Then why can’t I sell a kidney? Update– Important points by David Freddoso on a related issue.
35 Replies to “If No One Can Tell Me What To Do With My Body”
Yeah, if a woman is free to kill her unborn baby, or babies, why can’t she sell her kidney? Or for that matter, rent out her body for sexual services?
It’s either her body to do with as she pleases, or not. Forbidding or opposing organ sales, or short-term organ rentals as in prostitution, isn’t logically consistent in the philosophies of the feminist movement and organizations.
because no matter what gov’t you are, Federal, Provincial or whatever.
Paying for a kidney will be viewed as 2 tier and that is bad.
Ever notice that the same bunch of liberals with bumpere stickers reading KEEP ABORTION LEGAL also have ones reading SAVE THE REDWOODS and SAVE THE RAINFORESTS
We’re outsourcing everything now. Even childbirth. This is the end.
Wasn’t it W.C.Fields who once said: “I offerred to sell my liver, but nobody wanted to buy it”?
If one is free to do with their body what they please then why all the hullabaloo over smoking?
Too much Walter Williams! Obviously the notion that no one can tell you what to do with your body is incorrect.
You -should- be able to, but then this is supposed to be a free country too. Surprise!
It is a free country. Just lots of people who think they are free to tell you and I what to do.
“Yeah, if a woman is free to kill her unborn baby, or babies, why can’t she sell her kidney? Or for that matter, rent out her body for sexual services?”
Well we aren’t. The state owns your hide buddy….the Jurocratic pontiffs just made an exception for infanticiding women because of their sympathies with one of their pet lobby/NGO groups SOW (the leading force for modern eugenics and population control).
In this country you are the property of the sate and the ownership tag is the SIN number ( Slave ID Number).
BTW : You cant even die without certification and you can’t be buried where you want without state consent.
Who’s yer nanny…who owns yer little entitled butt?
Farmerboy, its a free country until the government gets interested in something you have or what you’re doing. Then you discover your freedom is entirely notional.
Ask a Caledonian about the right to own property, for example. Or any gun owner, for that matter.
Freedom is a relative term. Unfortunately too many people would rather be comfortable than free.
Has anyone read Jacques Ellul’s book, The Political Illusion? If so, any comment?
A funny lawyer joke. A MAN IS WALKING DOWN THE BEACH WHEN HE FINDS A LAMP HE RUBS IT AND A GENINE POPS OUT AND SAYS YOU CAN HAVE THREE WISHES BUT THERES A CATCH FOR EVERY WISH YOU GET A LAWYER WILL GET TWO THATS OKAY WITH ME SAID THE MAN SO I WANT A MILLION DOLLARS POOF A MILLION DOLLARS APPEAR OKAY I WANT A FARARRI POOF A FARRATI APPEARS OKAY SAIND THE GENIE WHATS YOUR FINAL WISH WELL SAID THE MAN IVE ALWAYS WANTED TO DONATE A KIDNEY
You are free to do whatever you want with your body only if it comes to abortion, only.
Try to refuse a blood transfusion based on your religion, or the ones mentioned previously in the thread and you’ll find out how the liberal courts, etc only care about abortion.
Course lefties being emotionally based only have time for a short slogan any in depth analysis is totally beyond them.
Freedom, eh? So, any of my 3 daughters can, at will, have a potential grand-child of mine murdered, paid for by the state, and that seems to be ok. Yet, the same daughters can go to jail for smoking a weed that grows wild in the fields surrounding Kingston. Something is very, very wrong with this whole picture.
Not a good idea to sell body parts! I hear Jack Layton sold his brain. When he failed his entrance exam as a receptionist for the BC Marijuana Growers Association, he got a job as NDP leader. Then he sold his soul!
The other side of the coin of a woman’s “freedom of womb”. Why are guys despicable low-lifes if when a pregnancy occurs they cut out and say “It’s YOUR body”?????
I totally believe that upon conception there is another life and another individual to consider.
Come on! Jack Layton used to have a brain? No way!
Why can’t you sell a kidney?
Ah, do you “own” your body? I don’t think so.
If you own something you can sell it — transfer title to someone else for them to dispose of it as they see fit. Try selling yourself to someone else. It is illegal.
Since you cannot transfer title of yourself as a whole, you do not own yourself. You cannot sell something you do not own, and you cannot sell part of something you do not own. (You cannot legally take a mirror off of someone’s else’s car and sell it, for example.)
If selling part of your body is legal, that, de facto legalizes selling all of it (you just sell yourself one piece at a time).
So, if you want a market in body parts, the answer is simple — relegalize slavery. Then, no problem. We can assign title to bodies.
dinosaur said, “You are free to do whatever you want with your body only if it comes to abortion, only.”
It’s even worse than that: in the matter of abortion, it’s SOMEONE ELSE’S body! The abortion defenders’ contortions are as much of a scam as those of the AGW crowd.
The difference? People have readily fallen for the “pro-choice” fraud for the past three decades.
MILLIONS of pre-born human beings have been slaughtered, mainly for convenience–and, except for rape, a very minor factor in the statistics, it’s not as if the women and men respsonsible for the doomed human life were coerced.
Abortion is a huge stain on our “caring” societies: we obviously care far more for our own pleasures–especially since the baby boom generation discovered a “right” to free “love”. More like free license: first to have sex with whomever we want, when we want and then to kill off the results. Humane? No way.
And, in Canada, the damage is done in a two tier health system, called abortion clinics, at taxpayer expense. Only up to three months’ gestation? That’s a pure fiction. Canada has NO ABORTION LAW: a term pre-born can be legally aborted in this country.
This is one issue in which both the left and right of the political spectrum have been altogether complicit. Mark Steyn, who, like me, has serious ethical problems with abortion, has also pointed out the disastrous consequences of the demographic fallout it’s caused.
