56 Replies to “A Mother Needs A Girl Like A Fish Needs A Bicycle”

  1. Sweden has a long way to go to catch up to China which has 100 million more men than women due to its one child policy. Once you allow a women’s right to choose why can’t she choose to get rid of the baby because it’s the wrong sex or has the wrong hair color?

  2. This has been quite legal in the US for decades; in fact, Congressman Trent Franks (R-AZ) recently introduced a bill to ban it. (http://www.lifenews.com/nat4950.html)
    It’s technically illegal in China, although widely practiced; in India, it’s illegal – even determining gender through ultrasound is illegal there – but of course not unknown.
    Contrary to popular belief, abortion laws in Europe (and much of the rest of the world) tend to be stricter than in Canada and the US. (Hard to imagine how they could be much more lenient.) This is likely because they’re they result from democratic process rather than judicial fiat.

  3. This boggles the mind. Really, so now being female a genetic defect?
    There might be some legitimate reasons for abortion (and after much soul searching), but this is a new depth that progressives have sunk to. I don’t know why she just didn’t go down to the sperm bank and get an order of male swimmers to go.

  4. 1) The female/male birth ratio in India significantly lower than the natural ratio, i.e. there is plenty evidence for gender based abortions there too. (See e.g. Amartya Sen – The Argumentative Indian)
    2) I don’t think China misses 100 million women, I believe this number stems from Amartya Sen’s global estimate (i.e. incl China, India, and some other countries).
    3) Of course the Swedish conclusion is absolutely correct. Either abortion is generally allowed or it is not. If it is allowed, then the rationale has no relevance.
    4) The interesting observation is instead that, to a large extent, it seems the that many people who favour abortion rights, oppose gender based abortions. Which sounds like an illogical and hypocritical position to take.

  5. ‘Good headline, Kate.
    So, another frivolous reason to have “the right” to an abortion. Any way you cut it (sorry for the pun), whether it’s a boy or a girl, we’ve aborted over 2.5 million babies in Canada since abortion became “a woman’s right to choose.” (Of course, fathers of these babies have been totally cut out of the equation.)
    That’s a lot of children and, BTW, a lot of jobs down the drain. When you connect the dots, it’s not difficult to see why we’re closing schools, why new teachers aren’t being hired, why we’re bringing in destabilizing numbers of immigrants.
    In so many ways, we are the authors of our own destruction. Kyrie Eleison.

  7. So if there it is discovered that there is a gene that causes homosexuality would aborting pregnacies if the feteus was found to have that gene be okay?
    Would the same lobby groups that are cheering this decision cheer that outcome or would they picket physicians who perform them for that reason ( or would they lobby to cut off their public funding? – would they call it a holocaust?)

  8. Canadian law on abortion:
    1) It is homicide to perform a “partial birth abortion” unless done to save the life of the mother.
    2) It is also homicide if a person causes injuries to an unborn child and the child dies from those injuries after it is born.
    3) It is illegal to supply a drug intended to procure a miscarriage. This is not homicide, but an offence for which one is liable to imprisonment for up to two years.
    4) It is homicide to kill a child once it is fully born.
    There are no other regulations. Therefore, by elimination,
    5) It is legal to kill an unborn child anytime before the mother has started giving birth.

  9. “So, another frivolous reason to have ‘the right’ to an abortion.”
    Eh? If you want to walk around talking about pink unicorns, is that “another frivolous reason to have ‘the right’ to free speech”?
    Rights are rights – we don’t go around accumulating reasons for them, we simply exercise them in whichever way we see fit.
    “When you connect the dots, it’s not difficult to see why we’re closing schools, why new teachers aren’t being hired, why we’re bringing in destabilizing numbers of immigrants.”
    We’re not closing schools, new teachers are being hired all the time, and the immigration rate has remained more-or-less constant relative to population growth since the 1800’s. The only serious blip was an increase in the immigration rate … in the 1960’s. During that period Canada was taking in almost half a million immigrants per year, despite having a population of between 17 and 21 million. In 2007, on the other hand, we took in half as many immigrants, despite having a population of 33 million. So, in other words, you’re wrong on every single count.
    “That’s a lot of children and, BTW, a lot of jobs down the drain.”
    It’s also a lot of prevented welfare abuse, robberies, rapes, and homicides. Of course, none of that has anything to do with the issue at hand. Your entire argument is a giant red herring.

