Posted by  Anonymous, at 9:32 a.m.  

Alright, Whitelaw, let's throw down.

First off, this other friend seems to have been very misinformed about PP.

1) The condom thing. One of the many kinds of condoms that PP gives out was tested as unreliable (the Honeydew), and they no longer distribute it. Also, many individual PP clinics not only give away their own "brand", but also brands such as Trojans and Lifestyles. For free.

2) "Finally the third point made was that Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion company in the US (and the world), is in the business of making condoms."

Let's just count the number of things wrong with that sentence.
1 - Planned Parenthood is not a "company". It is a "non-profit organization", also known as a "charity".

Non-profit organizations exist not to make profit, but rather to perform some sort of public service. They may make profit, (much like Girl Guides and cookies) but those profits are funnelled back into fulfilling the mission of the organization. Any money that Planned Parenthood makes goes into subsidizing its services for low-income patients, and free condoms, and education, etc.

2 - Planned Parenthood is not merely an "abortion company". PP does provide lower-cost abortions than, say, a private clinic, yes, but as abortions in the States are not covered by health care as they are here, the person does have to pay out of pocket - but PP is not making profit off of it.

Moreover, PP provides health care of all kinds (including exams and medications for men and children) to patients who typically are low-income and pay either nothing or far lower than what the cost would be at a normal clinic or doctor's office. In fact, they actually provide pre-natal care for low-income persons who cannot afford a regular doctor.

In short, people are welcome to their opinions, of course - free country and all. But I cannot abide by people who base their opinions on the rhetoric of one group that is spreading misinformation.

Check your facts before you use them to form your opinions.

Furthermore - Why is suicide illegal? Mostly as a deterrant, traditionally. It's a curious law, but one that frankly, except through the most shallow of similarities, actually has nothing to do with the anti-choice movement.

As for your continued attack on people who've had one or more abortions in their life, circumstances are always more complicated than the simple "teenager had sex with her boyfriend and got pregnant." In instances of child abuse, for example, the young girl may be barred by the person abusing her to get birth control. Other cases would be cases of rape, allergic reactions to birth control and subsequent failure of condoms, and pure and simple bad luck. Though frankly, it's no one's business besides the woman in question as to why it's her second abortion, and no justification is needed.


Access to choice is not simply a one-shot deal; it's the continued right of a woman to decide what to do with her body. The law is a regulatory force, and is not there to act as "parents" who criminally punish people for their choices.

Posted by  Anonymous, at 10:57 a.m.  

Rachel makes the argument that abortion is a one-shot deal, the continued right of a woman to have control of her body.

The question should be asked "is a child growing inside a woman simply an extension of her body, a body part like a hand or foot?". Although the child is dependent on the mother, if you believe that he/she is a separate entity, then the woman makes the choice not to "cut off a finger" but to end the existence of another being.

The law is not there to "act as parents", but it does punish people for their choices when these choices cause harm to another human being. If you are of the view that a developing fetus is a human being, then abortion is a crime.

Posted by  Jon Whitelaw, at 11:24 a.m.  

Rachel, thanks for the response. I have not been up to date with the condom issue, but i have always been weary of Planned Parenthood. The track record of the company is horrible at best.

Examples of this would be
a) they have profits (about $36million on $810million in revenues), 4% return is better than any automotive company and about on par with what most oil companies are doing currently.
b) they are currently under investigation for withholding information in rape cases, allowing rapists to conceal their identity while young women's parents (legal guardians) are not notified of the procedure.
c) they have steadily been increasing abortions yearly from 165,000 a year to 245,000 a year in a span of 7 years. This is far greater than population growth and shows no signs of slowing.
d) Most ethnic communities dispise PP, look at what this site claims: Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in America. 78% of their clinics are in minority communities. Blacks make up 12% of the population, but 35% of the abortions in America. [Blacks] are the only minority in America that is on the decline in population. The founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, was a devout racist who created the Negro Project designed to sterilize unknowing black women and others she deemed as undesirables of society? The founder of Planned Parenthood said, "Colored people are like human weeds and are to be exterminated."

Sounds like a great organizatoin to me. :P Also, i have asked my friend to give input on this topic as we seem to all be pro-choice here, well except mm apparently, who is a good friend of mine. Also, i'd appreciate the term "pro-life" rather than anti-choice, as two can play with words...ie. Pro-fetus killing?

Posted by  Anonymous, at 1:55 p.m.  

“Rachel makes the argument that abortion is a one-shot deal”

Actually, no, I said it is not a one shot deal.

“the continued right of a woman to have control of her body.”

Yes.

”The question should be asked 'is a child growing inside a woman simply an extension of her body, a body part like a hand or foot?'. Although the child is dependent on the mother, if you believe that he/she is a separate entity, then the woman makes the choice not to 'cut off a finger' but to end the existence of another being. The law is not there to 'act as parents', but it does punish people for their choices when these choices cause harm to another human being. If you are of the view that a developing fetus is a human being, then abortion is a crime."

As I was telling Jon yesterday, there are actually a couple of different pro-choice philosophies on this. One, is that a fetus is not a person, or at least not an equivalent person due rights as is the fully-grown woman. I am, in fact, one of these people. The potential is there, but I do not believe they are equal. Acorns are not oak trees, and the woman’s rights do, in fact, take precedence.

However, even if we start with the premise that “life” starts with conception, it can be quite easily argued that abortion is still not out-and-out murder. You may want to read Judith Thomson’s “On Abortion” (1972) for a more in-depth study (though I admit, many of her analogies border on bizarre), but what it boils down to whether the fetus has the right to demand the use of the mother’s body. If you were hooked up, involuntarily, to another person, and told that you had to stay connected to them so they could use your body and organs to live (at risk to your own well being and hampering on your life), do they have the right to demand that? Sure, you would be very magnanimous in doing so, but you are also perfectly within your rights to decline the use of your own body for someone else. Ergo, choice. If you believe in carrying any pregnancy to term, go for it, but it is neither your nor the state’s decision to invade the functioning of a woman’s own body.

To turn it around on you, would you consider it appropriate for the state to take a stand on population control, and enforce sterilization? I don’t think you would. Granting the state the power to control an individual’s reproductive rights is a double edged sword.

“The track record of the company is horrible at best.”

Not a company.

"Examples of this would be

a) they have profits (about $36million on $810million in revenues), 4% return is better than any automotive company and about on par with what most oil companies are doing currently."

Are you expecting me to take that link seriously??? It’s from an ultra-right-wing group whose mission statement is: “To inform, equip, motivate, and support Christians; enabling them to defend and implement the Biblical principles on which our country was founded” by focusing on “the five key fronts of the modern-day culture war: (1) Religious Liberties, (2) the Sanctity of Life, (3) the Homosexual Agenda, (4) Pornography, and (5) Promoting Creationism.” Are you kidding me? That’s not an unbiased source at all.

As for the profits - there are not nearly enough PPs - especially in rural areas/states. How can they expand and offer more services (namely: birth control) without money? And if they were really in it for the profits, they wouldn't offer contraception (which prevents people from having to get abortions) on a sliding scale. Afterall, birth control pills (or Nuva ring, Depo, or Ortho-Evra) are always much cheaper and easier than an abortion.

"b) they are currently under investigation for withholding information in rape cases, allowing rapists to conceal their identity while young women's parents (legal guardians) are not notified of the procedure."

I have no problem with this. They are withholding information in deference to women's privacy. In an ideal world, parents should be aware and supportive of their daughters, but in reality, many could turn violent towards them. The only time PP is legally required to report anything is suspected child-abuse; otherwise doctor-patient confidentiality trumps anything else.

"c) they have steadily been increasing abortions yearly from 165,000 a year to 245,000 a year in a span of 7 years. This is far greater than population growth and shows no signs of slowing."

Well, this could be due to a number of reasons. The increased tendency under the Bush Administration to promote abstinence-only “education”, increasing ignorance and the unavailability of birth control, leads to more unwanted pregnancies and abortions.

Also, the American economy is deteriorating, and people who are increasingly having to work 2-3 jobs to get by may not see having a child under those circumstances as a viable, or responsible, option.

"d) Most ethnic communities dispise PP, look at what this site claims: Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in America. 78% of their clinics are in minority communities. Blacks make up 12% of the population, but 35% of the abortions in America. [Blacks] are the only minority in America that is on the decline in population."

First off? “Claims” would be the operative term there. Again, that site seems to be awfully “fringe”. “Black genocide”? “Genocide” would indicate systematic extermination like that of the Holocaust, or Rwanda, or Kosovo. Hyperbole, much? And one site does not support the idea that “most ethnic communities dispise [sic] PP.”

Also, the fact that African Americans are procuring more abortions than white has nothing to do with the proportion of blacks who are in poverty compared to whites. Nothing. After all, everyone can afford more children!

"d)The founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, was a devout racist who created the Negro Project designed to sterilize unknowing black women and others she deemed as undesirables of society? The founder of Planned Parenthood said, "Colored people are like human weeds and are to be exterminated."

From my understanding Sanger was a eugenicist, but not necessarily racist, insomuch as pretty much everyone at the time was racist. Basically, she was no more racist than her next-door neighbor, or anyone else. Eugenics was a popular movement at the time, but Nazi Germany and the civil rights movement convinced most people that maybe it wasn't such a hot idea. It seriously reflected the minds of people living in 1915, ugly as it was, but has absolutely nothing to do with the purpose of the organization nearly 100 years later.

Also, people still drive Fords even though Henry Ford admired Hitler, and apply for Rhodes Scholarships even though Rhodes was a racist.

"Sounds like a great organizatoin [sic] to me. :P"

Actually it is, as it is one of the few organizations in the United States that promotes safer sex, education, and responsible family planning.

And, finally:
"Also, i'd appreciate the term "pro-life" rather than anti-choice, as two can play with words...ie. Pro-fetus killing?"

The term “pro-life” is ridiculous, as it implies that people who advocate choice for women are anti-life, which is laughable. In fact, many (especially American) “pro-lifers” are also anti-affordable/universal health care, are pro-war, and pro-death-penalty, whereas I, in the pro-choice category, am for health care (which enriches and prolongs life), am against the thousands of deaths in Iraq and other war-torn areas of the world, and am against the death penalty. Ergo, I am both “pro-life” and “pro-choice”. The debate about abortion goes beyond simple life-death measures and involves state and religious intervention in the personal choice of a woman about her own body; therefore “anti-choice” is a much more accurate description than “pro-life”.

Posted by  Anonymous, at 2:27 p.m.  

(Furthermore)

I ran claim "A)" by an accountant, and got the following response:

"A - they have profits. I'm an accounting geek, and this strikes me as a problematic claim.

First, "non-profit" does not have to mean "operating in the red" or even "breaking even and nothing but." The idea of a non-profit is that profits are used to further the charitable work of the organization, not that there should never be any profits at all.

Second, PP, like many non-profit organizations, accepts donations. Donations aren't "revenues", strictly speaking. Revenues are generally defined as money taken in exchange for goods and services. Donations hit the organization's income statement anyway, and contribute to the bottom line, but the fact that PP took in more than they spent this year does not mean that they're making money on the services they offer.

Third, the comparison to automotive and oil companies is pretty suspicious. Thanks to the current state of the economy, a lot of car and oil companies have had bad years recently. An examination of their financial statements over the last ten years would likely reveal that they usually do better than 4% (if they did not, in fact, do so this year), and that Planned Parenthood picks up lots of donations in election years."

Also, upon further research, it's highly questionable as to whether Sanger ever made the "weeds" comment at all.

Posted by  Jon Whitelaw, at 3:04 p.m.  

Rachel, i deleted the double post you had made, i hope this is ok. I really don't want to take up the pro-life, anti-fetus killing (or whatever you want to call it) side. I have requested someone who is more of an expert on this topic than i, someone who has really opened my eyes to a whole new legitimate enlightened view. This person will be posting within the next day. As not to defend an issue i don't fully support, i will leave it at that and comment on the replies to my message.

a) Just because the source is something you don't agree with doesn't mean you shouldn't consider the content. You do that all the time? My original post was about accepting and respecting people's views, not try to write-off intelligent people as being wrong or unjust. If they were doing such a great job offering contraceptives and educating, shouldn't their abortion rates be declining? Education accounts for a mere 5% of total spending. How many of these centres do you think the US needs? They currently have 900.

b)Wiki states that "The group vehemently opposes requiring parental consent or notification for underage girls to have an abortion.". So it's an organization that advocates family values, but only when sex isn't an issue. Maybe PP can invest in a clinic next to every elementary school in the country.

c)I wonder who was in power from 1996-2000? Oh right - Clinton, he must have been the cause of the increases then as well, with his deteriorating economy. If what you are saying is true and PP is distributing more birth control, the number of abortions should be going down. Blaming Bush for the drastic increase of abortions over the decades is beyond me. Correct me if i'm wrong but aren't birthrates of poor whites and hispanics high? This issue proposed is very serious, do you not have any reasons for the 78% of PP centres in minority comunities (only 30% of the population).

d)I do agree that racism was rabid and we must just accept it for what it was. Unfortunately your date of 1915 is off by almost 2 decades, try not to skew the numbers in your favor.

Most pro-lifers do not advocate war or regressive health coverage and benifits. I don't know if you have noticed this but in a two party (or more for that matter), people have to make concessions and vote for what they think is the most moral in their social/fiscal stance. This is not uncommon, 58% of liberal backbenchers will be voting against same sex marriage, there are many conservative members pro-choice (actually is a party value now) and there are pro-life liberal members.
The world is not all black and white as you like to think, most people are compassionate and caring individuals looking to help the world.

Posted by  Anonymous, at 4:38 p.m.  

No problem Jon, my computer was having trouble connecting to your site, thus the double post – would have deleted it myself, if I could have.

a) Just because the source is something you don't agree with doesn't mean you shouldn't consider the content.”

Actually, yes, it does. You may not realize this as much as an Arts student, who is warned at the beginning of every class assignment that “every troll under a bridge can run a website, and many do”, that the source is everything. Lies, damn lies, and statistics, after all. The more biased the source, the more lkely that the “facts” and “statistics” have been manipulated to support the agenda of the biased party.

Also, I didn’t refute the claim that PP makes “profits”, though not in the way you claim. The Red Cross also makes “profits”, as do many other NGOs and non-profits. Staying in the black, as I’ve said a million times before, is not a sign that they are out to encourage a raise in the number of abortions. That, in short, is crazy talk.

"If they were doing such a great job offering contraceptives and educating, shouldn't their abortion rates be declining? Education accounts for a mere 5% of total spending. How many of these centres do you think the US needs? They currently have 900.”

Well, as PP is a non-governmental organization with limited reach, that is under attack from nutso right-wingers like the site you linked to, its influence is limited. As I’ve said before, you might want to consider that the increase in government-mandated abstinence-only education in public schools might have more of a direct influence on young people than PP.

b)Wiki states that "The group vehemently opposes requiring parental consent or notification for underage girls to have an abortion.".

Yes. Of course. Seriously, what point of doctor/patient confidentiality are you not understanding? It is not up to PP to decide for the young woman to bring the parents in on the situation.