As I said, abortion gives the lie that societies like Canada are really compassionate. Any country that willingly slaughters over 100 000 of its preborn children (in the US, it’s over a million) per year, should be ashamed.
But, the magical thinkers let us off the hook on this one. If you’re an AGW skeptic, as most of us here seem to be, maybe you should readjust your “bull” meter re abortion. It’s every bit as big a scam—and more sinister, IMO. When whole societies condone the killing of “sub-standard” human beings and wrap it up in euphemisms and denial, “Houston, we have a problem.”
Really.
freedoms just another word for nothing left to lose.
Im thinking of writing a song along these lines.
Physician’s Oath
“At the time of being admitted as a member of the medical profession:
I solemnly pledge myself to consecrate my life to the service of humanity;
I will give to my teachers the respect and gratitude which is their due;
I will practice my profession with conscience and dignity; the health of my patient will be my first consideration;
I will maintain by all the means in my power, the honor and the noble traditions of the medical profession; my colleagues will be my brothers;
I will not permit considerations of religion, nationality, race, party politics or social standing to intervene between my duty and my patient;
I will maintain the utmost respect for human life from the time of conception, even under threat, I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity;
I make these promises solemnly, freely and upon my honor.”
I guess this is going to be changed somewhere down the line, even though some doctors have no honor to speak of in the first place.
Spurwing Plover – the same people who support abortions, almost always are non-supporters of the death penalty; I think they are making sure that their decision to kill or to support the right to kill doesn’t mean their final decision in life will be whether to have steak or fried chicken.
I wonder who Jack Layton sold his brain to? Any ideas?
Joanne at November 9, 2007 4:22 PM: “I guess this is going to be changed somewhere down the line, even though some doctors have no honor to speak of in the first place.”
Joanne, the version of the Hippocratic Oath that you quoted is already a change on the original, which included this clause:
“To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may cause his death. Nor will I give a woman a pessary to procure abortion. But I will preserve the purity of my life and my art.” http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~jde7/ese625/module_2/activity_5_4.htm
lookout at November 9, 2007 1:16 PM: Thank you for your impassioned condemnation of abortion, and of our society for allowing this holocaust to have happened and to continue.
Spurwing Plover at November 9, 2007 10:08 AM
The way I heard the story, it involved a leprechaun, an Irish villager and his major village rival. And it was a different set of organs, somewhat lower and with an external presence, one of which the Irishman expressed a pained willingness to have amputated.
fc, thank YOU. And you’re welcome.
Did you ever see the movie COMMA where a bunch of doctors in ahopital were putting people into commas and selling their body parts to wealthy pateints
Yes, SP, I did see Coma (!). I’m sure organ harvesting from unwilling, and soon to be dead, “donors” is happening—certainly in places like China.
It seems the more “It’s my body and I’ll do with it what I want to” philosophy flourishes—it’s in direct conflict with the Christian belief that we belong to God—the more the degradation of the human body, and spirit, flourishes too.
In this corner of the world—Canada—the growth of social and psychological pathologies have grown exponentially since the sexual revolution. Sexual license has had devastating effects on every society that’s embraced it in the last 40 years. Those societies which were relatively stable—in the West—now have a proliferation of all kinds of problems—gun crime, child poverty (usually = no dad family), high divorce rates, high domestic violence rates (married women experience four and a half times LESS violence than those living in less formal arrangements, Stats Canada), high rates of sexually transmitted diseases, including AIDS, high abortion rates, high suicide rates, high rates of depressed, anti-social youth, high rates of substance abuse, high rates of homelessness, etc., etc., etc. (BTW, Quebec has the worst record of all the provinces on nearly all these counts.) Theodore Dalrymple writes compellingly (and eloquently) about the West’s pathologies. Places like Africa, which were never prosperous, are unlikely ever to be as long as sexual license continues unabated.
A good debate topic would be, “Given: that the sexual revolution is a pathology which has had a devastating effect on all societies that embraced it.”
But where could one have such a debate? In the West, it’s considered impolite to even mention such an idea. Sexual license, like abortion—which is part of that license—is considered a right. To question it is taboo. That makes it almost a religious tenet, doesn’t it?
Joanne asks, “I wonder who Jack Layton sold his brain to? Any ideas?”
Citoyen Dion, peut-etre?
IDAK ISTANT DESTROYER AND KILLER and CRUSH,KILL,DESTROY
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,22738309-401,00.html?from=public_rss
Parents win right to grow babies for ‘spare parts’
From correspondents in London
November 11, 2007 12:00am
Article from: Sunday Herald Sun
PARENTS of sick children in Britain will be allowed to use IVF to create “spare-part babies” under controversial laws published yesterday.
The legislation will dramatically relax rules on IVF clinics creating “saviour siblings” who can help cure their older brothers and sisters of medical conditions such as leukemia.
Experts said that one day they could create a “designer baby” with kidneys perfectly compatible with a sibling suffering renal failure.
More immediately, saviour siblings could give umbilical cord blood or bone marrow to family members in the hope of treating conditions such as sickle cell anaemia.
The Government’s Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill will be debated in British Parliament and is expected to become law in 2009.
The Daily Mail, in The Sunday Herald Sun
lookout you are underinformed. http://www.fixcas.com/oppose/deadbaby.htm
==Dead Baby Scam==
Several mothers of newborns report that they were falsely informed of the death of their baby. With the mother out of the picture, the baby was then free for adoption. The mother’s signature may have been attached to an essential document by misinforming her of its nature, or by taking advantage of a woman’s reduced capacity in the days following childbirth.