  10. So if there it is discovered that there is a gene that causes homosexuality would aborting pregnacies if the feteus was found to have that gene be okay?
    As a pro-lifer, no it wouldn’t be okay. It’s never okay to abort someone because their inconvenient, unplanned, or disabled.
    And – here in the US – an old Law & Order episode alludes to this very thing. Wrote about it here:
    http://moderncommentaries.blogspot.com/2008/01/law-and-order.html

  11. Imagine if there was a reliable test to determine if your child was going to grow up (gasp) conservative.
    Get working on it Lefties. Even if the test is unreliable, your friendly “professional” journalists in the MSM will help spin the lie as truth. Those who try to tell the truth about the test will be marginalized as “deniers”.

  12. ^ So if there it is discovered that there is a gene that causes homosexuality would aborting pregnacies if the feteus was found to have that gene be okay?
    Absolutely delicious.

  13. In BC they will not tell you the sex of the baby. That is policy. Of course, the East Indians go down to Washington State and get told down there.
    Generally, if you are white they will broadly hint if you want to know. Who is to say what happens if they have a fellow East Indian tech running the ultrasound or you go to one of the private ultrasound clinics.
    Experienced this with my wife. Everyone gets inconvenienced and plays the games because there is no real debate on the subject of abortion.

  14. I believe Kate had a headline or quip that stated the day after they find a gene linked to homosexuals, all homosexuals will be pro-life.
    It’s amusing to see leftards twisting their hierarchy of victimhood and rights when they contradict.
    Either you have “the right to choose” or you don’t. It’s a bit rich to say that you have the right to chose UNLESS I disapprove of your choice.
    If you have the right to kill your unborn child, you have the right to kill your unborn daughter, your unborn homosexual…
    Funny how “feminists” claim the right to death but demand life.
    Personally, I figure anyone who would have an abortion should get one. Makes for a better gene pool. That said, abortion is one of the root causes of our society’s impending demise.

  16. History says. A good old war can cut these numbers back significantly. Just had this debate.

  17. Alex, while (as a pro-lifer) I agree with your logic (I think abortion should be forbidden always, except to save the mother’s life), your stats on immigration are inaccurate.
    Annual immigration to Canada peaked at 400,870 in 1913; within two years, the number fell by over 90% (World War I). Since the 1800s, the rate has not been “more or less constant”, but has varied wildly – by a factor of 50, even more relative to population. There was no “serious blip” in the 1960s – there were fewer immigrants in the 1960s than in the 1950s or 1970s, and the peak postwar immigration year was 1957 (282,164).
    “So, in other words, you’re wrong on every single count.”
    http://www4.hrsdc.gc.ca/.3ndic.1t.4r@-eng.jsp?iid=35

  18. PabloNH
    Immigration has never been the issue. What has changed is the class of immigrant.
    It used to be that the vast majority of immigrants were economic class. We now have 30k “refugees” the majority of whose very first act in Canada is fraud. We also have more “family” class than economic class now and the definition of which has been expanded to absurdity.
    In other words, the quality of immigrant has plunged into the toilet.
    I have zero problem with economic immigration as you have to prove yourself worthy. Family and refugees basically prove themselves otherwise unworthy. I’d like to drastically loosen economic class and drastically tighten the deadbeat classes. Family should be restricted to spouse and dependent children only.

  19. These people are descendants of Vikings…fearsome raiders and the scourge of Northern Europe?!?

  20. “These people are descendants of Vikings…fearsome raiders and the scourge of Northern Europe?!?”
    Ancient history.
    The guy who stopped the muslims from taking over Europe (Charles Martel) was French. Times change.

  21. Warwick, you seem to infer that I was taking some position on immigration. I wasn’t; I was merely correcting Alex’s stats.

  22. At least they’re consistant.
    If you’re willing and acting on the impulse to kill your baby, does it really matter why? Is a really bad reason better than no reason at all(convenience)?
    As if there is a right reason (apart from medical abortions).

