron, bauxite, and copper ores from which it came.

How much value do you place on the sperm from which the fetus came?

Your "argument" is just silly. If you're not going to put any thought or effort into your comments, why do you bother posting?

Posted by: Alex at September 12, 2008 12:26 AM

Irwin...a fetus is nothing more than a parasite,living off another living body.In that respect,we are all parasites,until we are spit out of the womb.And try telling a mother gopher her "parasite" isn't as important as yours.

Posted by: Justthinkin at September 12, 2008 4:30 AM

Alex, with his God-like powers of rationalization has proclaimed that he places "infinitely more" worth on a human being than a fetus.

He single-handedly knows where to draw the line on what is worthwhile and what is worthless.

So, my God-like being, what is worth more, a fully developed 9 month old fetus still in the womb, or a fully developed 9 month old fetus/baby just out of the womb and on the birthing table?

A person is the culmination of their entire life. From conception to death. Yet, somebody like Alex believes they can kill that person because they are worthless and not human at a given point, based on nothing more than their own subjective reasoning.

I reassert that Alex is potentially a criminally dangerous person.

Posted by: irwin Daisy at September 12, 2008 8:36 AM

justthinking,

You're obviously not on this issue.

Let's say this "parasite" still in the womb at 9-months, has the ability to survive outside of the womb, as most do. Is it worthless and therefore not morally criminal to kill? Is that not murder? And if not, why not?

What gives you, or anybody else the moral right to determine what is human life and what is not human life, if indeed the fetus can survive outside of the womb?

Posted by: irwin Daisy at September 12, 2008 8:49 AM

Furthermore, a fetus is only considered a parasite in the early gestation period when it is known first as a Zygote and then developing into a Blastocyst.

Posted by: irwin Daisy at September 12, 2008 8:57 AM

Irwin:

What our friends fail to appreciate is that human beings depend on each other for many things.

For example, I'm sure justthinking did not go punch the clock at a full-time job when he was three years old.

He was dependent on his parents for food, clothing, shelter, guidance and all sorts of things. Therefore, justhinking, by his own definition was being parasitical, just like every other human being in early stages of development.

Without the support of his parents, he surely would have perished and therefore his dependent relationship on them was, by his own definition, parasitical.

So, would justinking agree it would be justified if somebody brand him a parasite as a justification of taking his life?

This seems to come from a space where there's a lack of love and empathy toward other human beings, combined with an arrogant pride (God didn't give me free will; I manufactured it all by myself).

Yep, they did it all themselves, all right. Parents, who made the choice to give them life, had nothing to do with it.


Posted by: set you free at September 12, 2008 11:01 AM

"Alex, with his God-like powers of rationalization"

Your god isn't rational, so my "powers" certainly aren't "god-like". They're quite human. If they were "god-like", I'd act more like you.

"He single-handedly knows where to draw the line on what is worthwhile and what is worthless."

You got it. That's because value or "worth" is a subjective measurement which varies from person to person. Nobody else can tell me what something is worth - I have to make the judgment for myself. So, for example, I feel fully justified in saying that this blog is worth-while, while you are worthless.

Any other questions?

"I reassert that Alex is potentially a criminally dangerous person."

Sure, why not. Let's get the government to lock up me and anyone else who opposes christian doctrine. That would make you real happy, wouldn't it?

No, Irwin. Me refusing to act like an ignorant bigot does not make me "criminally dangerous". It just means I'm more intelligent, better educated, and more civilized than you have any hope of ever being. And since the government trusts me enough to let me carry a firearm and lead men into battle, I'd say my mental stability is quite sound, thank you. I'd suggest that you focus more on your own issues, and cut the amateur psychoanalysis routine - it's really not working for you.

Posted by: Alex at September 12, 2008 2:48 PM

It's not Christian doctrine, it's having respect for the sanctity of human life. Which you have demonstrated that you have none.

Did you just call me an ignorant bigot? What evidence do you have of that? Or is it that you've realized you've been exposed as irrational at the very least, if not criminally dangerous - and therefore have to resort to insults and ad hominem?

Oh, and then the nah, nahnahnah, nah remark. What are you 12?

Oh no, you have guns. Now the criminally dangerous assertion takes on a more serious aspect.

Hey, you're pegged. Thanks for the help.

Posted by: irwin Daisy at September 12, 2008 3:42 PM

"Any other questions?"

Matter of fact, yes. From a couple of comments ago:

"So, my God-like being, what is worth more, a fully developed 9 month old fetus still in the womb with the ability to survive, or a fully developed 9 month old fetus/baby just out of the womb and on the birthing table?

Posted by: irwin Daisy at September 12, 2008 3:45 PM

Actually, once conception occurs, the resulting embryo fits the critiria for being human (46 chromosomes) and is biologically alive, and thus a living human being; this is established scientific fact (recognized, for instance, by scientists who study embryology) and not in dispute.

What is in dispute is whether or not all human beings are persons and that therefore it would be wrong to kill them (there is also a debate as to what circumstances it would be wrong to kill a person, particularly whether or not it is wrong to kill a fetus while it is dependent on the mother) or if only some human beings are persons. There are very strong arguments both in defense of the personhood of all human life and the right to life of those persons at all stages of development that I highly recommend checking out (particularly the work of Francis Beckwith).

Also, there really isn't that much of a difference between a fetus and an infant; the organ systems of both a fetus in the third trimester and an infant are for the most part fully functional, and the blueprint, the building blocks, and the foundation for these organs are all present in an embryo; they just have to develop. An infant is actually not very self-aware and cannot make decisions or use very much of its brain at all (and following from that, if those things are the criteria for personhood, infants are not persons and thus infanticide is justifiable) but it will gain the ability to do so as its brain develops. As someone pointed out before, a human person is a work in progress. The differences between an embryo and a fetus, and a fetus and an infant, and an infant and an adult, are a matter of degree, not of kind. An embryo has all the capacities of an adult, say, the capacity to make decisions; it just needs to develop the right equipment (in this case, a brain), to do so.