The following text comes from a United Nations report (in pdf), Violence Against Women. http://www.unhchr.ch/huridocda/huridoca.nsf/e06a5300f90fa0238025668700518ca4/3ab4d356d165f1b4c1256ce1003c048a/$FILE/G0310400.pdf
Canada
20. By a letter dated 13 August 2002, sent jointly with the Special Rapporteur on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography, the Special Rapporteur advised the Government that she had received information concerning fraudulent adoption practices and violence against unmarried women. The allegations involved staff at the Mount Sinai Hospital, the Victor Home for Unwed Mothers, Women’s College Hospital (now Sunnybrook and Women’s) and the Catholic Childrens’ Aid Society (CCAS). In particular, the Special Rapporteur received information on the following cases.
21. Tina Kelly (current surname), a French Canadian, reportedly gave birth to a son on 28 March 1970 at Mount Sinai Hospital. Although she was unmarried, she intended to keep the baby. The following day, her family doctor, Dr. Glick, reportedly told her that her baby had died during the night due to heart trouble. She was allegedly not allowed to see her baby’s body, but Dr. Glick reportedly agreed to make arrangements with the CCAS for its baptism and burial. During her stay in the hospital, Ms. Kelly was reportedly heavily drugged and on 31 March 1970, a social worker from the CCAS allegedly asked Ms. Kelly to sign a document. Ms. Kelly, who reportedly had limited knowledge of English, believed she was signing a document to baptize her dead baby. In 1995, upon receipt of a copy of her recently deceased father’s death certificate Ms. Kelly realized that she had never received a copy of her child’s death certificate. When she requested a copy from Mount Sinai Hospital, she was reportedly told that the records stated that her son was born healthy and had gone home with her. After questioning staff at the CCAS, Ms. Kelly allegedly discovered that the CCAS had put him up for adoption and that Dr Glick had accepted a bribe to take him. It is alleged that the Toronto Police have refused to take action in regard to this case.
22. In May 1978, doctors at the Women’s College Hospital Prenatal Clinic allegedly told Erica, then seven months pregnant, that her baby was dead and that she was in labour. She was allegedly sent home to deliver the dead child after the doctors noticed that she was from the Victor Home for Unwed Mothers. Two other women living in the home, Cathy Henderson and Peggy, reportedly delivered the dead baby. Their complaints to the Women’s College Hospital were reportedly ignored and they were allegedly insulted.
23. Cathy Henderson (previously known as Cathy Saltmarsh), allegedly suffered both physical and psychological abuse by staff in the Women’s College Hospital during the birth of her child in June 1978. While in labour, she was reportedly thrown against the wall of the preparation room by a nurse. She was allegedly called a whore by one of the nurses and told that the CCAS had paid to have her baby taken from her. The nurse then reportedly repeatedly cut her genitals, it is reported that doctors now estimate that she had been cut over 30 times during this incident. Her delivery doctor tried to suture the slashes, but allegedly did not record the incident in Ms. Henderson’s medical file and has tried to cover it up. After giving birth, Ms. Henderson was reportedly given an injection to dry up her milk without her consent. Ms. Henderson’s son was allegedly given up for adoption without her consent. During her stay at the hospital, she was reportedly given drugs without being told what they were for, and before leaving the hospital she signed what she believed to be a temporary non-ward foster care agreement. According to reports she did not have access to a lawyer and was told by her CCAS social worker that she must sign the document if she wanted to keep her son. She allegedly later discovered that the agreement to short-term non-ward care had been terminated without her consent or knowledge.
24. Also in June 1978, Lilli Corhonen, then aged 15, reportedly suffered similar psychological and physical abuse while in the Women’s College Hospital giving birth to her child. After the birth, the delivering doctor reportedly decided to “punish” her by shoving her hand into Ms. Corhonen’s womb and punching it a number of times. This incident was reportedly not recorded, and the hospital allegedly denies that it happened. It is reported that when she tried to complain she was insulted and told that no one would believe her.
25. According to information received, Ms. Corhonen and Ms. Henderson wrote to Women’s College Hospital in 2000 and again in April 2001 to reiterate their complaints about the abuse. The hospital reportedly claimed that there was no evidence of any abuse and that it was too late to carry out an investigation.
According to Cathy Henderson, there are many more victims of the dead baby scam. In Ontario, the ADR (Adoption Disclosure Register) will not help a family that has published a complaint about them, limiting the number of mothers willing to go public. An earlier incorrect version of this paragraph said that the UN bullied the mothers in this way. Her exact statement was:
If the ADR finds out you complain about them, they will NOT look for your family as a form of punishment. That is why there are only 3 names published – they are friends of mine which I managed to persuade to do so.
Dr Daniel Glick was disciplined by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario for fees charged for hypnotherapy. There is no record of action on the dead baby incidents. http://www.cpso.on.ca/Publications/Discsum/1994/disc94.07.htm#Dr.%20Daniel%20Glick
A UN Report from the Committee on the Rights of the Child (in pdf) dated October 27, 2003 supports a statist agenda for the protection of children. Nowhere does it suggest helping children by strengthening the rights of their parents. Ontario is one of the offending provinces in the following paragraphs suggesting open records, a measure favored by reformers of all points of view: http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/898586b1dc7b4043c1256a450044f331/995a15056ca61d16c1256df000310995/$FILE/G0344648.pdf
Adoption
30. The Committee is encouraged by the priority accorded by the State party to promoting the Hague Convention on the Protection of Children and Cooperation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption of 1993 in Canada and abroad. However, the Committee notes that while adoption falls within the jurisdiction of the provinces and territories, the ratification of the Hague Convention has not been followed up by legal and other appropriate measures in all provinces. The Committee is also concerned that certain provinces do not recognize the right of an adopted child to know, as far as possible, her/his biological parents (art. 7).
31. The Committee recommends that the State party consider amending its legislation to ensure that information about the date and place of birth of adopted children and their biological parents are preserved and made available to these children. Furthermore, the Committee recommends that the Federal Government ensure the full implementation of The Hague Convention on the Protection of Children and Cooperation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption of 1993 throughout its territory.
Posted by Dufferin VOCA.