Let me put this in stark terms for you: in a number of fundamentalist cultures – most notably Islamic – women can be beaten or killed for having intercourse, even if they were raped, as it is seen as a dishonour to the family. Now, imagine a young girl from a family such as this is raped, or becomes pregnant, and theoretically PP forces her to get parental consent before they will perform an abortion. The girl is beaten or killed. Are you getting the picture yet? Is this getting through to you? There is always the possibility that there are extraneous circumstances in the girl’s life that prohibit her from being honest with her family in a matter of this sort, and sensitivity to this fact of life is the basis of their stance. And doctor/patient confidentiality is far from unique to PP.

“So it's an organization that advocates family values, but only when sex isn't an issue.”

What does that even mean? Do you understand the aims of PP at all? And it really depends on your definition of "family values", doesn't it?

”Maybe PP can invest in a clinic next to every elementary school in the country.”

Underage girls who are able to bear children are actually most likely to be in high school, perhaps middle school. And actually, yes, considering the information, or misinformation they are often getting through government programs, I think that would be an excellent idea.

"c) I wonder who was in power from 1996-2000? Oh right - Clinton, he must have been the cause of the increases then as well, with his deteriorating economy. If what you are saying is true and PP is distributing more birth control, the number of abortions should be going down."

Yeah, no.

From the linked article: “Once you embrace that truth — that the ideal number of abortions is zero —voters open their ears. They listen when you point out, as Clinton did, that the abortion rate fell drastically during her husband's presidency but has risen in more states than it has fallen under George W. Bush. I'm sure these trends have more to do with economics than morals, but that's the point. Once we agree that the goal is zero, we can stop asking which party yaps more about fighting abortion and start asking which party gets results."

Results, which have deteriorated under Bush and abstinence-only programs.

"Blaming Bush for the drastic increase of abortions over the decades is beyond me. Correct me if i'm wrong but aren't birthrates of poor whites and hispanics high?This issue proposed is very serious, do you not have any reasons for the 78% of PP centres in minority comunities (only 30% of the population)."

See above. Also, there are many reasons why birth rates remain high. Religion, personal beliefs, societal pressure, etc. People will have children if they want to. PP is not there to make that choice for them, so much as provide the alternative if they do not.

"d)I do agree that racism was rabid and we must just accept it for what it was. Unfortunately your date of 1915 is off by almost 2 decades, try not to skew the numbers in your favor."

Typo, sorry. Still, a long, long time ago.

"Most pro-lifers do not advocate war or regressive health coverage and benifits [sic]."

Actually, if we’re talking the States, the Republican platform is pretty much that. Individuals, of course, vary. But you’ll have to link to specifics to back up your claim as that all “pro-lifers” are against those things.

“I don't know if you have noticed this but in a two party (or more for that matter), people have to make concessions and vote for what they think is the most moral in their social/fiscal stance.

Well, I hate to say this, but, duh. It’s called politics. Seriously, Jon, I'm in politics. Who do you think you're talking to?

”This is not uncommon, 58% of liberal backbenchers will be voting against same sex marriage, there are many conservative members pro-choice (actually is a party value now) and there are pro-life liberal members.”

Depends which “conservative” party you’re referring to, as they differ from country to country. American or Canadian? And yes, as I’ve said before – individuals differ, but lobby groups and parties tend to coalesce around certain combinations of beliefs.

”The world is not all black and white as you like to think, most people are compassionate and caring individuals looking to help the world.”

Never said that at all. The world is nothing but shades of grey. The only absolute thing I’m arguing is that it is dangerous and illiberal to hand over decisions about reproductive rights to the government. And I would like to point out that people on the pro-life, “abortion is never an option” side aren’t exactly recognizing all those shades of grey themselves. And also point out that the people who work at PP, (and even those who go to PP for services) can also be considered compassionate and caring individuals looking to help the world.

I understand that most people on the pro-life side believe that they are doing a compassionate thing. But what they fail to realize is that it is a realm of personal morality upon which each person feels differently, that there is no easy answer, and that just because they personally don’t agree with it, it doesn’t make it a criminal offense, especially murder. If you believe it is wrong, have your child – no one is forcing you to abort it. But you cannot make that decision for anyone else.

Posted by  Amber, at 5:32 p.m.  

I don't understand how you people find the time for this!!!

Posted by  Jon Whitelaw, at 6:06 p.m.  

a)You support the information proposed in the site, good...that's all i needed to know. You said the profits go into building more facilities, how many more would you like to see? 900 is a lot; profits seem endless with this organization. Unfortunately they don't feel the need to invest more into education only forming 5% of their spending. Limited reach is an excuse, they had $40million in profits, education budget should be increased heavily if they feel Bush is ruining the country with his stance.

b)I support 100% doctor patient confidentiality, but how young is too young? Some women are in their preteens when they get pregnant, some strange guy brings her in and the parents do not deserve to know? I'd be interested if you post some information with regards to women being beaten when letting their parents know of an abortion. This is a trivial point and I think you know it. With 1,000,000 abortions performed a year, you should have no problem finding one or two if you think this is a widespread problem. I don't categorize family values as: a 13 year old girl getting raped, not telling her parents and after school have a medical operation. You truely think abortion clinics should go next to elementary/middle schools? Twisted.

c)If the ideal number of abortions is zero, then why does Hilary's state of New York have the second highest abortion rate in the country, almost double the national average. If you want to reduce the number of abortions, you could always take some notes from the red states, apparently their abortion rate is 54% LOWER than the blue states.
If the goal is no abortions, shouldn't you be embracing religion as it is helping the cause?

d)Long time ago? it was a decade after my grandfather was born! But if you think our seniors are a bunch of nutty racits, cuz it was the thing to do at the time, go right ahead.

The reason i mention the two parties as you seem to feel for some stange reason that if you vote for a party you support all their policies...rather crude comment i think. The canadian conservative party of canada is a pro-choice party. The rest i will leave to someone who actually is passionate about this issue, i am pro-choice and look forward to your comments in the next days.

Posted by  Jon Whitelaw, at 6:46 p.m.  

Amber: Yeah, i really don't have the time for this, nice of you to stop in to say hi. Keep checking out the blog, it won't all be abortion arguments ;)

Stef: Glad to see you are enjoying the argument, hopefully people are enjoying the chat and learning from it as well. Should keep an eye out over the next few days.

Posted by  Anonymous, at 7:37 p.m.  

Seriously, Jon, I’m beginning to think there is something wrong with your reading comprehension, or you are being purposely obtuse and/or are setting up straw-man arguments.

"a)You support the information proposed in the site, good...that's all i needed to know."

No. I said if the information that particular website provided was even accurate – which I don’t necessarily believe to be the case – and that PP has “profits” in that amount (which may not be so much profits, as donations), it even then does not support the preposterous theory that PP is actively trying to increase the number of abortions to make a profit. That is an absolutely ridiculous theory that I will never give credence to, and I do not, in any way, support the information given on that site. It’s a wing of right-wing propaganda, and it’s information is suspect at best.

"You said the profits go into building more facilities, how many more would you like to see? 900 is a lot; profits seem endless with this organization."

I said profits go back into the organization to promote its mission. This could mean more facilities, education, anything. It’s a broad organization with many subgoals. How they spend their “endless” profits (seriously debatable, it’s a non profit that relies on sliding-scale payment, volunteers, and donations) is up to them. If they see a need in a community to build another one, they should build one.

"Unfortunately they don't feel the need to invest more into education only forming 5% of their spending."

Since you seem unfamiliar with the basic purpose and activities of PP, I doubt you have the right to cast aspersions on their budgeting decisions. They may have more pressing matters to throw their money at, like health care for poor people. Education is part of their mission, but it is not it entirely. Education, you see, is actually the primary domain of government; and yes, they are failing, and if you personally believe they are not doing enough in education, perhaps you should drop them a line. However, I’m incredulous to find that you simultaneously denigrate their mission statement and accuse them of not doing enough to that same end.

"Limited reach is an excuse, they had $40million in profits, education budget should be increased heavily if they feel Bush is ruining the country with his stance."

Again, drop them a line. I’m sure PP would love to hear your opinion on how they ought to re-prioritize. You might also want to drop the Republican party a line at the same time, and suggest they allow PP volunteers into the schools to educate middle-and-high-school students.

"b)I support 100% doctor patient confidentiality, but how young is too young? Some women are in their preteens when they get pregnant, some strange guy brings her in and the parents do not deserve to know?

Then you don’t actually support doctor/patient confidentiality 100%. And PP is not Social Services; they are a health clinic that helps and educates the people who come to them. If the family in the above scenario has apparently done so little to actively discuss sex and birth control with their daughter in such a way that she does not feel comfortable discussing it with or involving them, then that’s their own problem, it’s neither PP’s fault, nor their place to intervene.

If in fact it was known that PP would tell the parents, that increases the likelihood of scared teenagers going to back-alley clinics to get their abortions.

And for someone who advocates the promotion “family values”, you certainly seem to put the onus of family communication on an outside organization to take the brunt of the responsibility in this matter.

"I'd be interested if you post some information with regards to women being beaten when letting their parents know of an abortion. This is a trivial point and I think you know it. With 1,000,000 abortions performed a year, you should have no problem finding one or two if you think this is a widespread problem. I don't categorize family values as: a 13 year old girl getting raped, not telling her parents and after school have a medical operation."

No, I don’t actually consider women being beaten and killed by their families for these kinds of matters a trivial point at all. It’s widespread in the Middle East, and to a lesser degree here. And a large part of that, I’m sure, is because women are guaranteed privacy if they go to a clinic such as PP. And while most situations are not as desperate as the one I described, many girls do get kicked out of their homes for getting “knocked up.” Family life is not always roses, and this would be especially likely in a situation where the girl is desperate for her family to not find out – a logical conclusion, no? Therefore, PP – and other health care clinics – require strict confidentiality, to ensure that scared girls come to a safe place, and to ensure their well-being afterwards.

"You truely [sic] think abortion clinics should go next to elementary/middle schools? Twisted."

PP’s are not primarily abortion clinics. (In fact, some PPs do not perform abortions in-house, but merely act as referral agents, depending on state law [i.e. Nevada].)PPs are first and foremost women’s-health organizations, the vast majority of the patients coming in for family planning services, which means birth control, not abortion.

Other services PP provides include:
prenatal care
cancer screenings (cervical, breast, and testicular)
male and female sterilization
colposcopy/cryotherapy
annual exams (including pap smears)
care for chronic conditions like diabetes and high blood pressure
well-baby exams
immunizations for children
general pediatric care
physicals for all ages (including for men, too)
care for illnesses like the flu and colds
pregnancy testing and counseling (including info about adoption)
emergency contraception
STD testing and treatment
HIV testing and counseling
education and outreach groups, like teen parent support groups, workshops for parents on discussing sex with their children, workshops to teach teen fathers about taking responsibility for their children, and education programs on HIV and STDs

All of which, I think you would support. Again, if you take personal issue on how they divvy up their income, drop them a line.

Also, don’t dare call me twisted when you’re twisting my words. I support the education of middle-school and high-school students with accurate information. I don’t see anything particularly wrong with health clinics that dispense that information being near schools. NB: I never said elementary schools. Go back and take a good look.

"c) If the ideal number of abortions is zero, then why does Hilary's state of New York have the second highest abortion rate in the country, almost double the national average. If you want to reduce the number of abortions, you could always take some notes from the red states, apparently their abortion rate is 54% LOWER than the blue states."

Well, probably because Hilary’s state of New York also has the largest urban area in the country, and rampant poverty. However, I can’t check out your link and can’t verify the validity and source of that statistic (as it doesn’t work) for now, that’ll have to be a guess.

"If the goal is no abortions, shouldn't you be embracing religion as it is helping the cause?"

The goal is no abortions. That's unrealistic, so the goal is as few as possible.

Religion may as often be the cause by inspiring abstinence, or by forcing/guilting young women to become mothers earlier than they perhaps ought to be.

Personally, I go for a more secular approach as that has the ability embraces people of all faiths, with realistic expectations for sexual behaviour with no judgement, and advocates education and the eradication of myths religion often promotes.

"d)Long time ago? it was a decade after my grandfather was born! But if you think our seniors are a bunch of nutty racits, cuz it was the thing to do at the time, go right ahead."

Stop putting words in my mouth, Jon, or I’m going to have to get as disrespectful as you’re being. No, in the grand scheme of things, going back to the age of the dinosaurs, 80 or so years is a drop in the pond. But considering the international human rights movements of the post-Holocaust era, and the civil rights movements of the 60s, yes, in terms of achievement of social progress, that was a long time ago.

And I actually said it was ugly, not that it was the “right thing to do at the time”. The fact that racism was common is a historical fact. Ugly, but true.

"The reason i mention the two parties as you seem to feel for some stange reason that if you vote for a party you support all their policies...rather crude comment i think.”

Well, I in turn think that a rather crude comment. As I have repeatedly said, which you have repeatedly ignored, individual views differ. But yes, you generally vote for the party whose platform you support the most, even if you don’t agree with all parts of it.

The canadian conservative party of canada is a pro-choice party.

Through political necessity, as Canada, on the whole, is strongly pro-choice. I wouldn’t put it past Harper to push it the other way, given the option.

But, for the most part, we’ve been discussing American politics, more particularly the Republican party, which has been doing everything in its power to eradicate the gains of Roe v. Wade since it came into power.

The rest i will leave to someone who actually is passionate about this issue

And I hope they’re more coherent, factual, and actually read what I’ve written, which is questionable in your case.

I am pro-choice

Questionable, from your statements.

and look forward to your comments in the next days.

As I do, writing them.

Posted by  Jon Whitelaw, at 9:05 p.m.  

Hehe, just having a discussion as i don't feel right arguing full on a point i don't support. But it looks like you are enjoying this so, here it goes :)

a)If you are unhappy with the information i have posted, please find your own to discredit them. Until then, mine will do. I am not familiar with the goals of PP, i do know they are the number one performers of abortions in the world and they apparently market themselves to minorities. It'd be interesting to know what their 'sub-goals' are.

b)Tell me Rach, what do you think the role of a parent or guardian is in the life of their child? Do you think it is wrong to send report cards to parents as not to hinder the confidence of the student? What if the parents are ambitious and beat their kids over marks. Parents do have a role; abortion for women under the age of being recognized by the state as an individual is the wrong thing to advocate to young women in those emotional times. Yes i agree with all of those procedures and programs, along with choice. I really wonder if the oraganizatoin's goal is to educate or offer cheap abortions. 5% of spending is negligible and really shows what values the have.

c)This link shows the New York poverty rate is not much more than the national average and is far less than red states. Yet the red states have an extremely low abortion rate. New York has average poverty, one of the highest median (middle value) in the country, yet has twice the national average in abortions. Are you going to research the information you are throwing out here or just guess and hope you are right? And i'm sure you consider the census bureau a biased source :P.
You also failed to address my comment that red state abortions are far lower than blue states. I made this with red vs. blue the source

d)I'm not talking about dinosaurs, i am talking about a woman who founded PP and was alive until the mid 60's. She was a strong advocate of compulsary sterilization, when that didn't fly, she advocated abortion; i guess the clinic locations are just a coincedince.

Good, i'm glad you can distinguish social conservatives from fiscal and neo-conservatives. Bringing healthcare and war into the equation is a totally different issue for pro-lifers.

Harper initiated the pro-choice stance, he has his own views, but so have many other leaders like Chretien who is a devout Catholic, and was able to leave personal opinon at home for the good of the country.