Sometimes the brain or other organs won't develop to be fully functional at all, in the case of disabled people, but that doesn't mean they are less worthy of life. Most of our bodies will break down someday, and our minds will become frail; we are all weak and dependent on others, however much we hate to admit it. If we continue to have the attitude that killing the disabled is alright, that the ideal human is strong and fit, we shouldn't be surprised when our own children turn around and kill us when we get to be old and frail or become disabled. It's awfully hard to kill the majority of people with disabilities and not come to resent the continued existence of disabled people, as seems to be the case with Trig Palin.

Posted by: gwenhwyfar at September 12, 2008 3:51 PM

Alex & Irwing

You two exemplify why this argument never goes anywhere. On one hand one of you thinks abortion is murder; therefore, it is a no brainier; and, the issue is #1 on the moral issues pecking order. On the other hand, the other person thinks abortion is the equivalent of swatting a mosquito on the back of his neck. It's my neck, case closed, not a big deal.

This is why Alex can so easily slip into ad hominem attacks, he doesn't respect the topic as an issue at all, it's settled science so their is no point forming a rational argument. Irwin thinks Alex is condoning murder so Alex is evil and is only worthy of contempt.

Their can be no constructive conversation when the participants do not respect each other. I'm not picking on either of you, I'm just saying that your discussion is a microcosm of the larger debate.

Alex

I can't get away from my original opinion even after reading your comments. "Life is Life" that is black and white, yet you attempt to make it grey by rationalizing. Your arguments are bang on as long as you admit that abortion is killing a life, leave semantics alone. You are right, everyone decides what value an item has for themselves; so, why can't pro-choicer and women who have abortions just acknowledge that "I don't value this particular life, would you please kill it for me". I support the woman's right to choose, and take responsibility for that choice.


Posted by: Indiana Homez at September 12, 2008 4:21 PM

gwenhwyfar: You're right - I picked my wording poorly. I was using the word "human" in place of "person". I also tend to use the words "fetus" and "embryo" interchangeably, which can create a lot of confusion in a discussion with people who actually understand the difference. Thanks for the corrections.

However, defining "human" simply by chromosome count is a bit ... well, obviously there are other factors that come into play. Some human embryos develop with a fewer or greater number of chromosomes - for instance, Downs syndrome cases will have an extra chromosome. Does that mean they're not human? Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but I think that saying an embryo is human simply because it has 46 chromosomes is a massive oversimplification.

As for an embryo having the same capacities as an adult, that's not true at all. It has the potential to develop the same capabilities as an adult human, but it does not yet posses them at that stage. The genetic code is all there, but it hasn't had a chance to produce most of the sensory and analytical equipment which an adult human possesses.

Finally, if you truly think that legalized abortions will lead to the killing of cognizant adults ... well, there's zero data to support such an idea, nor is there any theoretical basis for proposing it. Frankly, it seems more like a scare-tactic than a serious hypothesis.

Posted by: Alex at September 12, 2008 4:44 PM

Indiana: I have no problem admitting that abortion is killing a life, just like i have no problem admitting that the veal parmesan I had for dinner was also produced by killing a life. The real disagreement - as you so eloquently pointed out in the rest of your comment - is what kind of life. That's why I detest the use of the word "murder", but not "killing".

You're absolutely right about the difficulty of holding a proper discussion when we can't even agree on definitions, which is what I was trying to say earlier. There's no point debating the morality of eugenics when the real core of our disagreement is the morality of abortion. You've caricatured my position by stating that I think "abortion is the equivalent of swatting a mosquito", however your basic premise is correct. From a purely rational standpoint there is no reason why the killing of a barely developed embryo should be considered immoral, while from a fundamentalist religious viewpoint it's a sacrilege of the highest order. It seems to me that the majority of the hostility towards abortion stems from the idea that each human embryo receives a "soul" at conception. Therefore, just like in the debate about "god", there's no way to settle this disagreement through rational discussion since the disagreement is based on an irrational supposition.

Posted by: Alex at September 12, 2008 6:21 PM

Until a child leaves his home, he is dependent on his parents.

Does that make him a parasite?

After some children leave home, they define themselves as ‘artist' and live largely of cultural grants.

Does that make them parasites?

Posted by: set you free at September 12, 2008 6:37 PM

Alex:

I can't help but notice you equate human life with sub-human life.

Is there a reason you feel such an affinity for sub-humanity?

Posted by: set you free at September 12, 2008 6:42 PM

Indiana,

You are oversimplifying my argument. As stated earlier:

"A person is the culmination of their entire life. From conception to death. Yet, somebody like Alex believes they can kill that person because they are worthless and not human at a given point, based on nothing more than their own subjective reasoning."

I also asked Alex a question, twice, which he has avoided answering:

"So, my God-like being, what is worth more, a fully developed 9 month old fetus still in the womb with the ability to survive, or a fully developed 9 month old fetus/baby just out of the womb and on the birthing table?"

His attitude towards human life is disturbing, bordering on Mengele.

Posted by: irwin daisy at September 13, 2008 3:41 PM

I see no reason to answer such a foolish question. You are clearly unable to comprehend my position, and you seem determined to drag as many red herrings and straw men into the argument as possible. As such, it'd be a waste of everyone's time to continue this discussion. Goodbye.

Posted by: Alex at September 13, 2008 9:07 PM
Site
Meter