This whole Canadian debate on abortion issue in my humble opinion is completely detached from Canadian reality and if Canadian women continue to turn bind eye to real problems connected with abortion they run a real risk of creating virtual war in Canada over issue of fertility.
If we skip for a moment moral argument of fetus’s right to life and concentrate on issue of women health, fertility and long term well being current state of affairs regarding abortion is still unsustainable.
First of all; contrary to all assurances offered by medical community abortion is not a procedure that is totally health risk free. We are still not so sure that abrupt hormonal changes following abortion are not causing some long term health damage. Psychological damage suffered by a women undergoing abortion procedure cannot be swept aside as easily as psychiatrists would lead us to believe. Actual abortion procedure carries with it an inherent risk of infertility due to scarring of uterus, scarring and plugging of fallopian tubes and other medical variables.
Risks of botched abortion performed in hospital setting are very real in Ontario and one just have to read up on medical career of Butcher of Scarborough Dr. Richard Austin to realise that medical community is more interested in protecting their own members than to protect patients. http://www.thestar.com/News/article/203058
Whole concept of abortion as a means of delaying procreation and pregnancy to more opportune time in woman’s life is by itself very debatable proposition as passage of time is increasing risks of contracting sexually transmitted disease like Chlamydia is robbing women of fertility, diminishing fertility due to age, and increasing risk of genetic defects of a child and having a child too late in woman’s life to be able to raise it properly.
Infertility in Europe has already reached epidemic proportion and it can safely be assumed that North American population suffers similar fate. http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/jun/05062104.html
Currently about one in eight women in the United States had difficulty getting pregnant and carrying a baby to term in 2002, according to the National Center for Health Statistics. http://environmentalism.suite101.com/article.cfm/causes_of_infertility_mysterious
This escalating number of infertile women is putting enormous stress on ever expanding adoption industry. Children’s Aid Societies in Ontario have long ago transformed themselves from protectors of abandoned and neglected children into suppliers of adoptable babies legally stolen form economically disadvantaged (often single) mothers. This “best known Ontario secret” of children being routinely stolen at maternity wards got some public attention recently due to latest incident where newborn child was snatched from Sudbury hospital. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071101.wamberalert1101/BNStory/National/home
Reports of baby snatching in Ontario maternity wards abound and can be read in post #198 at this link; http://boards.aetv.com/thread.jspa?threadID=300012892&start=195
Actually the news baby snatching in Ontario maternity wards made it all thy way into UN Report on Violence against Women in Canada, see above post.
This very lucrative and very socially damaging practice of baby snatching and baby selling leads to a situation where young women in Canada are chosing abortion rather than run a risk of having their child stolen by CAS in maternity ward and subsequently be labelled for life as an unfit mother.
With recent legislative push in Ontario to introduce organ harvesting without donor’s consent and prices for healthy Caucasian newborn exceeding $50000.00 paid in cash under the table one can expect that mortality rates among young and poor single mothers following delivery of a baby will soon be on the rise.
In short one woman’s convenience of having an abortion might turn out to be other women’s “cause of death” right after labour when she foolishly decides to carry her pregnancy to full term give birth and refuse to surrender her child to baby snatchers.
—– Original Message —–
From: KAROL KAROLAK
To:Undisclosed recepients
Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2007 11:10 PM
Subject: It flew like a ton of bricks,Re: “Parents win right to grow babies for ‘spare parts'”
Ban non-medical human cloning, UN says http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071111.wclone1111/BNStory/Science/home
Reuters
November 11, 2007 at 1:19 PM EST
OSLO — The world should quickly ban cloning of humans and only exceptions allow only for strictly controlled research to help treat diseases such as diabetes or Alzheimer’s, a UN study said on Sunday.
Without a ban, experts at the UN University’s Institute of Advanced Studies said that governments would have to prepare legal measures to protect clones from “potential abuse, prejudice and discrimination.”
“A legally binding global ban on work to create a human clone, coupled with freedom for nations to permit strictly controlled therapeutic research, has the greatest political viability of options available,” the study said.
“Whichever path the international community chooses it will have to act soon – either to prevent reproductive cloning or to defend the human rights of cloned individuals,” said A.H. Zakri, head of the Institute, which is based in Yokohama, Japan.
Almost all governments oppose human cloning and more than 50 have legislation outlawing cloning. But negotiations about an international ban collapsed in 2005 because of disagreements over research cloning, also known as therapeutic cloning.
Research cloning can produce tissues that are a perfect genetic match of a person and so help grow cells to treat diseases such as strokes, spinal injuries, diabetes, Parkinson’s or Alzheimer’s, according to the study, which was made available in Oslo.
The United Nations in 2005 agreed on a non-binding declaration to ban human cloning but left many ambiguities.
“The declaration in itself is not an adequate response,” said Brendan Tobin, an author of the study from the National University of Ireland. “This has left us in a situation where maverick scientists can carry on with their research and that is likely to lead to an eventual cloning.”
The authors said laws should grant clones full human rights to protect them from discrimination.
Otherwise, opponents of clones in an inheritance dispute, for instance, might say that a clone and the person from whom their cells were grown should only get a half share each.
“In the same way as an identical twin is an individual, a clone would be an individual,” Dr. Tobin said.
The report noted that clones have been made of mice, sheep, pigs, cows and dogs and that U.S. researchers last year achieved the first cloning of a primate – a rhesus monkey embryo cloned from adult cells and then grown to generate stem cells.
It said that national bans on cloning could be skirted since researchers could simply move elsewhere.
“Disgraced South Korean medical researcher Woo Sook Hwang, whose human clone claims were unsubstantiated, reportedly continues his work in Thailand,” the UN study said.
—– Original Message —–
From: KAROL KAROLAK
To: Undisclosed recepients
Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2007 4:28 PM
Subject: Re: Parents win right to grow babies for ‘spare parts’
I am afraid that British are heading to no-man’s-land with this one.