What good is a discussion if we essentially stand on the same side. The difference between you and i is that i recognize and respect another opinion and am open to learning more to find where i stand. If that means arguing for the other side of an issue, so be it. My values have not changed, and i can garantee that i am pro-choice.

Posted by  Anonymous, at 2:16 a.m.  

If one wants to discuss the merits of Planned Parenthood, one needs only consider the roots of this organization. It was founded by the famous feminist, Margaret Sanger (see link for quotes). Once one sees the obvious motivation behind the movement for legalization of abortion, one begins to understand the truth of the situation: it is a practice intended to allow 'acceptable' eugenics by depriving society's most vulnerable of their most basic right: the right to life. This is achieved by dehumanizing the child via the application of euphemisms in an effort to divert attention from the obvious truth.

It is ironic that the ultimate downfall of legalized abortion will also be due to its origins in eugenics. In the EU, an ongoing debate has jeopardized abortion rights. The EU, in its vigilance against the horrific crimes of the Nazis, wrote its constitution with very strict anti-eugenic language. This caused an unforeseen problem, however, when someone claimed that aborting a fetus that would be born handicapped amounts identically to eugenics. Obviously, the EU cannot allow practices that attempt to artificially control the human genetic pool without violating their own constitution. This calls to mind an even greater concern: if a fetus is determined to be 'unfit', but must be allowed to be born, then only the termination of a 'fit' fetus will be legal.

Posted by  Anonymous, at 10:51 a.m.  

Oh my God. The great debate I've been expecting is about the influence of eugenics on the current abortion debate? Are you serious?

I'm sorry. I'm laughing too hard. It'll take me awhile to formulate my response, but don't you worry. It'll be a doozy.

(Hee. Ha. Ho. Heh.)

Posted by  Anonymous, at 1:28 p.m.  

You want information?
Planned Parenthood by the numbers

- Planned Parenthood Services

Detailed PP financial information. Feel free to take a good look.


PP’s Annual Report

As I’ve said, the information you’ve posted is simply irrelevant. PP makes a “profit”. So what? You’ve proved nothing about your ridiculous conspiracy charge. Fiscal management does not immediately indicate nefarious purpose.

I am not familiar with the goals of PP, i do know they are the number one performers of abortions in the world and they apparently market themselves to minorities.

The fact that you say you’re unfamilar with the goals of PP after the intense discussion of this thread and the information provided herein indicates you are either illiterate or deliberately obtuse. The goals of PP have been reiterated to you time and again. Get a clue.

And yes, one of the (many) services they perform are abortions. Hospitals in Canada perform abortions as well. It’s a medical procedure. That’s neither here nor there. Abortions are performed by thousands of different organizations and medical facilities, some independent, some part of a larger organization. That PP is an old, multi-branched organization indicates nothing.

As for “advertising themselves to minorities”? The fact that rampant racism in the States has created cyclical poverty, and therefore that minorities may be in need of affordable health care doesn’t make any sense to you?

It'd be interesting to know what their 'sub-goals' are.

They’ve been listed and linked to. Learn to read. You’ll find it useful in life.

b)Tell me Rach, what do you think the role of a parent or guardian is in the life of their child? Do you think it is wrong to send report cards to parents as not to hinder the confidence of the student?

The role of the parent or guardian is to provide a safe, caring environment for the child to grow and develop in. Unfortunately, this is not always the case. Report cards letting the parents know how the child is doing in school and allowing parents to control their child’s reproductive rights are two entirely separate matters, and are not at all analogous.

What if the parents are ambitious and beat their kids over marks.

Then that is called child abuse, and it is illegal. And if you admit some parents are violent enough to beat children over marks, god-forbid those same children end up pregnant. Maybe having a policy ensuring teenagers privacy is a good thing?

“Parents do have a role.”
Parents have a role. But it does not include making reproductive choices for their daughter. Not all situations are as extreme as acceptance or beatings; however, as soon as you universally inform the parents you limit access forany girl who face negative reactions in the home. It’s a one-size-fits-all measure that often fits no-one.

‘Abortion for women under the age of being recognized by the state as an individual is the wrong thing to advocate to young women in those emotional times.”

Yes. Because someone who does not have the maturity or capacity to be recognized legally by the state as ‘an individual’ is a prime candidate for enforced parenthood. It’s much better to force babies to have babies than it is to allow them the choice to postpone having children until they are of a level of emotional maturity to be able to handle such a commitment adequately.

I really wonder if the oraganizatoin's goal is to educate or offer cheap abortions.

Actually, the two are not mutually exclusive. They do both.

5% of spending is negligible and really shows what values the have.

They are a health organizaiton. Their first priority is to provide health services. Seriously, are you unable to read? Hooked on Phonics didn’t take? I feel like a broken record here.

c) This link shows the New York poverty rate is not much more than the national average and is far less than red states. Yet the red states have an extremely low abortion rate. New York has average poverty, one of the highest median (middle value) in the country, yet has twice the national average in abortions. Are you going to research the information you are throwing out here or just guess and hope you are right? And i'm sure you consider the census bureau a biased source :P.

No, the census bureau is fine. Even when abortions are legal, they are often hard to get access too, i.e. in rural areas (red states). Urban areas are more likely to provide access to abortion. Also, red states and blue states have different cultures, generally. Blue states are more pro-choice and open to family planning, while red states are more traditional. I really don’t know why you’re beating this dead horse, quite frankly. A number of factors influence a woman’s decision to have an abortion. A religious person in a red state may choose still choose an abortion. A non-religious person in a blue state may choose to keep it. Geography doesn’t matter (except for access to abortions), and the considerations and personal choices that are involved in the decision to have an abortion are universal, but the ultimate decision is tailored to the individual.

d) I'm not talking about dinosaurs, i am talking about a woman who founded PP and was alive until the mid 60's. She was a strong advocate of compulsary sterilization, when that didn't fly, she advocated abortion; i guess the clinic locations are just a coincedince.

Not necessarily so. See below.

Good, i'm glad you can distinguish social conservatives from fiscal and neo-conservatives. Bringing healthcare and war into the equation is a totally different issue for pro-lifers.

Obviously. They only believe in the absolute sanctity of life in certain situations. It’s very convenient.

Harper initiated the pro-choice stance, he has his own views, but so have many other leaders like Chretien who is a devout Catholic, and was able to leave personal opinon at home for the good of the country.

Good for them. Also, political suicide not too. Harper’s still a crazy-ass asshole.

What good is a discussion if we essentially stand on the same side. The difference between you and i is that i recognize and respect another opinion and am open to learning more to find where i stand.

Actually, the difference between you and I is a combination of education and reading comprehension.

If that means arguing for the other side of an issue, so be it. My values have not changed, and i can garantee that i am pro-choice.

Debateable.

Rachel: 1
Jon: 0
Stef: very amused

Heh. Thanks, Stef. :)

Moving on…

If one wants to discuss the merits of Planned Parenthood, one needs only consider the roots of this organization. It was founded by the famous feminist, Margaret Sanger.

OK, so let’s get a more comprehensive, well-rounded look, why don’t we? One that perhaps corrects misattributions and provides context? (The link is from PP. But according to Jon, in this thread, apparently source means nothing to the credibility of the information. Have a nice read!)

Once one sees the obvious motivation behind the movement for legalization of abortion, one begins to understand the truth of the situation: it is a practice intended to allow 'acceptable' eugenics by depriving society's most vulnerable of their most basic right: the right to life.

Yes, because thousands of years of unwanted pregnancies and dangerous back-alley abortions risking the lives of desperate women was not a prime motivating factor at all. And it is not a practice intended to allow acceptable eugenics, it is a practice that allows a woman to decide when, or if, she wants to become a mother, by protecting her most basic right – control over what happens to her body. If we’re going with the argument that a fetus with the potential for life actually is a full-fledged person from conception, they may have the right to life, but no one – fetus or grown adult – has the right to feed off another person’s body against the other person’s will.

This is achieved by dehumanizing the child via the application of euphemisms in an effort to divert attention from the obvious truth.

Euphemisms? Which euphemisms? Clinical terms such as “zygote”, “embryo”, and “fetus”? “Acorn”, you may notice, is not a euphemism for “oak tree.” The only “obvious” truth here is that you believe something, and others believe something else, and there is no way to determine it one way or another.

Anyone can pop off an opinion as to when “life” starts: at conception, at the first heartbeat, when the fetus starts to move, when the fetus could survive by itself outside of the mother’s womb, when it is born and takes its first independent breath. It’s a continuum, yes, but none of us here on Earth possess the definitive wisdom of when, exactly, the potential for life becomes life itself. Therefore, the priority goes to the mother, whom we know to be a person definitively.

It is ironic that the ultimate downfall of legalized abortion will also be due to its origins in eugenics.

Oh? I thought it would be through rampant misinformation and religious fanaticism. Can you lend me your crystal ball? Mine seems foggy.

In the EU, an ongoing debate has jeopardized abortion rights. The EU, in its vigilance against the horrific crimes of the Nazis, wrote its constitution with very strict anti-eugenic language.

It’s interesting you mention the Nazis, since one of the first things those silly eugenicit Nazis did when they came into to power was to repeal the Weimar Republic’s “liberal” abortion laws.

See, true eugenicism seeks to eliminate “bad” genes and promote “good” ones; therefore, in their mission to ensure the superior Aryan race, Aryan women were strongly discouraged, if not forbidden, to seek abortions, as that would weaken the ‘master’ race, while they systematically sterilized and aborted those they considered worse than themselves.

Aaaah. Let’s just take a moment to let that sink in. Eugenicists… anti-abortion? When it suited their goals, yes. The two (pro-choice and eugenicism) are not necessarily linked – as I and most other pro-choice advocates are not eugenicists, and not all eugenicists are pro-choice. If PP was truly eugenicist, they wouldn't be promoting safer sex to all people, and performing abortions on those they felt "worthy." What a load of hooie.

This caused an unforeseen problem, however, when someone claimed that aborting a fetus that would be born handicapped amounts identically to eugenics.

“Claimed.”

Obviously, the EU cannot allow practices that attempt to artificially control the human genetic pool without violating their own constitution.

You're leap-frogging, there, buddy. General access to abortion is not the same as actively selecting which fetuses are "worthy" and which are not.

This calls to mind an even greater concern: if a fetus is determined to be 'unfit', but must be allowed to be born, then only the termination of a 'fit' fetus will be legal.

... Your logic does not resemble our Earth logic. You seem to be skipping a couple of steps along the way. Please, draw me an adequate roadmap, because right now, the one you’ve given me was drawn by someone smoking a lot of crack.

Posted by  Jon Whitelaw, at 2:03 p.m.  

"For example, is it fair to force a 12 year old girl who got raped to have a baby?"
Well, according to Rachel, the 12 year old girl would have a PP next to her school, she would go there after school where she can get an abortion cheap and not have to worry about telling anyone about the rape.

On a more serious note: You keep making the point that PP are almost exclusively in minority areas because you think 'they' are poor. I have posted facts that show that the states with the highest abortion rates have the least number of poor and highest incomes. Your argument for "different culture" is a moot point as you agree with Clinton's quote that the ideal number of abortions is none.

Access to abortions is a good point. You just stated yourself that access increases abortions, what if you limit access? That's right, you get closer to your aim of no abortions. (a good thing)

If you haven't noticed on my main page, Harper is the leader of the most popular party in the country. Over 10 points ahead of the governing party. As much as you hate the guy, he most likely will be our next prime minister :D

Please refrain from personal attacks and hateful allegations, I think we can all be mature here, and become more enlightened by our comments, well at least i intend to.

Posted by  Anonymous, at 3:04 p.m.  

“Well, according to Rachel, the 12 year old girl would have a PP next to her school, she would go there after school where she can get an abortion cheap and not have to worry about telling anyone about the rape.”

A) Way to dodge the question.
B) I said, twice, middle/high school.
C) No, I have no problem with health clinics near schools
D) Women and girls are not required to report sexual assault that’s done to them, because that can be hell, and if that 12 year old doesn’t want to say anything until later, well, that’s a sad situation. You still didn’t answer her question.


On a more serious note: You keep making the point that PP are almost exclusively in minority areas because you think 'they' are poor.

I think that most inner-city areas tend to be ethnic minorities and immigrants, yes, and they tend to worse off financially then WASPy yuppie types.

I have posted facts that show that the states with the highest abortion rates have the least number of poor and highest incomes.

That’s the funny thing about statistics. New York is a city of extremes, where one person could be worth billions, and many others working 3 jobs at minimum wage. So while the state average is higher than Kentucky (or wherever), disparities between upper and lower classes are extreme. Just because a state has a higher-than-average-income doesn't mean there aren't vast amounts of people who not relatively poor.

Your argument for "different culture" is a moot point as you agree with Clinton's quote that the ideal number of abortions is none.

No. It’s not. A) Not all New Yorkers would agree with Hilary's statement. B) I agree that the ideal number is none, in that education in using effective birth control would prevent women from having to deal with difficult, emotional situations. But ideals are far from reality. There is no chance that the number of abortions would become zero even if abortions were made illegal.

Access to abortions is a good point. You just stated yourself that access increases abortions, what if you limit access? That's right, you get closer to your aim of no abortions. (a good thing)

No, this is where you’re obviously smoking crack. If you limit access, you limit the woman’s right to choice. How the hell can you claim you’re pro-choice when you advocate lessening access to choice in the aim of eliminating in the incidence of abortions? Do you even read what you write? Do you clearly think?

Yes, try to decrease the number of unwanted pregnancies through education and effective birth control. No, do not eliminate health care centers that provide abortions because unwanted pregnancies will occur, and each woman has the right to access to an abortion should she want one.

If you haven't noticed on my main page, Harper is the leader of the most popular party in the country. Over 10 points ahead of the governing party. As much as you hate the guy, he most likely will be our next prime minister.

The most popular party, perhaps, but most people in the country do not, in fact, support the party. Numbers are tricky, aren’t they? And the moment Harper starts up with his right-wing religious agenda, I’ll be at the front of the protests yelling as loud as I can. That still has nothing to do with this debate.

Please refrain from personal attacks and hateful allegations, I think we can all be mature here, and become more enlightened by our comments, well at least i intend to.

Actually, I believe you’re the one who cast the first stone with “twisted", and you've been spouting hateful, unfounded allegations about PP all throughout this. In short, shove it.

Posted by  Jon Whitelaw, at 3:39 p.m.  

a)she was talking to the pro-lifers, learn to read; i was merely stated what you had already mentioned. Where did i state in that post that it was an elementary school. Damn, and you bug me about reading skills. LMAO!

The numbers i posted were percent below poverty, has nothing to do with the WASPy rich people, if you are going to claim that poor are more likely to have abortions, the data on this does not support your claim. You have yet to provide facts to these claims. Although you did endorse my source and figures, unfortunately they are not supporting your claims in the least.

The percent below poverty has abslutely nothing to do with how many rich there are and everything to do with cost of living and how well people can provide for themselves.

For a person who wants to thinks the ideal number of abortions is zero, it's odd you are pushing for more abortions. You yourself said there is not enough clinics, especially in the red states. The truth of the matter is that California and New York have the lowest levels of poverty and have 5 - 20 TIMES more abortions as compared to say the dakotas, idaho, wyoming and the south. Expanding these clinics as you advocate is sending the wrong message to these communities.