  23. For the record I’m opposed to abortion; there is NO “right to choose”; it’s a Big Lie. Now, let’s consider the following as food for thought:
    There have been (unsubstantiated) claims that homosexuals are born that way. Then let them isolate the gene, if any, and allow women to have fetal tests done to determine whether the baby is a homosexual.
    Then allow the woman to terminate it if it is and if she doesn’t want a homosexual child.
    Fair’s fair. Murdering babies for being female is equal in morality and ethics to murdering them for being anything else. Including, yes, inconvenient truth be told, for being homosexual.
    This is what we should bring up in discussions with Leftists on this topic. If they think it’s fine to kill babies and fine to kill them because they’re female or whatever, then tell the Leftists that it’s also fine to kill them for being homosexual.
    Can of worms. Wide open. Leftists opened it.

  25. Pablo
    All good.
    I was the one making a comment on immigration. It was meant as a general comment, not a refutation.

  26. A good friend of mine and his wife went to the doc in BC for a regular pregnancy checkup and they did tests and determined the baby had a very high chance of downes. The doctor recommended they abort.
    Thank God my friend is anti-abortion and said no, they now have a beautiful 2nd girl who is healthy with no downes.
    That being said, even if the baby has downes, he would still not of aborted, nor would I. Abortion is wrong period. You can argue reasons all day long, but it doesn’t matter, a human life is a human life, life that was created. I will never back down on this issue.
    I have 2 kids and 1 more on the way, and I’m grateful I’m blessed with my kids, being a father is the greatest job in the world. Shame on anyone who would murder a baby.
    That’s my rant for the day, I make no apologies for my hardline stance.

  27. “Annual immigration to Canada peaked at 400,870 in 1913”
    Emigration also peaked about the same time, with almost as many people leaving the country as coming into it. Instead of relying on graphs, check the stats here:
    http://www40.statcan.gc.ca/l01/cst01/demo03-eng.htm?sdi=immigration
    You’re right though – the peak I was referring to wasn’t “in the 60’s”, but between ’65 and ’75. So technically I was wrong on that point, since I got the dates wrong. Main points still stand, though:
    1. The immigration rate is not significantly higher now that the historical average. If you adjust for population numbers, the rate is actually quite low.
    2. The entire argument is a red herring anyway.
    Thanks for making me re-check my sources, though. The original numbers I had were significantly different.
    To get back on topic, though:
    Homosexuality isn’t genetic, as far as we know, so isolating a “gay gene” is extremely unlikely. If it were to happen, though, the same criteria would apply. It’s only in the minds of ultra-conservative Christians that the existence of such a gene would pose a problem for either the pro-choice lobby or the homosexual community. The question at hand is whether a woman has a right to have an abortion. Her motivations for having that abortion are irrelevant. You’re creating an issue where none exists.

  28. It’s only in the minds of ultra-conservative Christians that the existence of such a gene would pose a problem for either the pro-choice lobby or the homosexual community.
    Yeah, sure. Believe whatever’s most convenient and makes you feel most comfortable. Create the myth inside your head.
    But if you’re right, then the Left and the h.s. community wouldn’t raise cain if a “Planned Parenthood” murder factory were to open and offer genetic screening for homosexuality… Right, sure, they wouldn’t care about that. Sure.
    I don’t think you understand either Christians, conservatives, Leftists or homosexuals at all.
    Of course, no such issue currently exists. But it’s a wholly legitimate, valid thought experiment.
    You’re saying that the Left and the h.s. community wouldn’t have a problem with pre-birth genocide against homosexuals, with a campaign to wipe out the homosexual gene, cause the extinction of homosexuals? Ok, then, let it be your position.

  29. It’s only in the minds of ultra-conservative Christians that the existence of such a gene would pose a problem for either the pro-choice lobby or the homosexual community.
    Really?
    As I linked above in a comment, an episode of Law & Order basically covered this exact same question. I hardly think the writers or producers are a bunch of “ultra-conservative Christians” and they came up with this plot.
    Then answer me this: If it’s okay to abort a baby because she’s female, or because she has a disability, would it be okay to abort a baby because she might be a lesbian? Why or why not?