Cheers,
Karol http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,22738309-401,00.html?from=public_rss
Yeah, if a woman is free to kill her unborn baby, or babies, why can’t she sell her kidney? Or for that matter, rent out her body for sexual services?
It’s either her body to do with as she pleases, or not. Forbidding or opposing organ sales, or short-term organ rentals as in prostitution, isn’t logically consistent in the philosophies of the feminist movement and organizations.
because no matter what gov’t you are, Federal, Provincial or whatever.
Paying for a kidney will be viewed as 2 tier and that is bad.
Ever notice that the same bunch of liberals with bumpere stickers reading KEEP ABORTION LEGAL also have ones reading SAVE THE REDWOODS and SAVE THE RAINFORESTS
We’re outsourcing everything now. Even childbirth. This is the end.
Wasn’t it W.C.Fields who once said: “I offerred to sell my liver, but nobody wanted to buy it”?
If one is free to do with their body what they please then why all the hullabaloo over smoking?
Too much Walter Williams! Obviously the notion that no one can tell you what to do with your body is incorrect.
You -should- be able to, but then this is supposed to be a free country too. Surprise!
It is a free country. Just lots of people who think they are free to tell you and I what to do.
“Yeah, if a woman is free to kill her unborn baby, or babies, why can’t she sell her kidney? Or for that matter, rent out her body for sexual services?”
Well we aren’t. The state owns your hide buddy….the Jurocratic pontiffs just made an exception for infanticiding women because of their sympathies with one of their pet lobby/NGO groups SOW (the leading force for modern eugenics and population control).
In this country you are the property of the sate and the ownership tag is the SIN number ( Slave ID Number).
BTW : You cant even die without certification and you can’t be buried where you want without state consent.
Who’s yer nanny…who owns yer little entitled butt?
Farmerboy, its a free country until the government gets interested in something you have or what you’re doing. Then you discover your freedom is entirely notional.
Ask a Caledonian about the right to own property, for example. Or any gun owner, for that matter.
Freedom is a relative term. Unfortunately too many people would rather be comfortable than free.
Has anyone read Jacques Ellul’s book, The Political Illusion? If so, any comment?
A funny lawyer joke. A MAN IS WALKING DOWN THE BEACH WHEN HE FINDS A LAMP HE RUBS IT AND A GENINE POPS OUT AND SAYS YOU CAN HAVE THREE WISHES BUT THERES A CATCH FOR EVERY WISH YOU GET A LAWYER WILL GET TWO THATS OKAY WITH ME SAID THE MAN SO I WANT A MILLION DOLLARS POOF A MILLION DOLLARS APPEAR OKAY I WANT A FARARRI POOF A FARRATI APPEARS OKAY SAIND THE GENIE WHATS YOUR FINAL WISH WELL SAID THE MAN IVE ALWAYS WANTED TO DONATE A KIDNEY
You are free to do whatever you want with your body only if it comes to abortion, only.
Try to refuse a blood transfusion based on your religion, or the ones mentioned previously in the thread and you’ll find out how the liberal courts, etc only care about abortion.
Course lefties being emotionally based only have time for a short slogan any in depth analysis is totally beyond them.
Freedom, eh? So, any of my 3 daughters can, at will, have a potential grand-child of mine murdered, paid for by the state, and that seems to be ok. Yet, the same daughters can go to jail for smoking a weed that grows wild in the fields surrounding Kingston. Something is very, very wrong with this whole picture.
Not a good idea to sell body parts! I hear Jack Layton sold his brain. When he failed his entrance exam as a receptionist for the BC Marijuana Growers Association, he got a job as NDP leader. Then he sold his soul!
The other side of the coin of a woman’s “freedom of womb”. Why are guys despicable low-lifes if when a pregnancy occurs they cut out and say “It’s YOUR body”?????
I totally believe that upon conception there is another life and another individual to consider.
Come on! Jack Layton used to have a brain? No way!
Why can’t you sell a kidney?
Ah, do you “own” your body? I don’t think so.
If you own something you can sell it — transfer title to someone else for them to dispose of it as they see fit. Try selling yourself to someone else. It is illegal.
Since you cannot transfer title of yourself as a whole, you do not own yourself. You cannot sell something you do not own, and you cannot sell part of something you do not own. (You cannot legally take a mirror off of someone’s else’s car and sell it, for example.)
If selling part of your body is legal, that, de facto legalizes selling all of it (you just sell yourself one piece at a time).
So, if you want a market in body parts, the answer is simple — relegalize slavery. Then, no problem. We can assign title to bodies.
dinosaur said, “You are free to do whatever you want with your body only if it comes to abortion, only.”
It’s even worse than that: in the matter of abortion, it’s SOMEONE ELSE’S body! The abortion defenders’ contortions are as much of a scam as those of the AGW crowd.
The difference? People have readily fallen for the “pro-choice” fraud for the past three decades.
MILLIONS of pre-born human beings have been slaughtered, mainly for convenience–and, except for rape, a very minor factor in the statistics, it’s not as if the women and men respsonsible for the doomed human life were coerced.
Abortion is a huge stain on our “caring” societies: we obviously care far more for our own pleasures–especially since the baby boom generation discovered a “right” to free “love”. More like free license: first to have sex with whomever we want, when we want and then to kill off the results. Humane? No way.
And, in Canada, the damage is done in a two tier health system, called abortion clinics, at taxpayer expense. Only up to three months’ gestation? That’s a pure fiction. Canada has NO ABORTION LAW: a term pre-born can be legally aborted in this country.
This is one issue in which both the left and right of the political spectrum have been altogether complicit. Mark Steyn, who, like me, has serious ethical problems with abortion, has also pointed out the disastrous consequences of the demographic fallout it’s caused.
As I said, abortion gives the lie that societies like Canada are really compassionate. Any country that willingly slaughters over 100 000 of its preborn children (in the US, it’s over a million) per year, should be ashamed.
