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