  30. “You’re saying that the Left and the h.s. community wouldn’t have a problem with pre-birth genocide against homosexuals, with a campaign to wipe out the homosexual gene, cause the extinction of homosexuals?”
    Absolutely. Oh some might complain a bit, but just give them the option of screening their own children for the straight gene, the bad-fashion-sense gene, and the Christian gene, and they’ll be happy campers.
    “Of course, no such issue currently exists. But it’s a wholly legitimate, valid thought experiment.”
    Hardly. A valid thought experiment would involve a situation which is at least plausible. For instance, when you say “abortion should be illegal”, I say “How long should we imprison the mother, or should it be a capital offense?”. THAT is a valid thought experiment. Your little blurb is simply irrelevant.

  31. Well, Alex, I’ve got news for you.
    There is NOT a “right” to an abortion.
    It is a Big Lie.
    Can you prove otherwise?
    Rights can only be in the BNA ACT, the Constitution Act and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, you see. If something isn’t mentioned by any of them, then it’s NOT a right. It’s impossible for it to be.
    And a judge saying that something is “not illegal” does NOT create a “right”.
    Otherwise, everything that isn’t illegal is therefore a right.
    Try to think.
    Abortion is NOT a “right”.
    It simply isn’t criminally prosecuted at this time. That’s all. That doesn’t make it a “right”, though you may delude yourself into thinking that just because a lot of folks say it is, then it must therefore be.

  32. CDN Sentinel,
    It ins’t technically a right because the supreme leaders, er, court hasn’t had to make it one yet.
    Give them time and an excuse…

  33. That wouldn’t make it a right, either. A judge, not even the SCOC, can make something a “right”. It’s impossible, as our Constitution does not permit judges to make rights.
    Creating a new right would require changing the Constitution/Charter.
    Only the procedures outlined by these precise documents for changing the Constitution or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms can possibly end up in a new right.
    Those who say that the Constitution/Charter can be changed without following the proper procedures, well, if they want to say that we can do stuff that deviates from the Constitution/Charter as written, then they would have to drop their opposition to Senate reform and stop saying it’s “unconstitutional” to reform the Senate without scrupulously following the proper Constitutional procedures. What a pickle the Political Left has gotten itself into!

  34. Alex, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt: I was trying to come up with a number that was somewhere close to “half a million”. If you want to use net immigration, your assertions about “more or less constant” and “half a million immigrants a year” are even more wildly inaccurate than they first appeared. And, according to your link, both the 1950s and 1970s had more net immigration than the 1960s, as I stated.
    And, no, I didn’t rely on graphs – there are actual (annual) numbers on the page I linked.
    Back on topic – what we’re doing here is pointing out the hypocrisy of the left. Just as with free speech (unless it’s “hate speech”), we believe it obvious that many of them feel at least conflicted about the “right” when it comes to exterminating members of favored groups – which is a little ironic given the roots of the abortion-rights movement in eugenics.

  35. “our Constitution does not permit judges to make rights.”
    That’s never stopped them before. The SCC has “read in” many things into the constitution that were never there and not intended to be.
    A “right” in Canada is loosely defined as whatever the SCC says is a right – regardless of that underused piece of parchment we all mistakenly believe means something.
    Of course, that’s why I can’t stand any lawyers in general and outright hate and despise the SCC napoleon tyrants.