But, the magical thinkers let us off the hook on this one. If you’re an AGW skeptic, as most of us here seem to be, maybe you should readjust your “bull” meter re abortion. It’s every bit as big a scam—and more sinister, IMO. When whole societies condone the killing of “sub-standard” human beings and wrap it up in euphemisms and denial, “Houston, we have a problem.”
Really.
freedoms just another word for nothing left to lose.
Im thinking of writing a song along these lines.
Physician’s Oath
“At the time of being admitted as a member of the medical profession:
I solemnly pledge myself to consecrate my life to the service of humanity;
I will give to my teachers the respect and gratitude which is their due;
I will practice my profession with conscience and dignity; the health of my patient will be my first consideration;
I will maintain by all the means in my power, the honor and the noble traditions of the medical profession; my colleagues will be my brothers;
I will not permit considerations of religion, nationality, race, party politics or social standing to intervene between my duty and my patient;
I will maintain the utmost respect for human life from the time of conception, even under threat, I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity;
I make these promises solemnly, freely and upon my honor.”
I guess this is going to be changed somewhere down the line, even though some doctors have no honor to speak of in the first place.
Spurwing Plover – the same people who support abortions, almost always are non-supporters of the death penalty; I think they are making sure that their decision to kill or to support the right to kill doesn’t mean their final decision in life will be whether to have steak or fried chicken.
I wonder who Jack Layton sold his brain to? Any ideas?
Joanne at November 9, 2007 4:22 PM: “I guess this is going to be changed somewhere down the line, even though some doctors have no honor to speak of in the first place.”
Joanne, the version of the Hippocratic Oath that you quoted is already a change on the original, which included this clause:
“To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may cause his death. Nor will I give a woman a pessary to procure abortion. But I will preserve the purity of my life and my art.”
http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~jde7/ese625/module_2/activity_5_4.htm
lookout at November 9, 2007 1:16 PM: Thank you for your impassioned condemnation of abortion, and of our society for allowing this holocaust to have happened and to continue.
Spurwing Plover at November 9, 2007 10:08 AM
The way I heard the story, it involved a leprechaun, an Irish villager and his major village rival. And it was a different set of organs, somewhat lower and with an external presence, one of which the Irishman expressed a pained willingness to have amputated.
fc, thank YOU. And you’re welcome.
Did you ever see the movie COMMA where a bunch of doctors in ahopital were putting people into commas and selling their body parts to wealthy pateints
Yes, SP, I did see Coma (!). I’m sure organ harvesting from unwilling, and soon to be dead, “donors” is happening—certainly in places like China.
It seems the more “It’s my body and I’ll do with it what I want to” philosophy flourishes—it’s in direct conflict with the Christian belief that we belong to God—the more the degradation of the human body, and spirit, flourishes too.
In this corner of the world—Canada—the growth of social and psychological pathologies have grown exponentially since the sexual revolution. Sexual license has had devastating effects on every society that’s embraced it in the last 40 years. Those societies which were relatively stable—in the West—now have a proliferation of all kinds of problems—gun crime, child poverty (usually = no dad family), high divorce rates, high domestic violence rates (married women experience four and a half times LESS violence than those living in less formal arrangements, Stats Canada), high rates of sexually transmitted diseases, including AIDS, high abortion rates, high suicide rates, high rates of depressed, anti-social youth, high rates of substance abuse, high rates of homelessness, etc., etc., etc. (BTW, Quebec has the worst record of all the provinces on nearly all these counts.) Theodore Dalrymple writes compellingly (and eloquently) about the West’s pathologies. Places like Africa, which were never prosperous, are unlikely ever to be as long as sexual license continues unabated.
A good debate topic would be, “Given: that the sexual revolution is a pathology which has had a devastating effect on all societies that embraced it.”
But where could one have such a debate? In the West, it’s considered impolite to even mention such an idea. Sexual license, like abortion—which is part of that license—is considered a right. To question it is taboo. That makes it almost a religious tenet, doesn’t it?
Joanne asks, “I wonder who Jack Layton sold his brain to? Any ideas?”
Citoyen Dion, peut-etre?
IDAK ISTANT DESTROYER AND KILLER and CRUSH,KILL,DESTROY
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,22738309-401,00.html?from=public_rss
Parents win right to grow babies for ‘spare parts’
From correspondents in London
November 11, 2007 12:00am
Article from: Sunday Herald Sun
PARENTS of sick children in Britain will be allowed to use IVF to create “spare-part babies” under controversial laws published yesterday.
The legislation will dramatically relax rules on IVF clinics creating “saviour siblings” who can help cure their older brothers and sisters of medical conditions such as leukemia.
Experts said that one day they could create a “designer baby” with kidneys perfectly compatible with a sibling suffering renal failure.
More immediately, saviour siblings could give umbilical cord blood or bone marrow to family members in the hope of treating conditions such as sickle cell anaemia.
The Government’s Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill will be debated in British Parliament and is expected to become law in 2009.
The Daily Mail, in The Sunday Herald Sun
lookout you are underinformed.
http://www.fixcas.com/oppose/deadbaby.htm
==Dead Baby Scam==
Several mothers of newborns report that they were falsely informed of the death of their baby. With the mother out of the picture, the baby was then free for adoption. The mother’s signature may have been attached to an essential document by misinforming her of its nature, or by taking advantage of a woman’s reduced capacity in the days following childbirth.
The following text comes from a United Nations report (in pdf), Violence Against Women.
http://www.unhchr.ch/huridocda/huridoca.nsf/e06a5300f90fa0238025668700518ca4/3ab4d356d165f1b4c1256ce1003c048a/$FILE/G0310400.pdf
Canada
20. By a letter dated 13 August 2002, sent jointly with the Special Rapporteur on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography, the Special Rapporteur advised the Government that she had received information concerning fraudulent adoption practices and violence against unmarried women. The allegations involved staff at the Mount Sinai Hospital, the Victor Home for Unwed Mothers, Women’s College Hospital (now Sunnybrook and Women’s) and the Catholic Childrens’ Aid Society (CCAS). In particular, the Special Rapporteur received information on the following cases.