I am no more afraid of Harper starting a right-wing agenda than i was of chretien. Politicans serve their constituents, this is a simple concept, Harper will do this. Currently there are Bloc, NDP, and 58% of backbench Liberal MP's voting against the same sex marriage bill. Go protest to the other parties of their agenda while you are at it.

Too bad i have every right to question PP for many reasons already stated, you have a very idealistic view of the organization, overlooking their flaws. How you equate this with personal attacks is beyond me. The twisted comment was directed at the idea of PP next to elementary schools, which i still have no idea if you support or not. But if you want to look at who started personal attacks, I can always bust out the good ol' MSN message history. See your true discussion colours.

Posted by  Anonymous, at 4:12 p.m.  

a) she was talking to the pro-lifers, learn to read; i was merely stated what you had already mentioned. Where did i state in that post that it was an elementary school. Damn, and you bug me about reading skills. LMAO!

Ha! Ha! Ha! Sorry, I consider you “anti-choice”, so you got lumped in there. And 12 years old, in my town, was elementary school.

The numbers i posted were percent below poverty, has nothing to do with the WASPy rich people, if you are going to claim that poor are more likely to have abortions, the data on this does not support your claim. You have yet to provide facts to these claims. Although you did endorse my source and figures, unfortunately they are not supporting your claims in the least.

An more accurate statistic would not be state levels of wealth, so much as one averaging the income of women who have abortions. I guarantee you’ll find it’s not high.

The percent below poverty has abslutely nothing to do with how many rich there are and everything to do with cost of living and how well people can provide for themselves.

See above. Also, people may not be in abject poverty, but may still feel they cannot afford to have children. I’m not in poverty. I couldn’t afford to have a child.

For a person who wants to thinks the ideal number of abortions is zero, it's odd you are pushing for more abortions.

No, I’m pushing for all women who wish access to their right to an abortion ought to have one. I think almost everyone believes in a perfect world the ideal number would be zero. That doesn't mean sacrificing a woman's right to make decisions about her own body.

“You yourself said there is not enough clinics, especially in the red states.”

Nope. The more affordable health centres there are, the better.

“The truth of the matter is that California and New York have the lowest levels of poverty and have 5 - 20 TIMES more abortions as compared to say the dakotas, idaho, wyoming and the south.

State stats mean little. You are thinking on a macro level when a micro level would be more appropriate. See above.

Expanding these clinics as you advocate is sending the wrong message to these communities.

I’m sorry? Which message is that? That every woman, even if she lives in a rural area, has the right to choice? I think that’s a fantastic idea. What’s the matter with that, Oh He Who Promotes Pro-Choice Values?


I am no more afraid of Harper starting a right-wing agenda than i was of chretien. Politicans serve their constituents, this is a simple concept, Harper will do this. Currently there are Bloc, NDP, and 58% of backbench Liberal MP's voting against the same sex marriage bill. Go protest to the other parties of their agenda while you are at it.

Oh I will. Still, what the hell does this have to do with this conversation?

Too bad i have every right to question PP for many reasons already stated, you have a very idealistic view of the organization, overlooking their flaws.

And you have a very unrealistic view of the organization, choosing to believe vitriolic rhetoric, the opinion of very few. You keep talking about this “horrible track record” but I have seen no evidence to back this claim up. None at all. You're the one who keeps nagging for proof of such things as personal reasons why women would seek out about abortions; maybe you ought to be providing a little proof of your own, eh?

How you equate this with personal attacks is beyond me. The twisted comment was directed at the idea of PP next to elementary schools, which i still have no idea if you support or not.

The exact quote was “You truely think abortion clinics should go next to elementary/middle schools? Twisted.” Sounds like an attack to me. And since I have said something like 3 or 4 times now, and anyone reading this can go back and count and can verify that if you don’t know where I stand on that by now, it’s your own failures at communication, not mine.

But if you want to look at who started personal attacks, I can always bust out the good ol' MSN message history. See your true discussion colours.

*snort* Oh, go for it. I have the MSN history too, and while I definitely lost my temper with you, you don’t come off particulary well in it yourself.

Posted by  Jon Whitelaw, at 4:36 p.m.  

My link if you had read it does not state wealth but number of people in poverty. Income levels of women is not an accurate measure as costs of living vary with location. Fact remains the poorer red states have many times less abortions.

Last time i checked, the whole United States is pro-choice, if a red state woman wants an abortion, she will get one, perhaps you can show me a place where significant people live with no access to an abortion clinic. All women in the US have access to this procedure, they make the choice in red states and they tend to choose life. Is that a wrong decision, no. Should they be encouraged to change their decision by putting up another 1000 clinics around the country, probably not. I advocate access, not an abortion clinic on every street corner.

I have stated that i intend to have a respectable discussion. I'm not passsionate about this topic to make it all go to hell. You may have different intentions, but being a politics major you should be used to keeping your cool when discussing, i would expect nothing less of you here.

Posted by  Anonymous, at 5:39 p.m.  

"My link if you had read it does not state wealth but number of people in poverty. Income levels of women is not an accurate measure as costs of living vary with location. Fact remains the poorer red states have many times less abortions."

The income levels of the women themselves who've had abortions is very accurate. That being said, income is a correlative factor, one of many. You're not making any points in repeating this over and over again. Income is a factor. Age of a factor. Marital status is a factor. Belief structure is a factor. There are more. Each person who has to face this decision faces an individualized factors to consider. I theorized income as an answer to your question about New York, but no statistic can account for why a rich woman who is married would opt for an abortion (perhaps her husband is violent) while a young, poor woman would not (no access, wanted to start a family, whatever).

My impatience with your stats is not a lack of research, or proof, on my part. In this matter, stats mean bupkiss. Because it doesn't matter why a woman wants or doesn't want an abortion; her reasons are her own; the point is, if she chooses to have one, she has the right to.

"Last time i checked, the whole United States is pro-choice,"

Legally yes, but the vehemence of the anti-choice lobby varies state-to-state.

"if a red state woman wants an abortion, she will get one, perhaps you can show me a place where significant people live with no access to an abortion clinic. All women in the US have access to this procedure,"

That's debateable. You keep saying that there are 900 PP clinics. The number is actually closer to 850. To put this in perspective, there are upwards of 293 000 000 million Americans. If you want a comparative total, there are currently 8337 Starbucks in the continental U.S. Even if you halve that number to represent the approximate half of that population that is female, you still have over 4x the number of Starbucks' coffee houses than PP clinics across the US, and believe me, there are entire towns in the States that still do not have Starbucks, let alone an affordable PP clinic. (And there isn't so much stigma about walking into a Starbucks as there is walking into a PP clinic.) 850? Ain't actually that many, especially to young girls in rural areas who may not be easily able to get transportation to one (no public transit).

Also, each state differs on it's legislation regarding it, i.e. some require parental consent, informed consent and waiting periods, etc., so obstacles differ from state-to-state. Legal, yes, but that does imply guaranteed access.

"they make the choice in red states and they tend to choose life"

You are not in the heads of the girls who choose and do not choose. That's a blanket generalization, and people choose to not have abortions in blue states as well. Maybe the red staters wanted to terminate, and didn't have access to an abortion. Maybe their boyfriend or parents pressured them into have the child. Maybe they did really want to have them. Those statistics do not tell you that. They are dry and do not get into the individual stories of each woman.

"Is that a wrong decision, no."

And neither is choosing to terminate a pregnancy.

"Should they be encouraged to change their decision by putting up another 1000 clinics around the country, probably not."

If they were encouraged by the mere appearance of a health clinic in their area to terminate a pregnancy, they didn't really want to have the child in the first place. After all, those same clinics provide affordable pre-natal care.

"I advocate access, not an abortion clinic on every street corner."

As stated above, 850 across the country, over even a thousand more, is not on every street corner.

And actually, in our last row, you did not advocate access, as you believe it increases the incidences of abortions. I believe it increases the incidences of women obtaining the choice they wanted, and this is where we diverge.

"but being a politics major you should be used to keeping your cool when discussing, i would expect nothing less of you here."

I have been keeping my cool. I've been pithy and sarcastic, yes, but I've kept my cool. You've obviously never been to a politics class, as we've had more heated debates about AMS tactics, let alone abortion. If you can't handle the heat that gets invited into a topic of this sort, frankly, get out of the kitchen. This? Is nothing.

Posted by  Anonymous, at 6:20 p.m.  

Rachel mentions the right of another being to the demand the use of your body, organs etc. You might be magnanimous in allowing this, but are within your rights to refuse. I suppose there is something there.

Say you come across someone drowning, having got in the situation through no fault of their own. Assume you have the life-saving skills to save them, although there might be some risk to yourself in doing so. If you walk away they will certainly die. The decision is a moral one, and one you would have to live with.

Posted by  Jon Whitelaw, at 7:43 p.m.  

I have a question, analogous to the topic at hand: Most people have the choice of driving a car. With this responsibility comes risks, costs, morality. Now lets say someone, namely a poorer person (lots of poor people need to drive to live), gets in an accident, injures or kills someone. Should this person continue to drive knowing of this reckless driving record? Of course not, the insurance premiums are raised significantly and the person pays. Now lets say this person hits another person, injures or kills them as well. Should this person be allowed to drive? Should they have the ability to continually have accidents, or should they be removed from the road.

Not only are you advocating this person be allowed to drive, but you want the government to subsidize their insurance as they may be too poor to pay for their careless, reckless habits.

I will concede that accidents do happen, and people should not have to pay significantly for one mishap (especially if someone hits you, equivalent to rape?), even though other examples in life are far less leanient.

People in everyday life understand the risks of their actions, and if not responsible should pay at somepoint for their actions. Now bringing this back to abortions, 40% of all abortions carried out in the US are second time abortions or more (this number is 30% in Canada, and jumps to 60% of women 30 and older), this is a significant problem and is out of step with practical life.

Please address this example, perhaps real life examples where people are NOT responsible for their own misuse of a product that clearly states the risks.
(Edited)

Posted by  Anonymous, at 7:54 p.m.  

Now lets say someone, namely a poorer person, gets in an accident, injures or kills someone.

We don't even really need to bring wealth or lack thereof into this example - unless you want to maintain that poor people are more likely to have less expensive cars, and therefore may be more susceptible to breakdowns, equipment failure and accidents. Otherwise, the wealth point in this example is moot, so, let's carry on.

Should this person continue to drive knowing of this reckless driving record?

Depends on the specifics of the accident. Was the person being careful? Was the road icy? Did the brakes fail? What constitutes a truly "reckless" driving record?

Now lets say this person hits another person, injures or kills them as well. Should this person be allowed to drive? Should they have the ability to continually have accidents, or should they be removed from the road.

Actually, this scenario, if it were to be analogous to the multiple-abortion debate, the question would not be whether they be allowed to have a second abortion, but whether or not they would be allowed to continue to have sex. If you want to license people to have sex (in theory, not a bad idea, pass some sort of education and testing program about birth control and STDs before you're allowed to have sex), you'd be welcome to try, but if people drive without a license or insurance, they're sure as hell going to have sex without one - and good luck catching them. Also, with sexual behaviour, you also have that pesky "state interference with the privacy of your bedroom" taboo to deal with.

Furthermore, this scenario does not involve state intervention in the driver's private physical being, and therefore is not an adequately analogous situation.

People in everyday life understand the risks of their actions, and if not responsible should pay at somepoint for their actions. Now bringing this back to abortions, 18% of all abortions carried out in the US are second time abortions or more, this is a significant problem and is out of step with practical real life.

Seriously, who are you to judge? Do you know, for fact, any of the individual circumstances of any one of these second-time abortions? I have a real-life friend, who conceived while on birth control (Quick stat: on the pill, with a 99% perfect-use reliance, 1 in 100 women will still become pregnant - and that's with perfect use. Typical-use, with human error, the stat is more like 93%, so 7 in 100 women on the pill will still become pregnant with regular use of the pill. That's not being reckless.) She had an abortion, and later broke up with her boyfriend. She went off the pill because she wasn't dating regularly, and used a condom for a one-night-stand, which broke, and she became pregnant again.

This is a "real-life" scenario, one where the person was responsible, and still managed to be a part of this section of society you look down your pointy little nose at. She is one of a hundred women who've been the victim of bad circumstance. And if your judgemental "only one shot, you reckless human being" law was in place, she would be forced to carry the fetus to term. I'm not saying that some people aren't reckless, but ultimately, while it may grate, you cannot judge or withhold the service simply because you do not agree with how they choose to live. Their body. Their decision.

Circumstances surrounding these things are always more complicated by that, and these one-size-fits-all policies (much like parental consent) sound great in theory, but in fact could do more harm than good.

Now, MM,

Say you come across someone drowning, having got in the situation through no fault of their own. Assume you have the life-saving skills to save them, although there might be some risk to yourself in doing so. If you walk away they will certainly die. The decision is a moral one, and one you would have to live with.

Exactly. This situation is more analogous than the driver situation. I agree - it's a moral quandary. Harsh reality though? If you did leave them, you're not breaking any law. Anti-abortion laws are the only type that force people into being Good Samaritans, sacrificing their physical wants and needs for another. Furthermore, it still isn't quite accurate enough to be fully analogous to an unwanted pregnancy. You would have to save this person, have them feed off you for nine months, and go through inexplicable pain when they finally detach from you - and you'd have to do this whole thing reluctantly and involuntarily. If you wish to do that, yay you. But you can't legally penalize someone else for choosing otherwise, selfish it may seem (or be). The only thing you can do, is when faced with that decision, to take that upon yourself. They will have to live with the decision they made, but they have to have the choice.

Posted by  Jon Whitelaw, at 8:33 p.m.  

Every product/action has a risk associated with it. Your friend using a product that is 99% effective (and i assume she was notified of the risk when she went to get the perscription), was aware of the risk associated with the product. Just as she was aware of the side effects. After going through a traumatic experience of an abortion, even on the pill, she decided to take the same risks once again, except this time her contraceptive was even more risky. The failure rates of condoms are much greater than the pill.

In this case, I can confidently say your friend was reckless. She didn't fend well with the odds, but again; ask your friend if she was aware of the risk factors, if she was not, i would seriously be surprised and the doctor did not do his job.

The pill is a good step when reducing the risk of pregnancy, but using the pill and a condom will reduce the number from 1 in 100 to effectively zero. Not only that but condoms will reduce another risk factor: STDs.

People who do not accept the risks/consequences of their actions just have to deal with the fallout.

I am still waiting on a product where the user incorrectly uses it, and is aware of the risks; and is NOT responsible for the mishap.

To add to MM's analogy, as you don't like mine. Not only is the person drowning and you turn away, you pushed the person in knowing they cannot swim. Justify that from a moral standpoint.

Also, 18% you quoted for multi pregnancy is wrong, it is 40% in the US, 30% in Canada. I question if abortion was illegal if people would be so reckless with sex or be so quick to use it as a form of birth control.

Posted by  Anonymous, at 9:18 p.m.  

Rachel,

I can only discuss, with any level of competence, law and legal precedent in the United States, so I will assume that this is the region of interest, though the underlying principles are likely universal. You seem to be the most outspoken here in defense of abortion. Let me attempt to summarize your argument in more general terms.

And it is not a practice intended to allow acceptable eugenics, it is a practice that allows a woman to decide when, or if, she wants to become a mother, by protecting her most basic right – control over what happens to her body. If we’re going with the argument that a fetus with the potential for life actually is a full-fledged person from conception, they may have the right to life, but no one – fetus or grown adult – has the right to feed off another person’s body against the other person’s will.