  36. “Can you prove otherwise?”
    Well since your idea of proof seems to be simple assertions, I sure can! Here goes: There is no right to be born. It’s a lie.
    See how easy that was? Now I’m just like you!
    “Otherwise, everything that isn’t illegal is therefore a right.”
    That’s pretty much exactly right. The only country that’s actually done it properly is the US – their constitution gives the government power and reserves all other rights for the people, instead of the other way around. Technically you’re right about Canada – the only rights we have is the ones which are defined in the Charter. However, if you see that as a GOOD thing, you’ve got serious issues. Freedom is inherent in the human condition – I don’t give a damn what our government says about it.
    Pablo:
    “If you want to use net immigration, your assertions … are even more wildly inaccurate than they first appeared”
    Yes, I know. My initial source was wildly inaccurate. I thought I made that clear already.
    “Back on topic – what we’re doing here is pointing out the hypocrisy of the left.”
    Sorry to tell you, but you’ve failed miserably. All you’ve done is create strawmen and make some arguments based on an appeal to emotion.
    “Just as with free speech … we believe it obvious that many of them feel at least conflicted about the “right” when it comes to exterminating members of favored groups”
    You could well be right, but you’ve done nothing to prove that. You’ve simply made an assumption, and then proceeded to construct a strawman.
    Out of curiosity, I posed the question to a gay friend of mine on MSN just now. He said he wouldn’t particularly care. He just wants to carry on living his life without having fanatics trying to control him. If homosexuality is eradicated in all future generations, what difference would that make to him?
    Now, a poll of a single person isn’t exactly a scientific way of studying the situation, but it does show that at least one gay individual refuses to conform to your stereotypes. Go out and do your own research before making foolish assumptions.

  37. If we’re going to allow abortions for some reasons and not others I would like to add “Spite” to the list of acceptable reasons.

  38. Unless my memory is failing me, I recall seeing a copy of “The Advocate” (gay magazine) in whatever bookstore would have been current 20 years ago in Vancouver, with a headline like “The Gay Gene?”, which thoroughly discussed what would happen if it was discovered, and how bad it would be for the gay community because of the likelihood for abortions in these cases.
    As for penalties for abortion: as long as I’ve run around in pro-life circles, which is 20-some years now, there’s never been serious discussion of penalties for the woman. The preferred approach seems to be to simultaneously provide supports to the mother (including things like accurate medical information pertaining to her child’s development), as well as penalties for the abortionist (such as medical decertification, possibly jail time, etc). As a related aside, I find it doubtful that Morgenthaler would have gone free with his jury trials if his defence counsel hadn’t been allowed to remove average pro-life Canadians from serving on the jury.

  39. Alex, abortion was legalised in this country in 1969 (currently, there are no restrictions on abortion). This site reports on incidences of family violence in Canada as recent as 2004:
    http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/pi/fv-vf/about-aprop/index.html
    Even if someone was to believe the utterly ridiculous notion that violent crime or homosexuality was innate, you still couldn’t excuse abortion.
    And yes, schools are being closed, the population level in this country is stabilised by the presence of immigrants who will not assimilate and entire generations are lost.

  40. Alex,
    I agree with you about freedom being the natural disposition of human beings, the government be damned when they say the contrary. However, the right to life is the fundamental right in all human rights codes, and seems so philosophically fundamentally true that it’s hard to go further without agreeing to this premise.
    The argument less about having a ‘right to be born’ than it is about not being arbitrarily deprived of the right to life without due process.
    Of course, whether the unborn fit into the category of human beings is the next place to take the debate. Scientifically, I don’t see how it’s disputable that the unborn can be anything but unique human beings. I guess I’m open to arguments, but I suspect it’ll get philosophical rather than scientific.

  41. Alex –
    “Yes, I know. My initial source was wildly inaccurate. I thought I made that clear already.”
    No, you told me I shouldn’t rely on graphs.
    Okay, if this is just a straw man – why is there a law against gender-selection abortion (the original topic) in BC? Why was there (apparently) also one in Sweden? Are those both bastions of hypocritical right-wing Christianity? Why is this news at all if it’s not provocative?
    Now, remembering that I agreed with your original point (that the reason for having an abortion is irrelevant), it’s clear from every poll on abortion that circumstances (from gender selection to rape) inform opinion enormously. There are a great many people who think abortion should be allowed under some (extraneous) circumstances, and not others, and that has resulted in selective restriction. It’s not a great leap to wonder what might happen if/when other groups are targeted.
    And, no, I don’t have to prove anything – except that this is an interesting topic for discussion – i.e., a thought experiment.