21. Tina Kelly (current surname), a French Canadian, reportedly gave birth to a son on 28 March 1970 at Mount Sinai Hospital. Although she was unmarried, she intended to keep the baby. The following day, her family doctor, Dr. Glick, reportedly told her that her baby had died during the night due to heart trouble. She was allegedly not allowed to see her baby’s body, but Dr. Glick reportedly agreed to make arrangements with the CCAS for its baptism and burial. During her stay in the hospital, Ms. Kelly was reportedly heavily drugged and on 31 March 1970, a social worker from the CCAS allegedly asked Ms. Kelly to sign a document. Ms. Kelly, who reportedly had limited knowledge of English, believed she was signing a document to baptize her dead baby. In 1995, upon receipt of a copy of her recently deceased father’s death certificate Ms. Kelly realized that she had never received a copy of her child’s death certificate. When she requested a copy from Mount Sinai Hospital, she was reportedly told that the records stated that her son was born healthy and had gone home with her. After questioning staff at the CCAS, Ms. Kelly allegedly discovered that the CCAS had put him up for adoption and that Dr Glick had accepted a bribe to take him. It is alleged that the Toronto Police have refused to take action in regard to this case.
22. In May 1978, doctors at the Women’s College Hospital Prenatal Clinic allegedly told Erica, then seven months pregnant, that her baby was dead and that she was in labour. She was allegedly sent home to deliver the dead child after the doctors noticed that she was from the Victor Home for Unwed Mothers. Two other women living in the home, Cathy Henderson and Peggy, reportedly delivered the dead baby. Their complaints to the Women’s College Hospital were reportedly ignored and they were allegedly insulted.
23. Cathy Henderson (previously known as Cathy Saltmarsh), allegedly suffered both physical and psychological abuse by staff in the Women’s College Hospital during the birth of her child in June 1978. While in labour, she was reportedly thrown against the wall of the preparation room by a nurse. She was allegedly called a whore by one of the nurses and told that the CCAS had paid to have her baby taken from her. The nurse then reportedly repeatedly cut her genitals, it is reported that doctors now estimate that she had been cut over 30 times during this incident. Her delivery doctor tried to suture the slashes, but allegedly did not record the incident in Ms. Henderson’s medical file and has tried to cover it up. After giving birth, Ms. Henderson was reportedly given an injection to dry up her milk without her consent. Ms. Henderson’s son was allegedly given up for adoption without her consent. During her stay at the hospital, she was reportedly given drugs without being told what they were for, and before leaving the hospital she signed what she believed to be a temporary non-ward foster care agreement. According to reports she did not have access to a lawyer and was told by her CCAS social worker that she must sign the document if she wanted to keep her son. She allegedly later discovered that the agreement to short-term non-ward care had been terminated without her consent or knowledge.
24. Also in June 1978, Lilli Corhonen, then aged 15, reportedly suffered similar psychological and physical abuse while in the Women’s College Hospital giving birth to her child. After the birth, the delivering doctor reportedly decided to “punish” her by shoving her hand into Ms. Corhonen’s womb and punching it a number of times. This incident was reportedly not recorded, and the hospital allegedly denies that it happened. It is reported that when she tried to complain she was insulted and told that no one would believe her.
25. According to information received, Ms. Corhonen and Ms. Henderson wrote to Women’s College Hospital in 2000 and again in April 2001 to reiterate their complaints about the abuse. The hospital reportedly claimed that there was no evidence of any abuse and that it was too late to carry out an investigation.
According to Cathy Henderson, there are many more victims of the dead baby scam. In Ontario, the ADR (Adoption Disclosure Register) will not help a family that has published a complaint about them, limiting the number of mothers willing to go public. An earlier incorrect version of this paragraph said that the UN bullied the mothers in this way. Her exact statement was:
If the ADR finds out you complain about them, they will NOT look for your family as a form of punishment. That is why there are only 3 names published – they are friends of mine which I managed to persuade to do so.
Dr Daniel Glick was disciplined by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario for fees charged for hypnotherapy. There is no record of action on the dead baby incidents.
http://www.cpso.on.ca/Publications/Discsum/1994/disc94.07.htm#Dr.%20Daniel%20Glick
A UN Report from the Committee on the Rights of the Child (in pdf) dated October 27, 2003 supports a statist agenda for the protection of children. Nowhere does it suggest helping children by strengthening the rights of their parents. Ontario is one of the offending provinces in the following paragraphs suggesting open records, a measure favored by reformers of all points of view:
http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/898586b1dc7b4043c1256a450044f331/995a15056ca61d16c1256df000310995/$FILE/G0344648.pdf
Adoption
30. The Committee is encouraged by the priority accorded by the State party to promoting the Hague Convention on the Protection of Children and Cooperation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption of 1993 in Canada and abroad. However, the Committee notes that while adoption falls within the jurisdiction of the provinces and territories, the ratification of the Hague Convention has not been followed up by legal and other appropriate measures in all provinces. The Committee is also concerned that certain provinces do not recognize the right of an adopted child to know, as far as possible, her/his biological parents (art. 7).
31. The Committee recommends that the State party consider amending its legislation to ensure that information about the date and place of birth of adopted children and their biological parents are preserved and made available to these children. Furthermore, the Committee recommends that the Federal Government ensure the full implementation of The Hague Convention on the Protection of Children and Cooperation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption of 1993 throughout its territory.
Posted by Dufferin VOCA.
This whole Canadian debate on abortion issue in my humble opinion is completely detached from Canadian reality and if Canadian women continue to turn bind eye to real problems connected with abortion they run a real risk of creating virtual war in Canada over issue of fertility.
If we skip for a moment moral argument of fetus’s right to life and concentrate on issue of women health, fertility and long term well being current state of affairs regarding abortion is still unsustainable.
First of all; contrary to all assurances offered by medical community abortion is not a procedure that is totally health risk free. We are still not so sure that abrupt hormonal changes following abortion are not causing some long term health damage. Psychological damage suffered by a women undergoing abortion procedure cannot be swept aside as easily as psychiatrists would lead us to believe. Actual abortion procedure carries with it an inherent risk of infertility due to scarring of uterus, scarring and plugging of fallopian tubes and other medical variables.
Risks of botched abortion performed in hospital setting are very real in Ontario and one just have to read up on medical career of Butcher of Scarborough Dr. Richard Austin to realise that medical community is more interested in protecting their own members than to protect patients.
http://www.thestar.com/News/article/203058
Whole concept of abortion as a means of delaying procreation and pregnancy to more opportune time in woman’s life is by itself very debatable proposition as passage of time is increasing risks of contracting sexually transmitted disease like Chlamydia is robbing women of fertility, diminishing fertility due to age, and increasing risk of genetic defects of a child and having a child too late in woman’s life to be able to raise it properly.
Infertility in Europe has already reached epidemic proportion and it can safely be assumed that North American population suffers similar fate.
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/jun/05062104.html
Currently about one in eight women in the United States had difficulty getting pregnant and carrying a baby to term in 2002, according to the National Center for Health Statistics.
http://environmentalism.suite101.com/article.cfm/causes_of_infertility_mysterious
This escalating number of infertile women is putting enormous stress on ever expanding adoption industry. Children’s Aid Societies in Ontario have long ago transformed themselves from protectors of abandoned and neglected children into suppliers of adoptable babies legally stolen form economically disadvantaged (often single) mothers. This “best known Ontario secret” of children being routinely stolen at maternity wards got some public attention recently due to latest incident where newborn child was snatched from Sudbury hospital.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071101.wamberalert1101/BNStory/National/home
Reports of baby snatching in Ontario maternity wards abound and can be read in post #198 at this link;
http://boards.aetv.com/thread.jspa?threadID=300012892&start=195
Actually the news baby snatching in Ontario maternity wards made it all thy way into UN Report on Violence against Women in Canada, see above post.
This very lucrative and very socially damaging practice of baby snatching and baby selling leads to a situation where young women in Canada are chosing abortion rather than run a risk of having their child stolen by CAS in maternity ward and subsequently be labelled for life as an unfit mother.
With recent legislative push in Ontario to introduce organ harvesting without donor’s consent and prices for healthy Caucasian newborn exceeding $50000.00 paid in cash under the table one can expect that mortality rates among young and poor single mothers following delivery of a baby will soon be on the rise.
In short one woman’s convenience of having an abortion might turn out to be other women’s “cause of death” right after labour when she foolishly decides to carry her pregnancy to full term give birth and refuse to surrender her child to baby snatchers.
—– Original Message —–
From: KAROL KAROLAK
To:Undisclosed recepients
Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2007 11:10 PM
Subject: It flew like a ton of bricks,Re: “Parents win right to grow babies for ‘spare parts'”
Ban non-medical human cloning, UN says
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071111.wclone1111/BNStory/Science/home
Reuters
November 11, 2007 at 1:19 PM EST
OSLO — The world should quickly ban cloning of humans and only exceptions allow only for strictly controlled research to help treat diseases such as diabetes or Alzheimer’s, a UN study said on Sunday.
Without a ban, experts at the UN University’s Institute of Advanced Studies said that governments would have to prepare legal measures to protect clones from “potential abuse, prejudice and discrimination.”
“A legally binding global ban on work to create a human clone, coupled with freedom for nations to permit strictly controlled therapeutic research, has the greatest political viability of options available,” the study said.
“Whichever path the international community chooses it will have to act soon – either to prevent reproductive cloning or to defend the human rights of cloned individuals,” said A.H. Zakri, head of the Institute, which is based in Yokohama, Japan.
Almost all governments oppose human cloning and more than 50 have legislation outlawing cloning. But negotiations about an international ban collapsed in 2005 because of disagreements over research cloning, also known as therapeutic cloning.
Research cloning can produce tissues that are a perfect genetic match of a person and so help grow cells to treat diseases such as strokes, spinal injuries, diabetes, Parkinson’s or Alzheimer’s, according to the study, which was made available in Oslo.
The United Nations in 2005 agreed on a non-binding declaration to ban human cloning but left many ambiguities.
“The declaration in itself is not an adequate response,” said Brendan Tobin, an author of the study from the National University of Ireland. “This has left us in a situation where maverick scientists can carry on with their research and that is likely to lead to an eventual cloning.”
The authors said laws should grant clones full human rights to protect them from discrimination.
Otherwise, opponents of clones in an inheritance dispute, for instance, might say that a clone and the person from whom their cells were grown should only get a half share each.
“In the same way as an identical twin is an individual, a clone would be an individual,” Dr. Tobin said.
The report noted that clones have been made of mice, sheep, pigs, cows and dogs and that U.S. researchers last year achieved the first cloning of a primate – a rhesus monkey embryo cloned from adult cells and then grown to generate stem cells.
It said that national bans on cloning could be skirted since researchers could simply move elsewhere.
“Disgraced South Korean medical researcher Woo Sook Hwang, whose human clone claims were unsubstantiated, reportedly continues his work in Thailand,” the UN study said.
—– Original Message —–
From: KAROL KAROLAK
To: Undisclosed recepients
Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2007 4:28 PM
Subject: Re: Parents win right to grow babies for ‘spare parts’
I am afraid that British are heading to no-man’s-land with this one.
Cheers,
Karol
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,22738309-401,00.html?from=public_rss