First, you postulate the right to absolute control of your body. You then submit that this right supersedes the right to life of a fetus. Finally, you claim that since this right supersedes the right to life of a fetus, abortion is nothing but the legal enforcement of this hierarchy of rights.

Unfortunately, this construction is not in accord with the well-understood hierarchy of rights, set forth in the Declaration of Independence and upheld by centuries of legal precedent, which places the right to life above the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Indeed, the right to life has been set above liberty and happiness, as it must be, as the cardinal right, without which there is no possible guarantee of the others. The most obvious example in our society today is the outlawing of suicide. This clearly demonstrates that you do not even have the right to place your own liberty or pursuit of happiness over your right to life, much less the right to life of another. This becomes more and more apparent when one considers the restrictions placed on drug use, prescription drugs, and so on. Thus, your postulated right - the right to complete control over your body - does not exist in the framework of our nation. Further, even if it did, it could never supersede the right to life of another.

Of course, now you must ask: if this hierarchy is and always has been in place, how can abortion be currently legal? This brings us to the crux of the issue. The US Supreme Court, in its landmark Roe v Wade decision, removed the rights of the fetus by declaring it merely human, a taxonomic, purely biological, term defining a species, and not a person, or a being worthy of rights. Their vehicle for this seemingly impossible distinction? One sentence, pulled from the Fourteenth Amendment - an amendment passed at a time when all states had laws prohibiting abortion, an amendment intended to bestow rights on all, rather than remove them from some - the so-called 'Civil Rights Amendment'. Indeed, this amendment was written to give everyone rights after the civil war. It was intended to be all-inclusive, as obviated by the choice of language, which allowed for "all persons, born or naturalized" to be granted full protection under the law. The single word - born - was selected by the USSC to allow abortions, since the justices declared that the use of the word born implied that no protections were to be extended to those who were not yet born. Bear in mind that, as I stated previously, this amendment was passed at a time when all existing states had laws prohibiting abortion.

Thus, the only question of import when discussing the ethics and legalities of abortion is is the zygote/embryo/fetus a person?

Many philosophers, theologians, and politicians have attempted to answer this question in a variety of ways. Those in favor of abortion typically put forth a set of criteria on which personhood should be based. These typically attempt to demonstrate that a fetus cannot be considered a person because it does not have the required mental capacity, ability to feel pain, or similar. The famous Turing Test, which was developed to determine whether or not artificial intelligence had been developed, has been proposed for this purpose many times. Unfortunately, even if a fetus at nine months' gestation is actually a 'person' (in whatever hypothetical definition you choose to apply), it is impossible to empirically determine this by applying the Turing Test. This does not indicate, as is often claimed, a failure of the subject, nor of the test. It is simply an inevitable outcome of our own limited abilities in the methods of communication and analysis. It is on this basis that those who oppose abortion will argue that any such list of criteria will be inherently arbitrary. The criteria proposed, while they may have merit, are often impossible to evaluate with respect to a fetus.

In any case, I think most, if not all, of us can agree that the method by which the USSC defined personhood is not logically tenable. Clearly, there is no logical distinction between a fetus five minutes prior to and five minutes after delivery (if you would argue this, please try to demonstrate exactly at what moment the fetus ceases to be a fetus and becomes a baby/child/person in terms of its position relative to the birth canal, attachment of the umbilocal cord, or similar), so birth is not an appropriate time to define personhood.

Posted by  Jon Whitelaw, at 10:27 p.m.  

Thanks for the post Cyclo, your input is valued here as you are obviously far more enlightened on this topic than I (arguing a side you don't fully believe is hard!). We will all learn a few things i think. I'm sure Rachel will enjoy the discussion :)

To get back to my point of risk rates. If your friend was more cautious with sex and took it more seriously, being a risk factor of using a product, you would come to the following numbers:

Liklihood of a pregnancy with a condom: 300 in 10,000.
Liklihood of a pregnancy with a the pill: 100 or 300 in 10,000 depending on your numbers.
Liklihood of a pregnancy with a condom and the pill: 3 in 10,000.

Those are the tested risk factors of using those products. Sure your friend was putting herself at less risk with birth control, but she could have put herself at less risk with better precaution (especially having experienced the first time).

Posted by  Anonymous, at 12:10 a.m.  

No, Jon. Having sex while actively taking precautions? Is not reckless behaviour. If you recognize a foreseeable consequence in your actions, and take reasonable steps to prevent it from happening, you are not being negligent. Any birth control product that has a failure rate of less than 5% is advocated as being effective enough to be used on its own - and that includes condoms. She was aware of the risks. They were minimal. But the only way to avoid any and all risk is abstinence - and that is something I'm sure you don't practice yourself. Do you consider yourself a reckless person by nature? Have you had sex? Have you used two or more forms of protection every. single. time. you have ever had sex in your entire life? I'm going to lay odds on "no."

(Even if you believe you did, can you be sure? Are you absolutely sure your partner was taking her birth control in an effective manner? Did you see her take her pill every single day at the same time? Were you with her when she recieved her shot? Did you rely on her word? At what point does taking enough precautions mean you are not having sex recklessly?)

"Not only that but condoms will reduce another risk factor: STDs."

*gasp* No, really?. Thank you for re-educating me on everything I learned in Grade 9! Though actually, if we're having a sex-ed moment here, you might want to actually point out that condoms are the only way to prevent STDs. Just to make that clear to all the readers at home who came for a lesson in safe sex.

People who do not accept the risks/consequences of their actions just have to deal with the fallout.

I walk to school every day. I wait for the light to change to "green". I look across the street both ways. I step onto the street and a car comes around the corner and hits me. I knew that every time I step out into the world I could get hit by a car. I took reasonable precautions. I still got hit. Does that mean I get to lie on the side of the road and accept the consequences of my actions? Along the same lines - I get into my car. Check my mirrors. Strap myself in with my seatbelt. I leave my parking space, drive carefully - and I get rear-ended. The chance is always there - but was I being reckless? Do I not have the right to receive medical treatment to repair the "fallout" that has been done to my body?


I am still waiting on a product where the user incorrectly uses it, and is aware of the risks; and is NOT responsible for the mishap.

Keep waiting, because it's ultimately meaningless, as in this sort of situation, people can correctly use a product and still, from your point of view, be responsible for "the mishap." But whether they have to be forced to live with the consequences is an entirely different question altogether, one to which you have not adequately defended at all.

To add to MM's analogy, as you don't like mine. Not only is the person drowning and you turn away, you pushed the person in knowing they cannot swim. Justify that from a moral standpoint.

That's not adding to MM's analogy, that's changing it fundamentally. How is that analogous to an unwanted pregnancy, exactly? A more accurate analogy would be: two people get thrown into the water simultaneously. One can make it to the shore, the other can't without relying completely on the other person. The chance that the first will make it to shore alive is less likely than if they leave the other person behind, though it's highly possible to do so with them. However, to do so would make the task much more arduous, complicated, very painful, and it will take much, much longer. (In fact, make the second person chained to the first.) Then decide whether or not you want to make it to shore easily on your own, or if you want to make the decision to haul the other person with you.

The choice is not as simple as you'd like to paint it. Also, the use of analogies is

Posted by  Anonymous, at 12:15 a.m.  

The choice is not as simple as you'd like to paint it. Also, the use of analogies is ridiculous, because there is nothing in this world that is perfectly analogous to the reality of pregnancy.


Also, 18% you quoted for multi pregnancy is wrong, it is 40% in the US, 30% in Canada.

I didn't quote that. I was directly copy-and-pasting your post. You changed it afterwards. And you're posting statistics without backing them up, really, so they don't really mean much to me, even if they are true. My argument stands.

I question if abortion was illegal if people would be so reckless with sex or be so quick to use it as a form of birth control.

If birth control were illegal, desperate women would be risking their lives in back-alleys, with wire-clothes-hangers, like they had for centuries before. And you're definition of reckless is seriously out of whack. I get into my car, wear a seatbelt, and drive carefully - accidents still happen. Does that mean I was reckless? No. You're being absolutely ridiculous.


Unfortunately, this construction is not in accord with the well-understood hierarchy of rights, set forth in the Declaration of Independence and upheld by centuries of legal precedent, which places the right to life above the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Indeed, the right to life has been set above liberty and happiness, as it must be, as the cardinal right, without which there is no possible guarantee of the others.

I'm not American. Using an American document to prove whether my body is subject to a hierarchy of beliefs of others will not have much influence on me. The issue of abortion is one that reaches beyond the time and space of the Declaration of Independence, and definitely beyond the words of a few men who wrote on a piece of paper. And honestly? It's just like an American to believe that their political dogma trumps anything else.

The most obvious example in our society today is the outlawing of suicide. This clearly demonstrates that you do not even have the right to place your own liberty or pursuit of happiness over your right to life, much less the right to life of another.

This law is anachronistic and heils from religious belief. It only still exists today because those who would most disagree with it are dead, and those who do not succeed are not beaten or imprisoned but are instead sent for psychiatric help. I, myself, do not believe that it should be illegal to commit suicide. It's a ridiculous law. I fully believe that you want to end your life, that's a tragedy, but it's your own body, your life, and if you choose not to live it, so be it. I suppose people could protest its existence on the grounds of religious persecution, but again, it's pretty pointless, as it really affects no one negatively. (Which you cannot say about anti-abortion legislation.) So this law does not actually demonstrates to me to a satisfactory degree that you do not have the right to pursue your own liberty or happiness over your own right to life.


This becomes more and more apparent when one considers the restrictions placed on drug use, prescription drugs, and so on.

Restrictions are placed on substances so people don't accidentally kill/harm themselves, not to prevent them from committing suicide. People overdose on drugs - prescription or otherwise - without the express purpose of wishing to kill themselves.

Thus, your postulated right - the right to complete control over your body - does not exist in the framework of our nation. Further, even if it did, it could never supersede the right to life of another.

I find your conclusion debateable, from my rebuttals above. Also, for a country that prides itself on it's individualism, that a rather collectivist argument. My well-being, put at risk because of another, who is attempting to feed off me against my will? Tsk.


The single word - born - was selected by the USSC to allow abortions, since the justices declared that the use of the word born implied that no protections were to be extended to those who were not yet born.

Because that is the only point at which it is undebateable that the fetus is an independent, living, breathing person. Before that? Subject to belief and interpretation. I've already addressed the number of different points at which various peoples can consider the fetus a "person", to which there can absolutely be no definitive proof given to answer it any other way.

In any case, I think most, if not all, of us can agree that the method by which the USSC defined personhood is not logically tenable. Clearly, there is no logical distinction between a fetus five minutes prior to and five minutes after delivery.

No, it's very logically tenable. True, there is very little difference between a fetus five minutes prior and five minutes after - except for the fact that five minutes before, it is still entirely dependent, through the feeding off another person's organs, for every single one of its needs. And a fetus at that point is extremely different from a fetus at the point of when the vast majority of abortions - the first trimester. Acorns. Oak trees.


Seriously, boys, I'm tiring of this. I've already left the majority of responses to this post. Any points you could possibly come up with already have an answer hidden somewhere in the backlogs of this post, whether you want to recognize their validity or not. I will not be able to convince you any more than you'll be able to convince me.

I do curse the stars above, however, that neither of you will ever be in the position to be able understand for yourselves the difficult decision hundreds of woman have to make every day, that you will never be truly empathic to their plight, and pray to God that you will never be in the position to deny choice to anyone else in your lifetime.

Adieu.

Posted by  Jon Whitelaw, at 1:13 a.m.  

Yes Rachel, the figures i have quoted are accurate. I'm too lazy to find the numbers from a source you will be completely happy with, feel free to correct me. I do think that people can be reckless with sex, it is a mortal responsibility and should be respected as such when making the decision to participate. Similar to the drivers who continuously injury people with reckless driving, people who leave a child to drown in the water they have pushed them, and people who do not practice safe sex and get STD's MUST and SHOULD live with their mistakes. Accountability is the key in this equation, while i have sympathy for those less informed, and immature to make competent decisions, there is no sympathy for recklessness.

Typically if you are a good driver, follow the rules of the road, drive defensively and cautiously, one can still drive and have fun; and typically the rates of accidents are negligible. If you do get in an accident that is your fault, one can assume that you were indeed reckless, you will be fined, you will be charged, you will pay higher rates. Welcome to life.

I think it is quite unfortunate that you are not willing to discuss this issue futher with someone who is obviously in tune with this topic. Your willingness to only discuss with me (a point i do not support) only shows your intimidation by Cyclo's knowledge.

As for your distaste for discussing the american perspective, i draw your attention to these posts, one made on rachel's blog, one right here in this very dicussion:

"American politics are much more diverse. And "interesting", which is why I comment on it more often than I comment on Canadian politics."

"But, for the most part, we’ve been discussing American politics, more particularly the Republican party, which has been doing everything in its power to eradicate the gains of Roe v. Wade since it came into power."

^^statements made by rachel.

It is obvious you wanted to take the american perspective all along, now you see someone who is obviously an expert on the topic and you plug your ears, how unfortunate.

Cyclo: 1
Rachel: 0

To bring this back to context of the original post, this is exactly what i was talking about. There is no right or wrong stance to take on any issue, but learning more on a topic to see where your morals and values lie. In our lives we must open oursevles up to different views and why they feel this way.

For me i think that mistakes happen and people should get pity. Similar to people asking their god/friends/spouses for forgiveness when they do things wrong. If this is a repetitive thing and the act is morally questionable and unjust, these people must accept their destinies in life and fess up to their mistakes.

And bye Rachel, thank you for your input, i really thought you were excited over a truely intellectual debate with your "Oh, goodie." response to Cyclo posting on this board.

Posted by  Jon Whitelaw, at 1:34 a.m.  

For self-interest, even though the pro-life movement here in Canada is far smaller than the US, one must recognize that there is a very large minority in the US who feel very strongly on the matter.

By the numbers:
42% think it should be illegal, 70% think partial birth abortions should be illegal, but 80% think it should be legal to save a woman's life.

Also note that there are numbers divided by the sex of the respondant. This is significant as I do feel it is kind of awkward that there are 2 men here that are pro-life. But from these numbers you can see that the number of men and women favoring abortions is almost identical.
The only difference is on parital birth and at the 6 month mark where men are more in favor of abortion than women.

Therefore more men are pro-choice than women, so keep that in mind when you guys think this is a woman's right issue. It is not, it is a case of morality and values.

It is up to you to decide where you fit in the equation, regardless of sex.

Posted by  Anonymous, at 1:54 a.m.  

Yes Rachel, the figures i have quoted are accurate.

Still doesn't negate a woman's choice to control the destiny of her own body, and her life.

I do think that people can be reckless with sex, it is a mortal responsibility and should be respected as such when making the decision to participate.

You didn't respond. Have you used double-protection every single time you've had sex?

Accountability is the key in this equation, while i have sympathy for those less informed, and immature to make competent decisions, there is no sympathy for recklessness.

First? Your definition of recklessness is far more severe than any knowledgeable court. Second? The sad fact of life is that many people, in varying situations are never held accountable for their actions. (Not that I believe that people even have to be held "accountable" for engaging in sexual intercourse.) Engineers, for example, rampantly cheat on many of their assignments throughout university, not just at Queen's, but at many other schools. These engineers will be building roads, cars, airplanes, buildings. I'm willing to bet folding money you have witnessed this happen a number of times - did you report them? Have you done it yourself? Were either of you held accountable by failing the course, or not getting your degree? Is the sacrifice of actually learning the material in order to get the grade and your degree worth the risk of faulty knowledge that could put lives at risk? No. And unless you have made the express effort to hold people accountable for their actions with serious and irreversible consequences, you are nothing but a hypocrite. (And don't bother denying that cheating isn't rampant. I dated an engineer and witnessed it myself, and have been friends with several different groups of engineers, and all casually discuss the cheating that goes on.)

Typically if you are a good driver, follow the rules of the road, drive defensively and cautiously, one can still drive and have fun; and typically the rates of accidents are negligible. If you do get in an accident that is your fault, one can assume that you were indeed reckless, you will be fined, you will be charged, you will pay higher rates. Welcome to life.

That isn't to say that you can also get into an accident (a number of times) that is not your fault. You haven't addressed this. Though, it doesn't matter ultimately. My body, my life, my choice.

I think it is quite unfortunate that you are not willing to discuss this issue futher with someone who is obviously in tune with this topic. Your willingness to only discuss with me (a point i do not support) only shows your intimidation by Cyclo's knowledge.

Snort. No. Not quite.

As for your distaste for discussing the american perspective, i draw your attention to these posts, one made on rachel's blog, one right here in this very dicussion...

It is obvious you wanted to take the american perspective all along, now you see someone who is obviously an expert on the topic and you plug your ears, how unfortunate.


Discussing and analyzing American politics is not the same as accepting the Declaration of Independence as the Holy Grail of Ultimate Authority on Rights. Who said I was ever taking an "American" perspective? Throughout everything I've written, I have taken no other perspective other than a pro-Choice, liberal Canadian. Myself.

Seriously, Jon? I'm joking anymore. I seriously worry about the paradigm with which you see the world. It doesn't seem based in reality, what with the constant putting words in my mouth, and accusing me of taking perspectives that I do not.


To bring this back to context of the original post, this is exactly what i was talking about. There is no right or wrong stance to take on any issue, but learning more on a topic to see where your morals and values lie. In our lives we must open oursevles up to different views and why they feel this way.

As I've said to you, many a time, the moral area is grey. The legal? Not so much.


For me i think that mistakes happen and people should get pity. Similar to people asking their god/friends/spouses for forgiveness when they do things wrong. If this is a repetitive thing and the act is morally questionable and unjust, these people must accept their destinies in life and fess up to their mistakes.

"Judge not, lest ye be judged." You might also want to try inserting "condemn" for "judge", as it actually may be more appropriate.

And finally, that is your belief. Yay for you. You can give, or withhold, as much pity and forgiveness as you want to dish out. I would worry, I think, about a child expressly brought into this world as what you see as an appropriate punishment for an act that deserves no punishment. I'm sure it would lead an incredibly happy existence.


Ultimately, though, you, nor anyone else, do not have the right to make that call for anyone else. Thank God.

Posted by  Anonymous, at 2:03 a.m.  

Jon, you are incredibly statistics-happy. Which is good in math. Not so good in a personal decision such as this.

I just want to assure you that any woman faced with this decision is thinking, "Oh, well, 70% of these people think it's OK under this particular circumstance, but on 50% think it is under this, and 30% of those are men..."

And yes, men can be pro-choice (actually pro-choice, as opposed to superficially pro-choice, like you). Never said they couldn't. That doesn't negate the fact that they will never be placed in that particular situation. Ever.

Posted by  Jon Whitelaw, at 2:49 a.m.  

A woman does have control of her body, it is when she takes risks, they must face the consequences and risks associated with the act. With no accountability in this world what are we left with?

How you can equate copying an assignment with questionably killing a 'person' is beyond me. And yes both are wrong, no further.

How much protection i use during sex is dependent on how reckless i want to be, it is a personal decision, some don't give a crap and get STDs, some are smart enough to take precautions. Whatever the decision, they will pay for the consequences of the fallout. You still have not posted a product where the user is aware of the risk and is NOT responsible for the mishap.

It is interesting that you say that this issue is grey, but from a LEGAL standpoint it is not. Laws are derived from constitutions and charters of rights. Your legal stance is a moot point if proven to be unlawful by the rules of the country. Cyclo has started to address your belief that the legal side is not a grey area. You refuse his arguements, your motives for this is questionable. You obviously are willing to discuss, why not discuss with him.

You seem to know the Roe vs. Wade case well, unless you spouted it off just to make yourself look like you know what you are talking about. (this case which created leagal abortion was based on the same rules that Cyclo is refering to, you can't have it both ways) I suggest talking to Cyclo on these concerns of yours.

I am not an expert, and don't claim to be. Obviously Cyclo can give more insight on reasoning than I can. Why you refuse to continue debate with him is suspicious.

Posted by  Anonymous, at 2:59 a.m.  

I'm not American. Using an American document to prove whether my body is subject to a hierarchy of beliefs of others will not have much influence on me. The issue of abortion is one that reaches beyond the time and space of the Declaration of Independence, and definitely beyond the words of a few men who wrote on a piece of paper. And honestly? It's just like an American to believe that their political dogma trumps anything else.
I find it ironic that you call Americans arrogant in response to my clear statement that my legal arguments pertain only to the US. Would you like to have a strictly ethical debate instead? I'm more than willing, as legalities are merely the fumbling of men trying to implement ethical principles as law.
This law is anachronistic and heils from religious belief. It only still exists today because those who would most disagree with it are dead, and those who do not succeed are not beaten or imprisoned but are instead sent for psychiatric help. I, myself, do not believe that it should be illegal to commit suicide. It's a ridiculous law. I fully believe that you want to end your life, that's a tragedy, but it's your own body, your life, and if you choose not to live it, so be it. I suppose people could protest its existence on the grounds of religious persecution, but again, it's pretty pointless, as it really affects no one negatively. (Which you cannot say about anti-abortion legislation.) So this law does not actually demonstrates to me to a satisfactory degree that you do not have the right to pursue your own liberty or happiness over your own right to life.
This law is merely a reiteration of a time-honored truth. If you put the right to life of any individual behind the freedom or happiness of himself or another, then he and society will both suffer as a result. If society makes a substantial investment in the upbringing of the individual, how selfish is he to take his own life before he can contribute to said society? It is an act of pure selfishness - putting your own suffering above that which you will inflict on your loved ones, ending your own suffering while increasing theirs by leaps and bounds. Truly, selfishness is the root of all unethical behavior, for if one acts righteously, he acts out of beneficence rather than seeking only his own good. When one acts not out of self-interest, but in beneficence, he is bound to err in the direction of right behavior as he has no motivation to do otherwise.
I find your conclusion debateable, from my rebuttals above. Also, for a country that prides itself on it's individualism, that a rather collectivist argument. My well-being, put at risk because of another, who is attempting to feed off me against my will? Tsk.
First, I sincerely wish you could compose any argument without resorting to these repeated strawman arguments. It's simply counterproductive for me to attempt to support an argument I never made. It indicates to me that you would rather erect a strawman on my behalf to distract me from your own complete lack of argument. This assertion is furthered by your repeated sweeping generalizations, which are obviously meant to demean Americans in general, despite my qualification of all my statements in the very first line of my previous post. This is not uncommon on the internet, and therefore not entirely unexpected.

One fallacy aside, you have now submitted that this 'parasite' that grows within you is there of its own volition. Quite the contrary - you freely chose to engage in behavior that could result in pregnancy. If it was truly not your will to have this new life 'feeding off' you, then you should never have engaged in such a selfish act. You cannot excuse your previous behavior through current actions any more than you can excuse your current actions by your previous indiscretions. In short, two wrongs don't make a right.

Because that is the only point at which it is undebateable that the fetus is an independent, living, breathing person. Before that? Subject to belief and interpretation. I've already addressed the number of different points at which various peoples can consider the fetus a "person", to which there can absolutely be no definitive proof given to answer it any other way.
Ah, I see now you are more than happy to rely on the words of the arrogant Americans, when their opinion happens to coincide with your own. However, this hypocrisy is of little consequence, as your next argument is obviously flawed.

No, it's very logically tenable. True, there is very little difference between a fetus five minutes prior and five minutes after - except for the fact that five minutes before, it is still entirely dependent, through the feeding off another person's organs, for every single one of its needs. And a fetus at that point is extremely different from a fetus at the point of when the vast majority of abortions - the first trimester. Acorns. Oak trees.
If you are stating that the five minute time span is sufficient for the fetus to become independent of the mother, you are simply ignorant of the development of a fetus and the birthing process in general. I give you more credit than to assume that temporal displacement is sufficient cause for the disbursement of personhood. Tell me, then, as I already asked, what is the logical distinction between a fetus 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, 70%, 80%, 90%, or 100% through the birth canal? When does it become a person? You argue that the fetus, while still within the birth canal, is wholly dependent on the mother. However, merely inducing spatial translation of the fetus at this point somehow causes it to be independent of the mother. By this logic, if I walk into a jewelry store and swallow a diamond, the diamond is now mine as long as it remains in my body, since you have defined my body as anything spatially coincident with my body. If this not true, then it is clear that neither temporal nor spatial dependence or independence play any role in declaration of personhood, in which case your entire argument falls flat on its face.

Posted by  Jon Whitelaw, at 10:29 a.m.  

I think Rachel may have met her match, hehe.

I actually wanted to address a comment Rachel had made a little while ago. She mentioned that bringing an unwanted baby into the world would create a below standard environment for the child to live in. A childhood of potential suffering was enough to warrent an abortion.

This is a bogus thought as there are many nations around the world where people live in horrible conditions, something like 5 in 6 people live in the third world. Most of these people are destined to live a life of misery, desease, malnutrition, and lack of essential services like education, work, and health.

Under Rachel's logic, these people were unfit to be brought into this world; hell why allow the suffering now? Perhaps the mass killing of these innocent people will reduce poverty and make the few standing 'better off'. Quite a pessimistic way of looking at this, and makes absolutely no sense, esspecially in countries like Canada where every child has the right to a good education, healthcare, and other services.

Sidenote: Of course Rachel being a staunch Liberal, is most likely protectionist just as many other socialists before her. Unfortunately these people fail to realize the exponential wealth accumulation of the third world since the beginning of outsourcing and trade. These people are finally able to start work and stimulate their whole country's living standards instead of the liberal philosophy of 1 in 6 people giving limited limited food aid to the other 5. I'm sure their way of life is progressed by having everyone dependent on welfare from the 1st world...right.

Posted by  Anonymous, at 12:13 p.m.  

A woman does have control of her body, it is when she takes risks, they must face the consequences and risks associated with the act.

And if she's taking precautions, i.e. reliable birth control, she is not taking risks. Your definition of "risk", as I've said repeatedly, is not accurate.


How you can equate copying an assignment with questionably killing a 'person' is beyond me. And yes both are wrong, no further.

An engineer cheats his way through school. He has a misleading average, and receives a degree. He then gets a job building bridges. Due to his faulty education, the bridge collapses and kills people.

It makes sense that people cheating that they will not learn the material as well as they ought to, no? And in a profession such as engineering, when you are building bridges, cars, planes, etc., which have the potential to kill people if designed improperly, it seems important that one would responsibly do the best to learn all the material properly, yes? And therefore, it is foreseeable consequence that engineers, cheating - en masse no less - throughout the course of pursuing their degree, are potentially putting people's lives at risk. Everytime I get onto a plane, I picture a room of mech eng's blatantly cheating on their assignments for a term. Everytime I get into a car, I picture them joking about how they mastered the art of copying off each other in the testing room.

Wouldn't an appropriate punishment for cheaters be the denial of their degree, in a field such as engineering where mistakes could cost lives? Isn't that both a foreseeable and just consequence of their choice to cheat? Do those people deserve their degrees? Isn't a foreseeable, reasonable consequence that they be denied a degree, or work in the field, because they did not do the work that the degree recognizes?

No? That's what I thought. In short? You're a hypocrite. Accountability is only for other people, yes? And only in certain circumstances, that you yourself choose?

Isn't that convenient.

How much protection i use during sex is dependent on how reckless i want to be, it is a personal.

But have you ever, using one kind of birth control - either birth control pills or condoms, whatever - felt that you were being reckless in doing so? Did you not feel you were taking an appropriate responsible step, did you not feel confident that there was reasonable chance that pregnancy would not occur? You honestly have felt reckless every single time you've engaged in intercourse?

The only absolute 100% assurance is abstinence, which you yourself do not practice, you hypocrite. Is 95% chance taking a responsible measure? No? What is? 97%? 99%? (which is that of taking the pill.) Even tubal ligation only has an effectiveness rating of 99.7%. Are women who have had a surgical procedure to prevent pregnancy engaging in risky, reckless behaviour?

That's total horseshit, Jon, and everyone reading this knows how full of shit you are right now.


You still have not posted a product where the user is aware of the risk and is NOT responsible for the mishap.

McDonald's. Old lady. Hot coffee. So says the courts.

It is interesting that you say that this issue is grey, but from a LEGAL standpoint it is not.

A legal philosophical standpoint. No matter how much any person believes it is murder, it is not a self-evident claim. That belief is not universally held, and it cannot be proven that a fetus is a person. And even if they were, the decisions about a woman's body cannot be invaded by the state. I've been over this a thousand times. A person can feel something is wrong; they cannot make that choice for anyone else.

Cyclo has started to address your belief that the legal side is not a grey area. You refuse his arguements, your motives for this is questionable.

He has started, and he's been failing miserably. I refuse his arguments because I find his logic faulty.

This law is merely a reiteration of a time-honored truth. If you put the right to life of any individual behind the freedom or happiness of himself or another, then he and society will both suffer as a result. If society makes a substantial investment in the upbringing of the individual, how selfish is he to take his own life before he can contribute to said society? It is an act of pure selfishness - putting your own suffering above that which you will inflict on your loved ones, ending your own suffering while increasing theirs by leaps and bounds. Truly, selfishness is the root of all unethical behavior, for if one acts righteously, he acts out of beneficence rather than seeking only his own good. When one acts not out of self-interest, but in beneficence, he is bound to err in the direction of right behavior as he has no motivation to do otherwise.

Selfishness is not illegal.

It indicates to me that you would rather erect a strawman on my behalf to distract me from your own complete lack of argument.

Sorry. I've been having an argument with Jon for a couple of days, you see. Apparently, he's contagious. My snottiness got away from me.

This assertion is furthered by your repeated sweeping generalizations, which are obviously meant to demean Americans in general, despite my qualification of all my statements in the very first line of my previous post.

You qualified it by admitting that your argument was based only in American terms. You stumped yourself right from the beginning, because abortion is not only an American concern. If you haven't taken it upon yourself to think about the issue beyond the framework of the Declaration of Independence, your argument is flawed from the get-go. That's your problem of scope, not mine.

One fallacy aside, you have now submitted that this 'parasite' that grows within you is there of its own volition. Quite the contrary - you freely chose to engage in behavior that could result in pregnancy.

If I have taken means to protect myself, I have not freely chosen to have that person attach itself to me. It just happened nonetheless. I can get into a car, drive safely and wear a seatbelt, but that does not mean I invite another car to hit me.

If it was truly not your will to have this new life 'feeding off' you, then you should never have engaged in such a selfish act.

Do you practice abstinence? Have you ever engaged in intercourse?

Selfishness, again? Not against the law.

You cannot excuse your previous behavior through current actions any more than you can excuse your current actions by your previous indiscretions.

Um, yes I can. Excuse previous behaviour through current actions? You don't believe in making amends? And I'm not excusing abortion by my previous indiscretion of having sex. I'm excusing abortion by my divine right over the control of my body and the liberty with which I wish to govern my life.

In short, two wrongs don't make a right.

Two nimrods don't make a strong argument either. Also? I don't believe engaging in sex is wrong. Or abortion, for that matter.

Ah, I see now you are more than happy to rely on the words of the arrogant Americans, when their opinion happens to coincide with your own. However, this hypocrisy is of little consequence, as your next argument is obviously flawed.

??? Excuse me? Nothing in that paragraph was uniquely or particularly "American."

If you are stating that the five minute time span is sufficient for the fetus to become independent of the mother, you are simply ignorant of the development of a fetus and the birthing process in general.

You've got to be kidding me. I am not referring to the development of the fetus or the birthing process. I am referring to its dependence on the mother's body for all of its needs.

I give you more credit than to assume that temporal displacement is sufficient cause for the disbursement of personhood.

Gosh. Thanks!

Tell me, then, as I already asked, what is the logical distinction between a fetus 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, 70%, 80%, 90%, or 100% through the birth canal? When does it become a person?

The moment it takes its first independent breath, I suppose. The moment at which it's no longer dependent on its mother for nourishment and oxygen.

However, merely inducing spatial translation of the fetus at this point somehow causes it to be independent of the mother. By this logic, if I walk into a jewelry store and swallow a diamond, the diamond is now mine as long as it remains in my body, since you have defined my body as anything spatially coincident with my body.

Well, no, because my argument isn't about spatial translation, but dependence on the mother for oxygen and nourishment. The argument would be the same if the fetus was outside the body and feeding off the woman through tubes for everything it needs from 5 or 100 feet away.

The diamond is neither yours, nor a person, nor is it feeding off you. In fact, I strongly suspect it's giving you indigestion, and the store owner would likely like her diamond back, if you please.

(That may be the silliest allegory this thread has seen yet.)

If this not true, then it is clear that neither temporal nor spatial dependence or independence play any role in declaration of personhood, in which case your entire argument falls flat on its face.

Actually, no.... that's your argument falling flat on its face there. Ouch. That'll leave a mark.

I think Rachel may have met her match, hehe.

Hardly. I do need to take time away from this thread for such things as food, sleep, and studying for my exams.

This is a bogus thought as there are many nations around the world where people live in horrible conditions, something like 5 in 6 people live in the third world. Most of these people are destined to live a life of misery, desease, malnutrition, and lack of essential services like education, work, and health.

They are also, for the most part, wanted.

From my Human Sexuality textbook:
"One group that has been studied is children who were born because an abortion request was denied... In some other countries access to abortion depends on obtaining official approval. One such country is the former Czechoslovakia. Research followed up on 220 children born to women who had not requested abortion (the "study group") and 220 children born to women who had not requested abortion; the children were studied when they were 9 years old and again when they were 14 to 16 years old. By age 14, 43 children from the study group, but only 30 of the controls, had been referred to counselling. Although there were no differences between the groups in tested intelligence, children in the study group did less well in school and were more likely to drop out. Teachers described them as less sociable and more hyperactive compared with the control group. At age 16, the boys (but not the girls) in the study group more frequently rated themselves as feeling neglected or rejected by their mothers, and felt that their mothers were less satisfied with them. By their early 20s, the study group reported less job satisfaction, more conflicts with co-workers and supervisors, and fewer and less satisfying friendships. Several other studies have found results similar to the Czechoslovakian one. These results point to the serious long-term consequences for children whose mothers would have preferred to have an abortion."
- Understanding Human Sexuality, JS Hyde, 2nd edition, pg 220.

Also, women in the third world aren being denied access to reproductive rights as well - in large part due to US domestic and foreign policy. And they're worse off for it.

Under Rachel's logic, these people were unfit to be brought into this world;

Who said unfit? Unfair, perhaps. Seriously, stop putting words in my mouth.

hell why allow the suffering now? Perhaps the mass killing of these innocent people will reduce poverty and make the few standing 'better off'.

You're just being ridiculous now. Straw man arguments, indeed. However, if you really believe that all people should be brought into this world regardless of how much food and water won't be given to them, let alone good health and education, that's your opinion. Roast me over a grill all you want, but I don't consider myself evil for hoping to promote that every person brought into this world is wanted and adequately cared for. Seems responsible, to me - in fact, it could be deemed reckless to do otherwise, no?

That includes Canada - even in our first world country, people can be psychologically traumatized by uncaring parents.

Sidenote: Of course Rachel being a staunch Liberal, is most likely protectionist just as many other socialists before her.

'Scuse me? I'm sorry, you jumped all over me a few posts ago for clumping all anti-choice people into the same group as the pro-war, anti-public health care crowd. Keep your trap shut about my opinions on trade, because you know absolutely nothing about them. And I could probably talk circles around you, and make you look more ignorant than you already do.

Seriously, Jon? You're coming off really badly in this thread. Judgemental, hypocrital, and ignorant, to start, but now you're just being an arrogant loudmouth. Stop putting words in my mouth. You look like an ass.

Posted by  Jon Whitelaw, at 12:57 p.m.  

"if she's taking precautions, i.e. reliable birth control, she is not taking risks."
If she is not taking risks, why did you post the risk factors (ie. 1 in 100 gets pregnant) with respect to birth control?

Assignments have a limited amount of cheating, but all tests which make up the vast majority of our mark is individually based. Engineers who graduate have their knowledge at an acceptable level to apply it. I've been in an accident, i've made mistakes, and have paid the consequences for it, do i feel offended? No, it was my choice and I should be accountable for my actions.

I can see you are getting frustrated with the lack of understanding of these risk factors. You still have not told me if your friend or you (if applicable) were notified of the risks associated with the pill and other birthcontrol. Did the doctor suggest she use a condom as well? Going against/ignoring doctors advice is negligent.

The legalization of abortion was formed from the very same logic that Cyclo is willing to discuss. He even told you that he will debate from a strictly ethics perspective for your benifit.

I don't like how your study says "more, less" these terms are vague and proves literally nothing except their lives were minimally less than ideal. This is expected, as abortions are not ideal either, you said yourself the goal is to minimize it. I wonder what the kids would have said if you asked them if they would perfer what they have now or would have liked to be aborted.

I've read your site, you are a proud liberal, i don't know what type of liberal does not advocate protectionism. I'd be surprised if this is untrue.

Posted by  Anonymous, at 1:25 p.m.  

If she is not taking risks, why did you post the risk factors (ie. 1 in 100 gets pregnant) with respect to birth control?

Unnecessary risks.

Assignments have a limited amount of cheating, but all tests which make up the vast majority of our mark is individually based.

I know many engineers who have cheated on tests. Here, and at other schools. Tell me, have you cheated? Did you receive a zero on the assignment for which you cheated? Did you report others for cheating and see that they got what they rightfully deserved on the assignment? No? No accountability? No responsibility? People getting what they deserve? Hypocrite.

Engineers who graduate have their knowledge at an acceptable level to apply it.

I'm sorry, I have little faith in engineering degrees. How can the marks be guaranteed to be reflective of the work put into them? Am I to take it on faith, when I know the rampant short-cuts and cheats that went into achieving that degree? I think not.


I've been in an accident, i've made mistakes, and have paid the consequences for it,

Life-altering, irreversible consequences that involved extended physical discomfort, pain, social stigma, persecution, destabilized relationships, extreme financial pressures, etc, etc, etc.? For something you took responsible measures to avoid?

I can see you are getting frustrated with the lack of understanding of these risk factors. You still have not told me if your friend or you (if applicable) were notified of the risks associated with the pill and other birthcontrol. Did the doctor suggest she use a condom as well? Going against/ignoring doctors advice is negligent.

Actually, no. They weren't. You may not understand this, as someone who does not take birth control, but anything with a risk factor of <5% is considered by the medical community as sufficient to use as responsible, single-method birth control. A secondary, back-up method is not necessary.

I don't like how your study says "more, less" these terms are vague and proves literally nothing except their lives were minimally less than ideal.

Welcome to the world of social studies, where nothing is absolute. If you were at all familiar with such studies, you would know that correlation does not equal causation, but that the findings would not be mentioned if they were not statistically significant.

I wonder what the kids would have said if you asked them if they would perfer what they have now or would have liked to be aborted.

I wonder what all of those sperm you've masterbated into Kleenex would have said at your blatant disregard for their divine right to be united with an egg to achieve their right to life.


I've read your site, you are a proud liberal, i don't know what type of liberal does not advocate protectionism. I'd be surprised if this is untrue.

You don't know a lot, actually. It's similar to me saying I don't know what kind of right-wing nutbag who decries pro-choice laws in the name of sanctity of life who simultaneously revokes public social and health infrastructure and advocates killing hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis, but you tell me they exist. In theory.

Posted by  Anonymous, at 2:43 p.m.  

Oh, and it occurs to me Jon - you never answered the question. When you have participated in intercourse with only one form of protection, did you say to yourself "Wow! I am being totally reckless and negligent in engaging in this activity!" or did you say, "Oh, goodie, I'm getting laid! And I'm not going to be a daddy, either, because I'm using protection!"

Yeah. That's what I thought.

Posted by  Anonymous, at 3:11 p.m.  

Oh, and furthermore, if we're going to drag irrelevant laws in as proof: many laws exist to protect the sanctity of the body after death. Notably necrophilia is now recognized in many places as not only a fetish disorder, but a crime. (Schwartenegger signed in this legislation recently in CA.)

Now, if "life" is the central right upon which no other rights can exist, how is this so? Life has left the body. However, even after death, violation of sanctity of one's body is looked down upon, if not outright criminalized.

It is debateable, that, that "life" is the ultimate right that everything else must sacrifice itself for.

Posted by  Anonymous, at 6:42 p.m.  

I do not appreciate your attempts to belittle me when I pursued arguments to preempt your possible rebuttals. It is beyond juvenile to mock me simply because you refused to elucidate your own position before I had forced you to do so. Withholding your opinion until all others have come forth with theirs is demonstrative of a lack of security in your own position, not a flaw in mine.

Selfishness is not illegal.
I've already proven the legal case using legal precedent. You summarily rejected this discussion, and rightfully so as the legal discussion cannot really be had across national boundaries. Thus, I assume we were now dealing solely in the realm of ethics, in which case my point stands.

If I have taken means to protect myself, I have not freely chosen to have that person attach itself to me. It just happened nonetheless. I can get into a car, drive safely and wear a seatbelt, but that does not mean I invite another car to hit me.
This is patently false. If you choose to engage in sexual activity, you do so with the full knowledge that birth control is not perfect and that the act in which you partake may result in pregnancy. Of course, you can claim ignorance of the fallibility of birth control, but ignorance is not a valid defense. Thus, you very much did, in this case, invite another car to hit you. Simply wearing a seat belt does not guarantee that you would not be injured when you decided to swerve across the center line of your own volition, and implying that wearing a seat belt mitigates your guilt in this situation is either disingenuous or obviates that you have not considered that you should be responsible for your own actions.

Do you practice abstinence? Have you ever engaged in intercourse?
This appears to be yet another diversion that you are throwing out there in an effort to convince yourself that hedonism is an acceptable guide when selecting personal ethics. I simply cannot agree.

The moment it takes its first independent breath, I suppose. The moment at which it's no longer dependent on its mother for nourishment and oxygen.
Would you be so kind as to point out why this is an appropriate criterion for the bestowing of rights? You repeatedly claim it as such, but have yet to support it in the least. I could likewise postulate thousands of criteria on which personhood should be based, but if they are not lent credence by supporting arguments, they are nothing.

--Cyclo

Posted by  Jon Whitelaw, at 7:41 p.m.  

I agree that pregnancy is life's biggest responsibility and i have the fullest of respect for all women not only because of their ability to do so, but because women have a lot more power than they receive in life.

It's funny that you bring sex up again though stef, if you look at the poll i posted, it turns out that there are just as many pro-choice men as women, if not more. (did you see the numbers)

If you are going to criticize the pro-life movement as being a bunch of men with no understanding of pregnancy, you would be seriously wrong. That's why i recognize the awkwardness in this debate, but have no doubts that as many women as men have these same concerns.

Posted by  Anonymous, at 1:40 p.m.  

Oh how different these posts would be if men had to carry a thing inside them for nine month as a "consequence" of their sexual actions.

Heh. Sing it, sister.

I do not appreciate your attempts to belittle me when I pursued arguments to preempt your possible rebuttals.

I'm sure you didn't appreciate my tone, but I've been increasingly exasperated by the faux-arguments in this entry. I don't know you, it's not personal.

It is beyond juvenile to mock me simply because you refused to elucidate your own position before I had forced you to do so. Withholding your opinion until all others have come forth with theirs is demonstrative of a lack of security in your own position, not a flaw in mine.

... I'm sorry, but I don't think anyone who has been keeping up with this thread would ever claim that I haven't been "refusing to elucidate", "withholding", or lacking security with anything.

I've already proven the legal case using legal precedent. You summarily rejected this discussion, and rightfully so as the legal discussion cannot really be had across national boundaries. Thus, I assume we were now dealing solely in the realm of ethics, in which case my point stands.

Actually, I was doing some thinking in the shower, and I circled back to that. While I maintain that your "heirarchy of rights" is irredeemedly flawed by its limitations of time and space, I came up with a more appropriate counter-point to your invocation of anti-suicide laws as an example of state intervention in a person's control over their own body to preserve the right of life.

Counterpoint: Organ donation.

In many (if not all, but I don't want to rule out countries that practice this that I'm somehow forgetting or am not aware of) countries that practice medical organ transplants, those organs must be voluntarily donated. A person's organs, after they have died, cannot be summarily harvested by the hospital - let alone the state - without express permission of the person themself (by way of possession a donator card) or by permission of a relative (who would likely have a good idea of whether the person would wish their organs to be harvested.

The person is dead, and have no further use for their own organs. But doctors - let alone the state - cannot invade the sanctity of a person's own body, even to save another person's life. Again, yes, it would be nice if the person volunteered to be a donator, and yes it would be nice if their relative agreed on their behalf - but they don't have to. This is also true under the umbrella of the Declaration of Independence and the United States... no? And if a dead person is allowed the right to deny the use of their organs when they themselves are no longer using them, doesn't it follow that a live woman who is still using them? Even if it's just a loaner, the woman has the right to choose to do so.


If I have taken means to protect myself, I have not freely chosen to have that person attach itself to me. It just happened nonetheless. I can get into a car, drive safely and wear a seatbelt, but that does not mean I invite another car to hit me.

This is patently false.

No it's not.

If you choose to engage in sexual activity, you do so with the full knowledge that birth control is not perfect and that the act in which you partake may result in pregnancy. Of course, you can claim ignorance of the fallibility of birth control, but ignorance is not a valid defense. Thus, you very much did, in this case, invite another car to hit you. Simply wearing a seat belt does not guarantee that you would not be injured when you decided to swerve across the center line of your own volition, and implying that wearing a seat belt mitigates your guilt in this situation is either disingenuous or obviates that you have not considered that you should be responsible for your own actions.

You're confusing my metaphor. Having sex is driving. Wearing a seatbelt and driving carefully is birth control. I didn't "decide to swerve across the centre line" - another car swerved and hit me (or hit a patch of ice; no fault is necessary in this situation).

Do you practice abstinence? Have you ever engaged in intercourse?
This appears to be yet another diversion that you are throwing out there in an effort to convince yourself that hedonism is an acceptable guide when selecting personal ethics. I simply cannot agree.

I only asked that question because the general tone of your argument seems to stem from a puritanical stance that indicates the only reason people ought to engage in sex is to have children (which is, well, crap. Married people who cannot physically have children ought not have sex for the rest of their marriage?). I was simply curious as to whether this was actually something you practiced yourself, or if you, like Jon, were being a hypocrite.

Would you be so kind as to point out why this is an appropriate criterion for the bestowing of rights? You repeatedly claim it as such, but have yet to support it in the least. I could likewise postulate thousands of criteria on which personhood should be based, but if they are not lent credence by supporting arguments, they are nothing.

Actually, Cyclo, it occurred to me after I answered your question that the basis of your argument is that the fetus is a person. I do not personally believe that that is the case - at least for the very minimum the first trimester when the majority of abortions are performed. I believe the potential for life is there, but I do not believe the fetus to be a fully-formed person with full rights at that point. Personally, I believe that moment to be whenever the fetus is developed along enough that it could survive by itself outside the womb - and this is a tenable point even now, because while many premature infants are delivered early and survive, they are often given the nutrients they need to finish adequate development by artifical means in the hospital. As I've said before - no one on this planet has the answer to when life begins. And, we never will. The phrase "a new life has been brought into the world" refers to birth. No one says that when a woman becomes pregnant. Potential. Not life itself.

That being said, considering that that is the argument you brought to me indicates you have read little to none of what I have written here, and you simply brought in your own argument that you have undoubtedly had with other pro-choice advocates who simply claim that the fetus is not a person. If you had read this thread at all, you would have seen that no, I do not believe a fetus is necessarily a person - acorns and oak trees, and all that. However, you would also have read that even if the fetus, from conception, is a fully fledged person with rights, a woman still has the right to deny the use of her organs to another person.

If we're going back to organ donation, for example: I am in a car accident. For the purposes of this example, I am either at fault, or it is a no-fault accident due to black ice, or whatever you wish. I and the driver of the other car are rushed to the hospital. By some strange cosmic coincidence, the other driver and I are a perfect match in blood type and body proteins. I die. The other driver is dying. I am not an organ donor. My family knows that I wouldn't be comfortable with the idea of organ donation.

Posted by  Anonymous, at 1:41 p.m.  

Oh how different these posts would be if men had to carry a thing inside them for nine month as a "consequence" of their sexual actions.

Heh. Sing it, sister.

I do not appreciate your attempts to belittle me when I pursued arguments to preempt your possible rebuttals.

I'm sure you didn't appreciate my tone, but I've been increasingly exasperated by the faux-arguments in this entry. I don't know you, it's not personal.

It is beyond juvenile to mock me simply because you refused to elucidate your own position before I had forced you to do so. Withholding your opinion until all others have come forth with theirs is demonstrative of a lack of security in your own position, not a flaw in mine.

... I'm sorry, but I don't think anyone who has been keeping up with this thread would ever claim that I haven't been "refusing to elucidate", "withholding", or lacking security with anything.

I've already proven the legal case using legal precedent. You summarily rejected this discussion, and rightfully so as the legal discussion cannot really be had across national boundaries. Thus, I assume we were now dealing solely in the realm of ethics, in which case my point stands.

Actually, I was doing some thinking in the shower, and I circled back to that. While I maintain that your "heirarchy of rights" is irredeemedly flawed by its limitations of time and space, I came up with a more appropriate counter-point to your invocation of anti-suicide laws as an example of state intervention in a person's control over their own body to preserve the right of life.

Counterpoint: Organ donation.

In many (if not all, but I don't want to rule out countries that practice this that I'm somehow forgetting or am not aware of) countries that practice medical organ transplants, those organs must be voluntarily donated. A person's organs, after they have died, cannot be summarily harvested by the hospital - let alone the state - without express permission of the person themself (by way of possession a donator card) or by permission of a relative (who would likely have a good idea of whether the person would wish their organs to be harvested.

The person is dead, and have no further use for their own organs. But doctors - let alone the state - cannot invade the sanctity of a person's own body, even to save another person's life. Again, yes, it would be nice if the person volunteered to be a donator, and yes it would be nice if their relative agreed on their behalf - but they don't have to. This is also true under the umbrella of the Declaration of Independence and the United States... no? And if a dead person is allowed the right to deny the use of their organs when they themselves are no longer using them, doesn't it follow that a live woman who is still using them? Even if it's just a loaner, the woman has the right to choose to do so.


If I have taken means to protect myself, I have not freely chosen to have that person attach itself to me. It just happened nonetheless. I can get into a car, drive safely and wear a seatbelt, but that does not mean I invite another car to hit me.

This is patently false.

No it's not.

If you choose to engage in sexual activity, you do so with the full knowledge that birth control is not perfect and that the act in which you partake may result in pregnancy. Of course, you can claim ignorance of the fallibility of birth control, but ignorance is not a valid defense. Thus, you very much did, in this case, invite another car to hit you. Simply wearing a seat belt does not guarantee that you would not be injured when you decided to swerve across the center line of your own volition, and implying that wearing a seat belt mitigates your guilt in this situation is either disingenuous or obviates that you have not considered that you should be responsible for your own actions.

You're confusing my metaphor. Having sex is driving. Wearing a seatbelt and driving carefully is birth control. I didn't "decide to swerve across the centre line" - another car swerved and hit me (or hit a patch of ice; no fault is necessary in this situation).

Do you practice abstinence? Have you ever engaged in intercourse?
This appears to be yet another diversion that you are throwing out there in an effort to convince yourself that hedonism is an acceptable guide when selecting personal ethics. I simply cannot agree.

I only asked that question because the general tone of your argument seems to stem from a puritanical stance that indicates the only reason people ought to engage in sex is to have children (which is, well, crap. Married people who cannot physically have children ought not have sex for the rest of their marriage?). I was simply curious as to whether this was actually something you practiced yourself, or if you, like Jon, were being a hypocrite.

Would you be so kind as to point out why this is an appropriate criterion for the bestowing of rights? You repeatedly claim it as such, but have yet to support it in the least. I could likewise postulate thousands of criteria on which personhood should be based, but if they are not lent credence by supporting arguments, they are nothing.

Actually, Cyclo, it occurred to me after I answered your question that the basis of your argument is that the fetus is a person. I do not personally believe that that is the case - at least for the very minimum the first trimester when the majority of abortions are performed. I believe the potential for life is there, but I do not believe the fetus to be a fully-formed person with full rights at that point. Personally, I believe that moment to be whenever the fetus is developed along enough that it could survive by itself outside the womb - and this is a tenable point even now, because while many premature infants are delivered early and survive, they are often given the nutrients they need to finish adequate development by artifical means in the hospital. As I've said before - no one on this planet has the answer to when life begins. And, we never will. The phrase "a new life has been brought into the world" refers to birth. No one says that when a woman becomes pregnant. Potential. Not life itself.

That being said, considering that that is the argument you brought to me indicates you have read little to none of what I have written here, and you simply brought in your own argument that you have undoubtedly had with other pro-choice advocates who simply claim that the fetus is not a person. If you had read this thread at all, you would have seen that no, I do not believe a fetus is necessarily a person - acorns and oak trees, and all that. However, you would also have read that even if the fetus, from conception, is a fully fledged person with rights, a woman still has the right to deny the use of her organs to another person.

If we're going back to organ donation, for example: I am in a car accident. For the purposes of this example, I am either at fault, or it is a no-fault accident due to black ice, or whatever you wish. I and the driver of the other car are rushed to the hospital. By some strange cosmic coincidence, the other driver and I are a perfect match in blood type and body proteins. I die. The other driver is dying. I am not an organ donor. My family knows that I wouldn't be comfortable with the idea of organ donation. And even though I had a hand in the accident, and I'm dead, my family and I still have the right to refuse the use of my body to save the other driver. This is even more the case if I'm still alive and using my body.

(By the way, Jon, this is where every one of your "accountable consequence" allegories fail. Paying a couple hundred more in insurance premiums is nowhere near similar to forcing people to give up the use of their organs.)

A liberal state cannot intervene in the sphere of the sanctity of a person's decisions over their own body. Otherwise, we're on the road to The Handmaid's Tale.


Finally?

If you are going to criticize the pro-life movement as being a bunch of men with no understanding of pregnancy, you would be seriously wrong. That's why i recognize the awkwardness in this debate, but have no doubts that as many women as men have these same concerns.

And those women who share those concerns can carry through with their very own pregnancies, in their very own bodies, as they choose.


(Point. Set. Match.)

Posted by  Anonymous, at 7:08 p.m.  

While I maintain that your "heirarchy of rights" is irredeemedly flawed by its limitations of time and space
Funny, I never claimed that it was time or space dependent. In fact, I wrote a large chunk of a post pointing out that it could not be.

Counterpoint: Organ donation.
But this is not a counterpoint. A fetus is not an organ, nor is it part of your body. If anything, this is a counterpoint to your thesis: a dead person has more rights than a fetus. Maybe you can explain that one to me.

The 'logic' behind organ donation regulations is not really logic-based at all. Society places these restrictions on organ harvesting because many religions do not allow organ transplants (even autopsies), as it constitutes desecration of a corpse. Thus, it is left to the family to determine whether or not your organs will be donated because they presumably know and understand your religious (or other) beliefs pertaining to this action.

If I have taken means to protect myself, I have not freely chosen to have that person attach itself to me. It just happened nonetheless. I can get into a car, drive safely and wear a seatbelt, but that does not mean I invite another car to hit me.
If you have sex, you do so knowing full well that pregnancy is one possible outcome, regardless of what kind of protection you use. Ignorance is no defense. If you get in a car and wear a seatbelt, you're not instigating any possible harmful outcomes. If, on the other hand, you get in a car with seatbelts and airbags, then cross the median on the interstate, you have now put yourself in harm's way. Same thing goes for sex: by having sex, you're putting yourself in harm's way. If you get pregnant, whose fault is it if not yours? Maybe the condom manufacturer's, but what does he care? He'll also be the one performing the abortion. The 'no fault' argument simply cannot hold when two adults willfully engage in behavior that they KNOW the possible outcomes of. You're simply looking for a way to unload any responsibility that is associated with that action.

I only asked that question because the general tone of your argument seems to stem from a puritanical stance that indicates the only reason people ought to engage in sex is to have children (which is, well, crap. Married people who cannot physically have children ought not have sex for the rest of their marriage?). I was simply curious as to whether this was actually something you practiced yourself, or if you, like Jon, were being a hypocrite.
First, I'm not sure you know what 'hypocrite' means. I can keep a harem in my closet and sleep with fifty different women every night, then come and have a logical discussion regarding the possible outcomes of sexual activity with you without being a hypocrite. Second, what I said is simple fact: pregnancy is a possible outcome of sex. Are you denying this? I said nothing to indicate when people should or should not have sex. I very clearly stated that, if you choose to have sex, you choose to have all of the responsibilities inherent to your actions. There is your right to choose - feel free to apply it before you get knocked up.

Actually, Cyclo, it occurred to me after I answered your question that the basis of your argument is that the fetus is a person. I do not personally believe that that is the case - at least for the very minimum the first trimester when the majority of abortions are performed. I believe the potential for life is there, but I do not believe the fetus to be a fully-formed person with full rights at that point. Personally, I believe that moment to be whenever the fetus is developed along enough that it could survive by itself outside the womb - and this is a tenable point even now, because while many premature infants are delivered early and survive, they are often given the nutrients they need to finish adequate development by artifical means in the hospital. As I've said before - no one on this planet has the answer to when life begins. And, we never will. The phrase "a new life has been brought into the world" refers to birth. No one says that when a woman becomes pregnant. Potential. Not life itself.
So is this your way of saying 'ok, I was wrong'? You just completely changed your position. Please, let me know when you've made up your mind.

However, you would also have read that even if the fetus, from conception, is a fully fledged person with rights, a woman still has the right to deny the use of her organs to another person.
And you're back to this postulated position again that you have, thus far, completely refused to support. This seems to be a resurrection of your previous position that you abandoned in the previous paragraph. Please, tell me why this is the case. I'm more than ready and willing to discuss the various merits of a fetus as a person, but you haven't demonstrated that it will affect your position in any way, so I'll refrain until you can define exactly what your position is.

--Cyclo

Posted by  Anonymous, at 3:16 p.m.  

I seldom comment, but i did a few searching and
wound up here "Morals, Rights and Ethics". And I actually do
have a few questions for you if it's allright. Is it only me or does it look as if like some of these responses come across like they are left by brain dead visitors? :-P And, if you are writing at additional social sites, I would like to keep up with anything new you have to post. Could you list of all of your public sites like your Facebook page, twitter feed, or linkedin profile?

Feel free to surf to my website :: lego sale

Posted by  Anonymous, at 3:16 p.m.  

I seldom comment, but i did a few searching and wound up here "Morals, Rights and Ethics".
And I actually do have a few questions for you if it's allright. Is it only me or does it look as if like some of these responses come across like they are left by brain dead visitors? :-P And, if you are writing at additional social sites, I would like to keep up with anything new you have to post. Could you list of all of your public sites like your Facebook page, twitter feed, or linkedin profile?

my site: lego sale
Also see my website :: Barbie 3 Story Dream House

Posted by  Anonymous, at 10:27 p.m.  

Hi Dear, are you actually visiting this site daily, if
so afterward you will without doubt take nice knowledge.

my homepage - all inclusive cancun vacation

Posted by  Anonymous, at 5:35 p.m.  

You can also consider negotiating the terms of mileage.
You need to know when the discount is applied and how much this will be as you may have to pay the full amount
and claim it back later ' find out first. Automoblie leases are a drug for status-conscious people who require the rush of driving a 'better' car than they can really afford.

Also visit my site: Business Car Leasing

Posted by  Anonymous, at 1:29 a.m.  

Some even stated that should Facebook start to use their personal information to show them advertisements, they would stop using the site.
Prolonged time online can lead to various health issues like
headaches, back aches, eye strain and a long list of other maladies.
You can normally obtain a 125 X 125, a 728 X 90, or 300 X 250 spot from $20 +.


Feel free to surf to my webpage: get free facebook likes

Posted by  Anonymous, at 8:47 p.m.  

The nails look wonderful with fresh polish on at all times, and the monetary investment for the manicures
may be enough to deter the nail biting habit.
To Stop Biting Nails, your
physician might use B vitamin inositol which enhances serotonin activity in
the brain resulting in lessening of nail biting
tendencies. Although it will seem like an innocuous habitual pattern, persistent
fingernail biting can definately cause infections within the
nail bed and really consequence in irreversible
deformity with the fingernails.

Posted by  Anonymous, at 1:43 a.m.  

Not only can you see the animals but they also have shows with them too

Stop by my web blog: here

» Post a Comment