  42. “Of course, whether the unborn fit into the category of human beings is the next place to take the debate.”
    Not really. You’re right, a fetus is unquestionably a unique organism, and it is human. The debate isn’t over classification, but over rights. Just like your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins, so the life of what is essentially an unaware, parasitic organism, cannot trump the rights of the individual in whom it is growing. The only real question is where to set the cut-off line.
    As to your earlier comment about penalties for abortion … are you seriously advocating creating a criminal category in which the primary perpetrator cannot be punished?
    Go on, pull the other one!

  43. And, speaking of straw men: “How long should we imprison the mother, or should it be a capital offense?”

  44. There is obviously a right to life for all human beings. Even Leftists believe so- they refuse to allow the death penalty for the most horrible humanoid monsters, ergo they believe that all human beings have a right to life, except, interestingly, those who haven’t yet been born, though all human life does obviously, undeniably (except by Leftists practicing their special guiding doctrine of convenience) begin at conception.
    Odd, that. All human beings have a right to life, except… Hmm… how do they justify it? By simply saying, “women have a ‘right to choose'”. But the problem with this is that they believe that there is a right to choose to commit murder, and only in the case of abortion. Something is not logical here.
    Leftists pick and choose rights. This is wrong, as, then, rights will not be equal. And rights will conflict. And this destroys the Left’s claim to believe in “equal rights for all”.
    Conflict between rights. Think about this. Why is it that Leftists get away with saying that the “right to choose” (to murder certain human beings) trumps the right to life, which they obviously believe in, as I’ve established above?
    Leftists keep on self-contradicting according to what’s convenient to them and according to peer pressure from their ideological community.
    Leftists have contorted themselves into impossible positions with this conflicting of rights.
    Leftists believe that rights have a hierarchy.
    There’s clearly something wrong with Leftists. They’re clearly mentally-disordered and their ethical and moral compasses are broken or at least malfunctioning under specific conditions.
    No wonder I, and millions and millions more folks, totally reject the Leftist philosophy.

  45. I am white, my wife is white and most likely if we have a son, he will also be white. I am curious since that white males are absolute evil these days, should we seek to abort if we are met with the unfortunate event that we fertilize one of these demons?
    We have a white daughter, but she is okay since she runs the chance of becoming a “liberated” women. Hopefully someone will stop me before she takes on my religious views.

  46. shit , it’s too bad a child in the womb isn’t called what it is. a child in the womb. do these pro abortion people never look at an ultrasound. goes ta show ya stupid is still stupid.

  49. btw, my opinion on abortion:
    I believe that abortion is another word for killing an unborn baby. That being said, I don’t believe I have the right to prevent any woman from any surgery or ingesting something; and, if I did have the right, it would be unenforceable. The problem with the non-existent debate has been eluded to by others. The conflict of ideals the left experience with this issue forces them to redefine the debate. Instead of the debate being: Is it okay to kill unborn babies? A false debate has replaced it, that debate being: Is a fetus a Human being or alive or whatever? This is a nonsensical argument, but since there isn’t an official debate(because it’s been settled) the credibility of the lefts argument isn’t questioned(officially).
    So what is my beef? My beef is how we Canadians sit on the fence(left and right). Is it so hard for Canadians to say: We kill unborn babies if a mother desires it because it’s her body? If these truly are our values, then there should be no shame in saying so.
    Btw Anne Coulter nailed Joy Beyhard(sp?) in a debate last week about water-boarding. Joy thought she’d use the argument that “would you like to be water-boarded?” To which Anne responded “would you like to have been aborted?” BoNNNNNNNNNGGGGGGGGG!

  50. The homosexual-baby angle was discussed above, so the following is perfectly appropriate…
    BREAKING:

    ‘Gay’ gene claim suddenly vanishes
    A publication from the American Psychological Association includes an admission that there is no “gay” gene, according to a doctor who has written about the issue on the website of National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality.
    (…)
    “Although there is no mention of the research that influenced this new position statement, it is clear that efforts to ‘prove’ that homosexuality is simply a biological fait accompli have failed,” Byrd wrote. “The activist researchers themselves have reluctantly reached that conclusion. There is no gay gene. There is no simple biological pathway to homosexuality.”

    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=97940
    The whole thing is a bloody interesting read.
    Perhaps the anti-“gay”-marriage Obama had something to do with it?

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation