Justin Bieber says you get raped for a reason, ladies (until he didn’t exactly say that)

Here’s hoping that’s not the chorus to his next single

UPDATE (Thursday, 3 p.m. ET). From a bit just published at the AV Club: “Rolling Stone has now come forward to say that, due to an ‘editing error,’ the [Bieber] quote [about rape and abortion] was incomplete, omitting a sentence that could serve to abate the outcry somewhat. Here is Bieber’s full statement on whether abortion is justified in cases of rape, with the revised section in bold: ‘Well, I think that’s really sad, but everything happens for a reason. I don’t know how that would be a reason. I guess I haven’t been in that position, so I wouldn’t be able to judge that.’ Note that it doesn’t exactly change his feelings on the matter—abortion is still definitely not swag—but it does lessen the idea that Bieber thinks rape happens for a reason, which is a pretty big omission on Rolling Stone‘s part, don’t you think?”

•••

From the Dept. of That Interview Went Well:

“I really don’t believe in abortion,” Bieber tells Rolling Stone. “It’s like killing a baby?” (The question mark was put there by the magazine, so I guess we can assume his voice went up at the end like this? Or maybe he was asking for clarification.)

Okay, how about abortion in cases of rape? “Um. Well, I think that’s really sad, but everything happens for a reason.”

(I’m no Col. Tom Parker, but I sure hope that’s not the chorus to Bieber’s next single: Well you got raped and impregnated/It sure is a bummer but must have been fated… Love your rape baaaaaby!)

In geopolitical news, Bieber has thoughts about junk and stuff: “I’m not sure about the [political] parties,” he says. “But whatever they have in Korea, that’s bad.” (I say it’s two weeks tops before Kim Jong-il drops his reply and THIS RAP WAR IS ON. The East coast v. West coast rivalry is going to be nothing compared to Eastern hemisphere v. Western hemisphere. Drake is already working on mad rhymes for Mongolia.)

But just when you think that maybe this interview was a mistake, the kid rallies with his answer to a question from a fan: “If you could fly anywhere in the world to go to a restaurant, where would you go?”

The Bieber replies: Canada. Swiss Chalet. Quarter Chicken Dinner.




Browse

Justin Bieber says you get raped for a reason, ladies (until he didn’t exactly say that)

  1. In fairness, one can't help but think that the kid's schedule has had an impact on the education he's receiving.

    • His (American) label is or should be giving him a thorough lesson in answers to journalists questions. They're usually coached to give bland but often conservative style responses to a lot of social issues questions, which they probably don't really believe. (recall Britney Spears early claim to be saving herself for marriage). It's probably not that surprising for young pop stars to be told to say they find abortion is wrong, though few probably believe it.

      If anything, the interviewer probably caught him off guard by taking him seriously and engaging in a probling follow-up. It's not really fair – that's not what fluff interviews for teenage pop stars are for!

    • Good point.

      I'd add that it's probably also fair to say that the different education he's receiving from his career is almost certainly worthwhile in its own way too, though certainly fraught with much greater potential peril.

  2. Went to the gym the other day and while there I saw a group of about 5 male teenagers, 14-16, working out together. All of them with Bieber hair styles. It made me want to throw-up. I have grown accustom to the shallowness of teens but this is a new high!

    • It's been happening since the Beatles. The teenage years are when it's appropriate. It's the 50 year olds clinging to the rock star image I find shallow.

      • Er, or maybe it's been happening since Elvis, or Sinatra, or maybe Mozart. Get famous enough and you will be emulated.

    • So you judged some kids on their hairstyle, then claim that they're shallow? You see the hypocrisy in this comment right?

      • Ya just like you. Shallow, thoughtless, mindless following of a fem fatale like Bieber. Everybody in the place were staring and laughing at them. They looked like a bunch of testosterone challenged idiots. Enough to make ya puke!

        • westnewf, doing your province proud…

    • 5 teens working out in a gym and WestNewf criticises their hair style??? Kudos for them for working out instead of smoking a joint in a back alley. YOUR comments make ME want to upchuck! You're a real loser WestNewf. (This is from a 78 yr old geezer)

    • I just want to say people can do their hair the way they want. No one wants to be judged. I bet you that a million people in this world will find your hair disgusting, but it doesn’t mean that it makes you shallow does it? Don’t judge people you don’t know.

  3. I think we can safely ignore the philosophical musings of a 16 year old. LOL

    • I dunno…I've spoken to some pretty astute 16 year olds. Bieber doesn't really seem to fall into that category though.

      • Agreed. When I was 16 (20 years ago), I was into philosophy and comparative religion. But then, I listened to heavy metal, not fly-by-night pop sensations. But Bieber isn't exactly a role model for in-touch youngsters. After all, he's from London.

        • Actually, he's from Canada.

          • london is in canada. He is from outside of london, in canada

          • he’s from Stratford, that’s like an hour away from London

    • Do try to be more positive about things. PLease

  4. give the kid a break and why are these kinds of questions being asked of a 17 year old boy who is just trying to make music

    • A fair point. But I think a better question is why a parent would allow a teenage boy to be interviewed by a grown-up magazine that's desperate to sell copies and has a history of provocative questions and photographs.

      • I agree and perhaps the magazine should have given his Mom a list of questions that may be asked before hand. I am sure she would have declined.

      • Yeah, shame on that Rolling Stone. You'd never see a Maclean's writer [EDIT] Dishonestly [EDIT} exploiting a kid for cheap laughs or for moral preening.

      • Does he even have legal parents anymore? I was under the impression that Usher had purchased him out of slavery, and is licensing him to the record company.

      • There really hasn't been that much provocative about Rolling Stone since the first time they fired Hunter Thompson, though. It's a pretty mainstream magazine. I'd say that Bieber himself should have been familiar enough with the kind of questions they generally ask that he should have been more prepared.

        That being said though, I pretty much agree with Frank Zappa's assessment of rock journalism…"People who can't write interviewing people who can't talk for people who can't read."

    • My thoughts exactly.

    • At 17 I was enlisted in the Marine Corps. At 19 I was fighting a war. Justin Bieber, he is someone kids should look up to.

    • if you're old enough to have sex, you're old enough not to have terrible opinions about sexual assault and abortion, or to be held accountable for the ones that you DO have.

    • Trying being the watchword.

    • I completely agree with you.

  5. Jesus wept.

    How lame is the Rolling Stone becoming? Why pose questions like this to a 16 year old kid who spends more time thinking about his hair and his Pro-Active….than the real world?

    They should have asked him what he would do to stimulate the economy and ease the recession.

    Oy vei.

    • Come to think of it, what IS Justin Bieber doing about the economy?

      And why does he hate the troops?

      • 50,000,000 haircuts. That's a lot of stimulus.

        • In all seriousness though, the guy who owns the shop where I get my haircut said that Bieber is having an adverse affect on his business. Kids grow their hair longer and don't get it cut as frequently.

          • History is repeating its self…my Dad's barber said the same thing about us long haired s.o.b's .. back in 1971…Yeah,,Rock on !!

          • Thus the emergence of "Barbers for Bjork"?

          • I admit, Rolling Stone has actually made me sympathetic to Bieber. An impossible feat. I mean, come on – the clown isn't of legal voting age, which is why we don't let him vote. And why he should be exempt from anything that's a "how would you vote if…" question.

            Plus, I kind of like Swiss Chalet Death Sauce. ™

          • No kidding! I normally gag when I even see his name, but this made me feel real sorry for the kid. Just wait until the US talking heads on both sides of the isle get started.

    • You should just calm down ok? You want to know what he has done for the economy? He has donated millions of his own money to charity. As a matter of fact his some Christmas album money went to charity. So I think you better do your research before going off and saying random crap about people that you don’t even know.

  6. I'd hate to think what would have happened if someone had interviewed me when I was 17. Or even 27.

    Expecting wisdom from teenage pop stars is like expecting world leaders or philosophers to sing.

  7. Not sure why it matters what some kid rockstar thinks about such things. Unless he's the one going around raping people… then I really don't care.

    • if he didn't have legions of followers, it wouldn't be dangerous. The problem is many of his fans think what he says has validity and weight because he's "beiber".
      I think if you look at bieber as an example of many teens, you also see that when it comes to politics and world issues they are uninformed/uneducated which means in 2 years, many will be uneducated but voters.

  8. Wait. There's an age at which I'm supposed to STOP wearing bangs??

    • As they say on South Park.. there's a time and place for everything — it's called college.

  9. He's a kid. One of mine, then in his teens, came home late one night, sat at the foot of my bed and told me he had to confess something to me: "I'm a Marxist-Leninist" he declared. I was relieved! He's moved on since.

    Reporter should realize that at 16 Bieber is too young to have thought about these things – unless reporter is 16 too.

    • A 16 year old shouldn't have an opinion or knowledge on political issues? I know when I was 16, I knew exactly what abortion was and why all women should have a choice as to what they could do with their body. I'm actually pretty sure that I knew that well before I turned 16. Being 16 is not an excuse for ignorance.

      • No everyone is a bat girl – he's a young man, who's never going to have to make such a choice for himself. What was your opinion of circumcision or vasectomy when you were 16?

        • I had an opinion and knowledge of that too. It's called sexual education and as soon as you hit puberty, you should learn these things. Just because he can't get pregnant, doesn't mean he shouldn't know what an abortion is or what it entails.

          • I believe he knows what abortion is. He doesn't believe in it. It's a free country and he can believe what he wants. I didn't believe in abortion when I was 16 and not much experience of life. Now that I'm well into my 50's my thoughts and believes have changed dramatically. Give the kid a break and let him experience life then ask him these questions.

  10. It's fascinating how the first thing that comes out of an abortion supporter's mouth when confronting an abortion proponent : What about rape?

    Well, what about rape? It's cited as a cause for abortion in a tiny fraction of cases. So, are those that ask the question willing to ban abortion in all other cases? Is that why they keep asking the question?

    • Because it's a good way to determine if a person really cares about the preservation of life, or simply the preservation of a particular morality.

    • Great can of worms to open, Dennis, but you're absolutely correct. Rape abortion is a red herring argument as are most pro-abortion arugments. CDC stats clearly show that over 93% of all abortions are performed due to "inconvenience' reasons as discussed in this book; http://www.TheTwoSuggestions.com.

  11. Kudos to Loraine….I agree he is a KID. The question here is why would a reporter ask him those type of questions…REALLY!!!

    • Susie, As I understand it Bieber was a teen pregnancy kid and his mom at one point considered abortion. Hence, very appropos question, even though he's obviously going to give a one-sided answer

      • I didn't know about Bieber's upbringing and family situation. However, he's still too young to be asked about these things. Reporter may ask his mother about her experience, but Bieber is too young. And he would also be too young to be asked about sex outside of marriage and for purposes other than procreation.

        • He's not too young. He's a rock star. He agreed to do an interview. His people should have prepped him better.

          Agreeing to an interview is an unwritten contract. There has to be a benefit to each side for it to happen. The value to the magazine is sales (Beiber Cover!) and to the interviewee is publicity (people read the story/his profile is maintained). If you want to avoid tough questions, don't agree to an interview, or only agree to interviews with reporters that agree to avoid tough questions.

    • … because infantile minds want to know.

  12. But will the Biebs buy five copies for his Mother?

  13. The thing is that his responses are likely exactly what he was asked to deliver, or as close to that as he could come up with on the fly; good, pure, innocent christian boy who, just like Britney, Justin, the Jonas Brothers, and damned near every teen star who came before him, totally toes the gospel line when it comes to sex issues.

  14. Cheap shot by the Rolling Stone. However, he actually gave an honest answer. His mother is a devout Christian and raised him with those values. Whether you agree or not, he had the courage to speak his convictions and not what would be considered "popular". Gotta respect that coming from a 16 year old.

    "I'm a Christian, I believe in God… As soon as I start forgetting, I've got to click back and be like, you know, this is why I'm here."
    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/dailydish/det

    • Not a cheap shot. It's called journalism. The reporter didn't kidnap him.

      • I'd actually put quotes around "journalism" when discussing an interview with a 16 year old pop star, but point taken.

      • Cheap journalism – they edited to change the tone of the response and have now corrected it.

        Due to an editing error, this story originally included an incomplete quote from Justin Bieber. The full quote, his response to whether abortions should be allowed in cases of rape, reads: "Um. Well, I think that's really sad, but everything happens for a reason. I don't know how that would be a reason. I guess I haven't been in that position, so I wouldn't be able to judge that."

  15. Well putting aside the rape and abortion thing. The reporter probably asked him about the parties because he's 18 next year an it's also an election year. And he gave an answer about that whatever they have in Korea is bad. Well Korea has two countries in it one is a democracy and the other is a dictatorship. Kind of a big conflict there which split the country in two that was less than 60 years ago which both Canada and U.S.A was a part of.

    • He can't vote in 2012 unless there's an election in Canada.

      He's not a US citizen.

    • and larry, its up to us to decipher whether he was referring to north or south korea, surely you were able to successfully do that…

  16. Well, on the upside, he had a good run…

    Seriously though, he'll take some heat for this response, and it was a not-so-great answer to an impossible question for someone in his position.

    But it wasn't "Nir Rosen" bad:
    http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowldc/apologies-f

  17. That's another one I don't get. Abortion defenders tend to use some pretty wacky logic. I guess you have to in order to defend such an act.

    • There are pretty wacky viewpoints on both sides of this one. Many opposed to abortions are also opposed to contraception and sex education – two things that can dramatically reduce unwanted pregnancies, and thus, the number of abortions.

      (Full disclosure: I'm anti-abortion (for the most part; I'm still torn on the rape question, and I'm several times older than the Biebs), but I don't believe shutting down clinics or passing laws to forbid it are realistic solutions.)

      • I have the same opinion as you on abortion. Except that I am certain that I am pro-abortion when it comes to rape. Just thought to share. Nice to see someone with the same opinion.

        • oh and for the record I am a 21 year old female.

  18. Bieber's mother, a devout Christian, was 18 when she had her unplanned pregnancy. She raised him as a single mom, living in low-income housing, working a string of low-paying office jobs.

    Given these biographical details, it's not exactly surprising that Justin "doesn't really believe in abortion". Considering the star-crossed trajectory of his short life, it also isn't hard to figure out why the teen superstar thinks "everything happens for a reason".

    • At what age should the distinction between what you feel worked for your own family and imposing that idea on others kick in?

      • Huh? You think that Bieber is imposing his ideas on others?

        • And when he sings "Baby, baby, baby…" he's really referring to his incubator buddies in the preemie ward. Yeah, that's it.

    • What a better world it would have been if his mother believed in abortion, though…

      • what an asinine thing to say no matter your stance on the subjects.

  19. I'm pro-choice in either instance. No conflict.

    There are a few people who are pro-life in either instance. It's a difficult/unpalatable position to hold, but I do have some respect for it. It also has no conflict. (It does have some practical difficulties, however, in that banning abortion does not by any means stop them from being conducted, and driving them underground can wind up endangering two people (mother and child) rather than just the one.)

    Then there are all those anti-choice people who feel a woman should be prevented from having an abortion if she chose to have sex, but are willing to accept it if she didn't make the choice. Those are the hypocrites.

    • I believe that woman should have choice, too. Those choices are to be made before conception occurs. In the case of rape, there is no choice. You're right, which is why it is a difficult issue for those against abortion. Nevertheless, it happens so rarely versus other abortions. I'd prefer to discuss issues of dealing with rape and punishing it, rather than the life in the womb. You're right. You are consistent. You don't care about human life in the womb.

      This is a debate that will go nowhere, of course. Just curious to see how quick the pro-abortionists are to pull out the rape red herring.

      • What you believe isn't important.

          • I believe he's suggesting that women should have the right to choose to have an abortion whether you believe they should or not.

          • So males and females in the womb can be killed simply because a woman says so? Quite frankly, I think that is one of the most cowardly arguments in public debate that I have ever come across. We can't justify abortion on its merits, so let's hide behind a woman's womb! And let's tell people who disagree with us that they can't defend human life in the womb while we're at it. I'm sorry, but that's the way I feel. I don't like being silenced or bullied.

      • Perhaps your opinion regarding "I'd discuss issues of dealing with rape and punishing it, rather than life in the womb" would hold more value if you were a woman faced with this issue, instead of a man talking for women. In doing this you are not allowing women to have a voice or value. The discussion of rape, "dealing with it" and "punishing it" is a constant discussion.
        Also, your opening two sentences do not address the issue of rape AT ALL.

        • But about half of the fetuses killed as a result of abortion are male, aren't they? Actually, most people choose to kill female fetuses because, well, they're female. The irony. But that's a different issue. The point is that I think this is a topic that involves life and humanity for all. Don't you? Last time I looked, we don't live in a segregated society. Debates are supposed to be as inclusive as possible. But here you are wanting to exclude people who dare want to protect all human life in the womb.

          You're more than welcome to point out specifically how I haven't addressed any issue, instead of merely accusing me of such. I like to think I justify most of my comments here with reason. You?

          • You need to re-read what I typed, troll.

          • Again, you're more than welcome to explain any of your comments, or to rebut mine. That you can't says a lot about how awful it is to defend such a horrible act as abortion, doesn't it.

          • Your failure to comprehend anything he's said does not make him a troll.

          • no.

        • Massey, have you ever actually looked at the people in an anti-abortion demonstration? I mean, those few that we ever hear or see anything about because the press has done a self-censoring job on the whole issue. More than half are usually women. I am a woman who did indeed face this very question as an adolescent. But when we are making decisions of this much importance regarding the type of society we have and want to have, everyone's opinions count. Not just men, not just women, and not just people you agree with.

      • Let's go bottom up.

        First, I don't think there's anybody that's pro-abortion. And if there was, they certainly wouldn't be pro-choice, since it's just as anti-choice to go the other way.

        Second, I'll go one further. Personally, I don't really care about human life *out* of the womb. I care about suffering, about truth, about freedom, about efficiency, and about consistency.. in roughly that order, although those last three often jockey for position in my mind. However, I'd hardly look at my case as typical.

        Third, denying the choice of when to make a choice is still denying a choice.

        • Of course you're pro-abortion. How aren't you?

          I believe reproductive choices should be made by women and men before reproduction actually occurs. That we think there are choices to be made after the fact reflects just how warped our thinking has become on issue of sex, reproduction, and life.

          • Because abortion, when it occurs, is a waste. I'd rather it didn't happen. That said, I recognize the suffering that an unwanted child can cause and end up enduring, and think that, coupled with the freedom of the mother to choose who gets to use her organs outweigh that waste.

          • Because abortion, when it occurs, is a waste. I'd rather it didn't happen.

            Why is it a waste? Why would you rather it not happen?

            I recognize the suffering that an unwanted child can cause and end up enduring

            That same suffering can occur with born children. It's an ancient phenomenon. Infanticide is as old as humanity itself. Yet we don't allow it to happen to the born. So why the unborn? One week before birth it's OK. One week after birth it's not. I don't think that's a sustainable position.

            coupled with the freedom of the mother to choose who gets to use her organs outweigh that waste.

            If you're talking about her reproductive organs, that choice would have been made when consensual sex occurred, right?

          • Not just her reproductive organs, her blood, liver, kidneys, etc. All of those organs which the unborn entity makes use of.

            Your second point has some merit, though we know from statistics that unwanted children and their mothers have a larger tendency to experience suffering than when the child is wanted. But I used the word "coupled" for a reason. The use of the woman's organs and the chance of suffering together. You can't just separate one out and say, "Well this doesn't count on its own" because that's not the argument I made.

            And it's a waste because there's always a chance that a new human might be productive for society.

          • And it's a waste because there's always a chance that a new human might be productive for society.

            You mean it's a human being? Then why wouldn't you want to protect it as such? You mentioned suffering? Isn't experiencing death the worst kind of suffering?

          • No, experiencing death is experiencing death. We have no indication that death itself causes suffering for the individual, and little indication that, at least in the early stages of pregnancy, that the cell mass is capable of suffering in any event. I grow more uncomfortable with abortions in the later stages of pregnancy simply because the chances of the unborn suffering increase.

            And of course it's a human being — once it is born. Until then, it's technically a parasite with potential. And yes, I do realize that in some respects the line drawn there is nearly as arbitrary as the line you draw when sperm meets egg — especially in those last few days before the actual birth, but the balance, I feel, is held by the woman's freedom to control her own organs.

            I simply don't want the government to have the ability to tell me I have to use any of my organs to support another person, so don't feel in good conscience I can allow the government to have that power over women either.

          • Death is still the worst fate for someone, isn't it?

            Drawing the line at sperm meeting egg is not arbitrary. Conception is the creation of new life. It's when we all have our lives. You, on the other hand, do admittedly draw arbitrary lines. Why is a late-term fetus worth more than an early-term fetus? By that logic, an adult should have more of a right to life than a baby, shouldn't they?

            And I still don't understand your organ argument. If a woman doesn't want them used, then she shouldn't engage in any activity in which they are used. Pretty simple. Rape is different, but it's rare, and there are alternatives to killing life in the womb.

          • No, death is not the worst fate. That's your belief, not mine. I can think of a number of things worse than death. Things during which people would well prefer death.

            As for when sperm meets egg, that is arbitrary, as both sperm and egg before have a chance at become fully formed humans with independant wants and desires just as the fertilized egg does, and just like the fertilized egg, many of them don't make it that far. That you choose the moment when they combine rather than the moment before is entirely arbitrary unless you believe in some sort of magic. (And if you do.. then even that is arbitrary, as it can just as easily be argued that God doesn't magically impart the human quality to the growing mass until the 3rd week.. or 3rd trimester.. or whatever)

            Your assertion that a late-term fetus is worth more than an early-term one is yours alone. I haven't made that assertion and don't agree with it. As such, your logic, based on an incorrect premise, is wrong.

            My organ argument is simple. I don't believe the government should have any control over whether we use our organs to support another person — at any point, under any circumstance. If I have a car accident and because of it another person needs a lung, the government should not have the ability to demand I supply that lung.. even if I caused the accident.. even if without it the other person would die. Similarly, pregnant women should have full control over who their organs support.

          • I simply don't want the government to have the ability to tell me I have to use any of my organs to support another person, so don't feel in good conscience I can allow the government to have that power over women either.

            From a practical perspective a woman's ability to achieve the control over her body that you speak of is going to be highly variable, dependant on many factors, but certainly dependant on the number of weeks of gestation – obtaining an abortion early on is relatively easy, while obtaining one anytime into the third trimester is going to be quite a bit more difficult.

            Point being that even if the government stays out of the picture – which I suppose they have with the current status of abortion law in Canada – the medical community is going to have a significant say about early term versus late term abortions.

            Are you OK with that?

          • Are you asking if I'd support the government passing legislation that requires doctors perform abortions if requested? Because that's really the only way to get around the practical concerns you note.

            That's a harder question, because now you're balancing freedoms of different people, as well as (in the later trimesters) suffering of the unborn with suffering of the parent.

            Am I ok with it? Not really. But I don't think I can philosophically give a consistent answer, becauseI think at that point, the balance becomes too much of a personal issue between doctor and parent for me to be able to really say there's a solution. So given that, I'd probably prefer to go with the status quo and cross my fingers that the practicality problems don't pop up too often.

          • Thanks. You seem to have been able to parse out my question.

            Basically I can live with the status quo in Canada.

          • Not all pregnancies that are unexpected are the result of using no contraception. No contraceptive method is 100% guaranteed.

            Unplanned pregnancy outside of wedlock or committeed relationship usually results in a disproportionate burden on the mother. Often beyond her means to support. Fathers of unplanned children outside of a committed relationship do not have a strong history of involvement or support.

            Do you believe that society should provide a living income and other forms of suppor for unwed, unsupported mothers?

          • No contraceptive method is 100% guaranteed.

            One is: Not having sex with someone you don't want to have a baby with. Problem solved.

            I think it was Gandhi who warned about an era of "free sex" where the reproductive consequences of the sexual act are completely ignored. Well, we're in that era. We view sex as something completely separate from reproduction, and it isn't. 100,000 abortions a year in Canada you'd think would be proof enough of that.

          • Out of curiousity, do you agree that the father should be made to support the child, going so far as to garnish wages, etc?

          • Sure. In fact, I think that if a woman has an abortion done, the father should be charged, too. I think men are probably responsible for this current mess. So, to me, this isn't about gender. It's about the right to life. In fact, it's usually about gender to the supporters of abortion.

          • Ghandi said a lot of things that were questionable and had an interesting take on celibacy and things sexual.

          • So now you're bashing Gandhi because he challenged your social agenda? Wow.

          • No if I'm bashing anyone, I'm bashing you for selectively quoting Gandhi about the effects of sexual freedom, while ignoring his well recorded backsliding on such matters.

          • I'm not selectively quoting anyone. This is what I believe he said on the topic. If you have anything else to add, you're more than welcome to it. I'm just not accustomed to people bashing Gandhi as part of an enlightened argument. That's all.

          • Up until this point, you hadn't made that distinction, you simply talked about making contraception choices before engaging in woopie. Now that you are clearly talking about abstinence as being the only valid contraceptive method and all others a sham, what can we assume your posiiton is on my question of you? Since they didn't abstain, unwed, unsupported mothers have made a ball and chain mistake that you aren't willing to mitigate or otherwise assist with since it was their own damn fault?

          • Well, you're making a bunch of accusations here that I don't think add up.

            First, I haven't put forth the proposition that abstinence is the only valid contraceptive choice. However, it's the only one that's guaranteed to work.

            I don't understand what's so absurd about the proposition that people have sex only with people they want to procreate with.

            As for unwed mothers who have made a mistake, as you suggest, you seem to think that the only option is killing the baby. Why should it have to be punished? It didn't do anything wrong. In fact, it is the most innocent form of human life, and here we are failing to protect it; completely OK with having it destroyed all in the name of social liberal rights. Yay. Sigh.

          • You still haven't answered my question. Is it by design?

          • "I think it was Gandhi who warned about an era of "free sex" where the reproductive consequences of the sexual act are completely ignored. Well, we're in that era. We view sex as something completely separate from reproduction, and it isn't."

            While I won't argue that we're an over-sexed society these day, I'd have to disagree with this statement. Girls were having unexpected pregnancies LONG before now. The consequences of sexual acts have been ignored LONG before now (and you could easily argue that a greater percentage of the population understands reproductive biology now than in days gone by). And, of course, women were having abortions long before Roe vs. Wade, too.

          • I know you're talking to Dennis here.. but.. damn straight.

          • No doctor or woman would ever abort one week before birth. Actually consider what you are arguing..

          • So then you think it should be outlawed at that point? Can we protect the human fetus at that point? That would be awesome, wouldn't it?

            (I get a kick out of people who prefer to characterize me or my arguments then actually rebut them. You try to come across as superior, but only expose your own ignorance and lack of argumentation skills. Thank you.)

      • You don't care about human life in the womb.

        I think this has been a pretty good respectful back and forth you two have been having, so I'd only like to add this point. I think it would be less inflammatory to claim that Thwim doesn't care about "life" in the womb, rather than saying that he doesn't care about HUMAN life in the womb. I realize of course that YOU likely believe that even a clump of eight microscopic cells in a womb counts not only as "life" but also as "human life", but I think it would be worthwhile to acknowledge that not everyone believes as you do on that point.

        Again, not to say that you can't believe that Thwim doesn't care about human life in the womb, and maybe Thwim DOESN'T care about human life in the womb, I just thought it's been a pretty good back and forth by the two of you given the sensitivity of the topic, and wanted to point out that there are people who would agree that an embryo and/or fetus constituents "life", but who would argue that said life is not yet a "human being" and therefore should be afforded a different level of protection.

        • If it's not human life, then what kind of life is it? A chicken life? A frog life? An alien life? If I don't believe it's human life, then why am I even debating the issue? It is a central part of the issue, isn't it? That it's an uncomfortable one for your side is understandable, but not my problem.

          We all start our lives at some point. It's conception. I believe that the eight cell organism you cited is a miracle. Why try to diminish its worth?

          • A miracle is something that defies the laws of nature.
            Given the widespread occurrence of pregnancies and the fact that all you need are functioning reproductive organs to make it happen it appears that it is pretty far from miraculous.
            Boringly commonplace I would say.

          • You don't think human life is special? What do you think we are? Vermin infesting an otherwise perfectly good planet?

          • In the current state of environmental affairs, that's a pretty accurate assumption. Otherwise you could consider us just another animal on the planet.

          • So why even have laws against murder, or human rights, if we're not special? Why not just treat each other like the bunch of animals you claim we are.

          • Because we are social animals on the whole and we have adapted to value stuff like collective enterprise and defence.
            Over time we have found cool ways of making such things better and more effective. Some of the things that kind of makes collective defence and enterprise hard to do is the random killing of each other, stealing etc. So when we noticed that stuff was better when we refrained from such activity we collectively agreed to a social contract that we would not do such things. And things got better and we liked it thus reinforcing the trend.
            We also can relate to the suffering of others and other life forms too. The closer the life forms are to us then the more we can relate. The suffering of another person is something we can relate to and, unless you are a sociopath, a certain degree of empathy is formed that elicits a golden rule approach in one.

          • So, if you can kill someone and nobody would know, that would be OK to you, right? Society wouldn't get hurt. The law of the jungle would prevail.

          • Did you not understand a thing I said?
            Empathy, golden rule etc? I wouldn't do it because I wouldn't like it done to me.

          • I'm sorry. I am having trouble your likening us to animals. They don't have a golden rule, but we do. How is that? They don't have empathy, but we do. They don't have free will, but we do. Yet here you are suggesting that we're all the same, but somehow we magically have a golden rule. Fascinating. Please educate us more.

          • Wrong animals do show empathy. Ever watch a chimp grieve for a dead member of its family? Ever seen a family pet comfort an owner that is upset or ill? Admittedly the level empathy drops off as you travel down the continuum to more simple creatures. But we are not simple creatures so our level of empathy is a scale larger and one of the results of that is the formulation of the golden rule and more advanced social conventions. You do see similar conventions in a lot of pack animals, just more simple..
            I think I spot the issue with your use of the word "us". Just how many of you are in there?

          • Dennis. I'm inclined to suggest that you are operating under the assumption that everyone in this forum is basing their opinion on the same set of moral values and judging them based on the inconsistencies that their argument have with your set of values. However, their views are totally consistent with their own morals. You throw free will into the equation as though it is an absolute fact that we possess it and you make assumptions that animals don't show empathy. Not everyone believes these things. If you could understand that not everyone here is operating under the same moral assumptions, you would certainly have an easier time understanding why these views exist.

          • I don't think I mentioned life, I queried your use of the term miracle to describe a commonplace event.

          • A commonplace event. Then why don't you invent a process that creates human life just like that?

          • Still don't grasp the use of the word miracle do you?

          • 6 Billion folk on earth means 6 billion pregnancies and I'm not including the ones that didn't work out.
            That is hardly an unusual or extremely outstanding event or accomplishment.
            Something that has happened 6 billion times in the last couple of generations is pretty routine.

          • Well, is an egg a chicken?

            Don't get me wrong, of course I realize that you believe that the dividing line between potential and actuality is conception, and that the moment of conception is the moment not only that "life" is created, but that said life is a "human being". I'm just not sure that the arbitrary point of "conception" is necessarily more valid than some other arbitrary point, like implantation (is it a "human being" if the egg has been fertilized but not yet implanted in the uterus?), neuromaturation, the ability of the organism to move, the ability of the organism to feel, the ability of it to live outside of the womb, etc…

            Some also believe that human life begins BEFORE conception. That masturbating, for example, is ALSO akin to infanticide, at least from the male perspective of "spilling the seed". Would those who believe as much not perhaps think even you guilty of defending "infanticide" if you want to wait until sperm meets egg before protecting the potential human?

            I certainly respect your belief that not only life but also humanity begins at conception, I'm just not willing to accept as axiomatic that said belief is the only correct interpretation, simply because it is the most (or at least ALMOST the most) absolute. (and, of course, it all gets a bit more complicated, at least from my view, once we get to the rapidly approaching point where a bunch of skin cells have as much potential to become a human being as a fertilized egg does).

            All that said, it's been nice to see such a largely civil discussion here (with a few exceptions, true) over such a highly charged issue.

          • Just an aside to say that I often find myself appreciating the many different flavours you bring to these strings, LKO.

          • You can muddy the waters all you want. Almost all opponents of abortion use conception as the demarcation line. That is when human life is created. Your comments about masturbation and the like are absurd. Who in the world argues that?

            And what about when the fetus happens to look a lot more like a baby? Do you still support the "choice" of having it killed then?

            Abortion defenders us the same tricks to defend what I think it the indefensible. They pull out the rape card. They track back to the earliest stages of life to argue that it's worth less than at a later stage.

            My view is simple. Life starts at conception. A human being should have rights from the very beginning. End of story.

            Abortion defenders believe only certain people should have rights.

          • Your comments about masturbation and the like are absurd. Who in the world argues that?

            Doesn't the entire Catholic Church still forbid masturbation and condom use for this exact reason?

          • Ah, no. The Catholic Church "forbids" all forms of artificial contraception because they violate a fundamental component of sex: its procreative nature. As soon as you say its OK to wear a condom, then you're OKing all forms of sex involving condoms, including homosexual sex, or any form of sex that doesn't have a procreative component to it. It doesn't mean you can't use birth control. The Church condones natural birth control that is as effective as the pill and other methods. It just means that a man inseminating a woman preserves the essence of what God intended sex to be: making new life, and bonding between a man and woman in marriage.

            Now, there are some studies that suggest chemicals in semen make a woman happy. Social liberals don't like these studies because, well, they expose the limits of condom use, don't they.

          • Almost all opponents of abortion use conception as the demarcation line.

            Maybe, but just because almost everyone on one side of a debate holds position X doesn't make position X correct. It doesn't even necessarily make position X the most logical position of those who are on that side of the debate.

          • lol. No, opponents of abortion use conception as the demarcation line because it's the obvious point at which a human life begins. It doesn't begin at birth. A fetus had life before that. It didn't have life, or existence, before conception. Easy peasy. In fact, the Catholic views on abortion, sex, reproduction and the like are incredibly simple and flow from one topic to another. It's the other side that wants to complicate it all, as evidenced in this thread. They bring in rape, sperm as human life — anything to cloud the justification behind killing life in the womb.

          • Well, I think your argument basically boils down to "I'm right because it's obvious that I'm right" so there's not much point in continuing is there?

            I can presume though that you favour a massive overhaul to how IVF is handled, correct? 'Cause there are literally thousands upon thousands of embryos that are past your demarcation line and sitting in freezers right now, and I believe many are pretty routinely destroyed.

            Come to think of it, is it even OK to freeze them? I mean, even without destroying them, is it morally acceptable to leave them in stasis indefinitely? What if early term "abortions" could be handled in such a way that the embryo is not destroyed, but removed from the uterus and put in a freezer forever?

            I'd also point out that it's true, unlike you I'm not perfectly certain of where the line should be drawn. I'd like to suggest though that if you can put it in a freezer and come back to it years later, thaw it out, and have it be just fine, it's not a human being yet.

          • Well, I think your argument basically boils down to "I'm right because it's obvious that I'm right" so there's not much point in continuing is there?

            No. Conception is pretty much no-brain demarcation line as to when human life begins. Before conception, there is no human life. After conception, there is. It's obviously a basic reality for which you have no decent reply.

            As for IVF, again, the Catholic Church is consistent. It's wrong, precisely because human beings are being harvested unnaturally. Like I said, the simplicity of the Church's position causes it problems, but not when it comes to maintaining a consistent argument throughout.

            However, once life is created, and frozen, it shouldn't be destroyed. In fact, everything should be done to allow it to develop fully.

            As for your clear line drawing, it doesn't seem so clear to me. Where exactly do you draw the line again? When do you consider a fetus a human life?

          • As for your clear line drawing, it doesn't seem so clear to me.

            It's actually YOU who said that it's clear where the line is. I'm the one who just said "I'm not perfectly certain of where the line should be drawn".

            As I said, I do feel pretty certain that if you can freeze it, leave it for a few years, come back and unfreeze it and it's fine, that's not a human yet. So I guess I can definitively say that wherever I'd put the line demarking where along the path a clump of cells becomes a human being, it'd be somewhere on the "no" side of the "can it survive being frozen in a freezer for years on end?" question.

          • So we have the knowledge and the technology to suspend human life at that stage. Who says we won't be able to do it with further developed human life down the road? When a fetus is frozen, it is still alive, is it not? It is already created, isn't it?

            On the other point, if you're not willing to draw a line, then aren't you acknowledging that human life is in fact being destroyed in the womb at some point if it is being aborted? Maybe not at six days, but what about six weeks, or six months? Is it a human life then? Or only the second it is removed from the womb?

          • Well, with what they need to do to freeze embryos I'm not sure I'd call it "technology" exactly. It's not some complicated technological medical marvel. It's basically just a freezer.

            I'm also not saying I'm not willing to draw a line, it's just that I can't read God's mind as well as you, so I'm less certain that I'd be correct as to where the line should be drawn.

          • I'm not relying on God to tell me where to draw the line. I'm drawing the line at the point where human life is first created.

            If you don't know where to draw that line, then how can you sit back and watch all that life possibly being murdered?

          • I'm drawing the line at the point where human life is first created.

            I acknowledge that an embryo is "life" (we may have been talking past each other on that point a bit, so best I clarify) my problem is with your adjective "human" in the sense that I'm not concerned about preserving life that might eventually become a human, I'm interested only interested in protecting actual humans. I do agree that the line between "form of life that contains human DNA" and "actual human" is crossed in utero, I'm just not as certain as you are that it's my place to say where that line should be placed.

            If you don't know where to draw that line, then how can you sit back and watch all that life possibly being murdered?

            Well, as for that point, I guess I'd say I handle it the same way people who believe that the death penalty is murder deal with not doing everything they can to get the death penalty abolished.

            T.V. mostly.

          • A human embryo cannot become something other than it is. All the physical potential it will ever have it already has. It doesn't gain that potential at some other point in its development. It only comes close to its full potential the longer it lives – both inside and outside the womb.

            As for the second point, then you agree that abortion is murder at some point?

          • Perhaps part of the the issue we're having is that you're viewing the placement of the line as a scientific question. I actually see it as a spiritual/philosophical question. I'm not concerned with the question of when the threshold between not alive and alive is crossed, I'm concerned with when the threshold between not a human being and human being is crossed.

          • When a fetus is frozen, it is still alive, is it not? It is already created, isn't it?

            Maybe some day, but while I'm not a doctor I'm almost certain that in 2011 when a fetus is frozen it is most certainly not alive anymore.

          • If you were even somewhat educated about a fetus/embryo instead of rambling on about things you do not understand, you may have had the opportunity to discover that the embryo of a chicken, frog, human, etc. are almost all identical up to certain point: http://8e.devbio.com/images/ch23/Richardson1.gif

          • But it isn't a chicken or frog. It's a HUMAN fetus.

            Our DNA is supposed to be 99% similar to that of a chimpanzee. Does that make us chimpanzees?

            I suggest you spend less time insulting people who disagree with you and more time developing some argumentation skills. Or is the act of abortion that indefensible to some of you? God.

          • But it isn't a chicken or frog. It's a HUMAN fetus.

            Just backing the argument up from fetus to embryo, sure, even though they're almost identical there are nonetheless differences between a frog embryo, a chicken embryo, and a human embryo. The question is, are those differences chemical, biological, or metaphysical? At the moment of conception, I'd argue those differences are merely chemical. Later, biological (i.e. physiological) differences emerge. Personally, I'm only concerned once the metaphysical line is crossed, though as I've previously acknowledged I feel ill-equipped to make the call myself as to when that happens. However, I'd also call that a spiritual/philosophical/ethical question, not a scientific one.

    • "Those are the hypocrites."

      Not necessarily; I can see where they are coming from; in fact, I could easily be part of that group.

      There IS a difference between living with a bad choice (going through with the pregnancy after consensual sex) and being forced to relive an act of violence every time you look at the swelling belly. The second can easily be seen as a form of revictimization and psychological torture. The first is accepting responsibility for one's actions (something which fewer and fewer are wiling to do in our society – and I'm talking generally here).

      • Hint: Being forced to carry and support an unwanted child can also be seen as a form of psychological torture — to both the parent and the child.

        • the child?????

          • Unwanted children tend to have harder lives. They tend to experience more neglect, and receive less support than their wanted counterparts. Not always. But the tendency is there — if only because a lot of the time a woman desires an abortion is because she doesn't have the ability to properly support bother herself and another person — and is aware of that.

            If you're questioning my use of "child" instead of embryo, foetus, or whatever, I'm assuming here that the woman is forced to carry it to term.

          • Unwanted children don't always have awesome lives.

          • But at least they aren't dead right?

            People generally say that being dead is better than having a life that is less than ideal. I don't really understand that attitude. I mean, why not just have suicide booths instead of a suicide hotline if that's the case?

          • Well, I do believe there are those who would argue that being born and living a life of terrible suffering and deprivation is actually worse than never being born in the first place, but I do understand that not everyone feels the same way.

            The logical extension of privileging life absolutely, regardless of one's quality of life, is that no one would ever "pull the plug" on a terminal patient in terrible pain with no prospect of recovery who is being kept "alive" artificially. And, of course, there are people who believe that this is what we should be doing – that we should keep people "alive" as long as metaphysically possible, regardless of the suffering they'll be exposed to as a result.

            However, not EVERYONE feels this way.

          • " there are those who would argue that being born and living a life of terrible suffering and deprivation is actually worse than never being born in the first place"

            There goes much of the Third World…

          • I have never understood why suicide is wrong? Suicide bombings yes wrong, suicide by cop yes wrong, murder suicide yes wrong etc.
            But choosing to end it all because you decide enough is enough that is the individual's choice and is probably the last real choice left that we can truly make for ourselves.

          • The Christian argument is that it is the ultimate insult to God to deliberately end the gift of life that He has provided. Our societal values are largely based on Christian beliefs; hence the general feeling within our society that suicide is wrong.

            Then there's the pain it causes those who love the one who ends his/her life…

            Not all societies believe the same, though. "Death before dishonour" is a pretty widely held concept.

        • Certainly to nowhere near the same degree. And while nine months may seem like a long "sentence" for an irresponsible act, that's all it is; the mother can then give the baby up for adoption if she doesn't want to raise the child.

          The other option means a death sentence for the child.

          Life starts at conception. That's the point at which it has the full complement of DNA and, assuming nothing goes wrong in the interim, that DNA will continue self-replicating until death from disease or old age. The only real question to be settled is: at what point do we allow that lfe legal rights?

      • But then why be against abortion after consensual sex? Upon which principle would you base your prohibition in those cases? Life? But if life matters after consensual sex, why would it not matter after rape? Again, the rape isn't the fetus's fault, is it?

        • NO, Mr. Righteous. It is the fault of the rapist. And since the rapist should have no voice in whether or not the fetus should live, then the obvious thing to do is ask the woman whether or not she wants HER body to be used to extend life, and then grant her whatever she requests……DOES THAT NOT MAKE SENSE???

          • And since the rapist should have no voice in whether or not the fetus should live

            If the woman is pregnant, then the fetus is already living! The only "choice" now to be made is to kill it, even though it did nothing wrong.

          • And I think this is where we come to the muddy waters of "life" versus "human life", as to some people killing that life is nothing less than infanticide, while to others it's nothing more than the equivalent of disposing of the contents of a petri dish.

          • Yes, the defenders of abortion have to liken human life at its beginning to crap in a petri dish. You and I were crap at that stage, according to you. Terrific.

          • Sure. However some of me was once an unfertilized egg, and some of me was once sperm, but we don't protect "human life" at THAT point. We all used to be collections of hydrogen atoms too, but we don't consider the Sun to be the site of a genocide.

            To my mind the question is where one draws the line between something that has the potential to become a human being and therefore should be protected, and something that has the potential to become a human being but does NOT warrant protection. You draw that line at conception. Some people draw that line before conception. Some say an embryo is not a human being but a fetus is. Some say it's not a human being until it's capable of moving independently, or capable of feeling. Some say if it can't survive outside of a womb it's not a human being. I don't think we'll ever all agree.

          • Sure. However some of me was once an unfertilized egg, and some of me was once sperm, but we don't protect "human life" at THAT point. We all used to be collections of hydrogen atoms too, but we don't consider the Sun to be the site of a genocide.

            I'm sorry , but that is an absurd argument. Serious people don't argue that a sperm or an egg is the beginning of human life, do they? Of course not, I hope.

            I don't think it's complicated at all. Everything that we are as a person is decided at conception. Simple. You're just trying to bring in absurdly complex arguments to muddy the waters.

            Well, let's unmuddy them for you. Where do you draw the line? My line is simple. How about yours? Or are you not capable of a simple definition of when a human life begins. And, if you aren't, then aren't all kinds of murders being undertaken as we speak?

          • well done Dennis.

          • Serious people don't argue that a sperm or an egg is the beginning of human life, do they?

            That's how they taught it where I live. You see Denise, when a man and woman really love each other…

            (Sorry, that was silly of course. I understand the point you're making, it's just that the way you phrased it there just cried out for that…)

          • Everything that we are as a person is decided at conception.

            Man, have I ever been wasting the last few decades.

          • Think of all that time in university that I wasted, and now I found out i wasted it all…

  20. Other quotable quotes:

    "You guys are evil," he told the magazine, out on February 18th. "Canada's the best country in the world. We go to the doctor and we don't need to worry about paying him, but here, your whole life, you're broke because of medical bills. My bodyguard's baby was premature, and now he has to pay for it. In Canada, if your baby's premature, he stays in the hospital as long as he needs to, and then you go home."

    • Sweet. Baby Justin clearly has not had much experience with Canada's healthcare system. I doubt he remembers how long he was in the neo-natal ward. Another thing, Jay-baby, healthcare in Canada is NOT free. We pay for it with our taxes: $192 Billion a year.

      But, hey, is healthcare really the ONLY reason he will remain a Canadian citizen? How about pride in the land of his birth? Pride in the civil society in which we live? I could list many mre reasons better than "free healthcare" … and I wasn't even born here.

  21. Heh. I wasn't thinking of a certain piano player when I wrote that, actually.

  22. Why would they ask a 16 year old those questions anyway?

    • Because he showed up when they asked for an interview?

  23. Love the caption from the Story Scott. He never said ladies you deserve it. he said all things happen for a reason, which in any area of science is totally true. talk about a cheap shot at a 16 year old kid. i guess if you want to push the envelope then anyone who has something bad done to them Justin means they deserved it. Good work Scott. you should feel proud.

    • Um… I never wrote that he said they "deserve" it. He said "for a reason." I wrote "for a reason."

      And I'm just curious, Teddo – which part of "science" says a woman who is raped and impregnated HAS to have the baby?

      • Interesting, i said that everything happens for a reason in science and it does, as with everything else in the world. even in random events, there is a reason. it does not make specific value judgments, it just is.
        i was not commenting on the foolishness or wisdom of a 16 year olds comments, just on the piece of the interview you pulled out as the headline to the story. if you do not think it evokes the imagery that he said women deserved it, stand back and read it again. it was the wrong lead.

  24. This was not the full comment. And when you see the full comment, you see that he recovered from his first step. Which is admirable for a 16 year old.

    Here is what he said:

    "Um. Well, I think that's really sad, but everything happens for a reason. I guess I haven't been in that position, so I wouldn't be able to judge that."

    So, 16 year old asked question he should have been asked. And he stumbles on the answer, but comes out with a thoughtful response. and this writer edits his quote down to make it sound worse than it was.

    classy, rolling stone. and dishonest, macleans.

    • I was just about to post that same thing. He's more open minded than most pro-lifers. This is bad reporting.

  25. Interesting. I actually left that part out because I thought it made him look worse to emphasize that he had personally never been raped or impregnated.

    But fair enough – I guess you could read it your way, too.

    • LOL

      Now that's Comedy! Nice recovery Scott.

    • I would like to think I have a relatively diverse sense of humour, but try as I might, I cannot find anything funny about the rape of a 16 year old boy, ……..and I find Bieber annoying.

      • Who on Earth suggested there was anything funny about the rape of a 16 year old boy?

      • I'm laughing at Feschuk's lame excuse for distorting what the kid said, nothing else.

        Sad enough that he has to cast himself as the model of enlightened thinking by contrast to a 16 year old entertainer. Then he gets caught out quoting him dishonestly. Then he claims he was just trying to make the kid look better. Wow! Three strikes on one pitch! LOL

        • Though it appeared below yours, my comment was meant for Feschuk not you, and I had a feeling you were laughing at Feschuk and not with him.

          However, Lordy Lord still thinks Feschuk did no wrong, because he is a fellow Liberal, and Feschuk will continue with his questionable humor because he has his Liberal fan club, you know.

  26. He's a kid, home-schooled, and I doubt given his home background and his schedule as a top entertainer he has time for a lot of philosophical studies. When he listens to and watches TV, I doubt he listens to political figures holding forth. When there's so much music and entertainment geared to his age. And I doubt with his very young mother who had to support him there was much time in his life for reading good books, doing community service work for his church or school, if he ever attended one.
    Bieber at 16 is about par for 16. He's a good artist and shows signs of becoming a good actor. What he thinks right now about abortion, rape, or world affairs isn't really newsmaking or shouldn't be.
    On the other hand, he sounds distressingly like Sarah Palin who is grown-up, a mother and wants to be president. What's her excuse?

  27. The kid has a few years of running around and enjoying his massive fame and making Canada look good after that whole Celine Dion fiasco before he needs to worry about adequately answering questions better meant for an adult…. even then there is no right answer so this was obviously a question designed to be edited to make him look bad… Shame on you, he's not a grown up just because he's on the TV, he's still allowed to be a kid

  28. Sixteen is not all that young to hold a position on important issues, y'know. Of course there is plenty of time to change afterwards, but people act like they're surprised he can articulate a sentence.

  29. Bieber isn’t just a kid who sings though. He is a role model for the tweens! He ABSOLUTELY should know answers to the questions he was asked. Especially with the instances of teenage pregnancy in America being what they are. He’s old enough 2 start forming his own opinion. He’s almost old enough to Vote for goodness sakes! What will be a real tragedy now is if he starts doing PSA’s on Voting and the right to Vote. He knows Nothing and influences millions of brainless tweens! As to the comment on giving his mother questions to approve before his interview? Please… Bieber might be a teenager but he is by no means 5 years old. Looks like his handlers made a mistake.

    • "He should know the answers"??? Do you know the right answers?? If so how many people will think you are wrong?? There is no right answers, there are opinions, and he expressed his opinions and admitted that he had no experience and really could not judge…. What more do you want… As a role model for US tweens, i would say at this point as long as he doesn't gain 300lbs eating fast food, develop a narcotic habit, or knock up a 14 year old girl, then he is doing his bit as a role model… I don't think he needs to start expressing his political and religious views so he can sway teens everywhere to mimic him……. your ridiculous

      • I agree with this. Everyone seems to be upset that these questions were asked of a 16 year old, as if he said the wrong thing or the wrong opinion. This was his opinion and he had the guts to say it even though so many are against it. He may not have articulated so well, but that is just the way teenagers talk. Although some questions are a little strange, because he may not know all about it (ex. Korea).

  30. Your headline made me ill. You have taken his words and twisted them. Justin Bieber is a16 yr old boy, the fact that they would even ask him his option on such a difficult topic, shows alot for the interviewer. Abortion is a very touchy subject that most people don’t want to touch, I’m pro choice, but I’m twice his age. Very disappointed in this article.. I hope Justin dosent read it… He has blesses ALOT of people… And it sad that you would try to bring him down. Thumbs down to Mcleans today :-(

    • Uh oh, Scott…they're heeerreee…

      • Quick, everyone, put on something decent!

      • @ MostlyCivil…How many do you predict?…I say Ten.

        • I say…you underestimate the power of the Bieberverse…

          • Me thinks you are correct………

    • He's not 8, he's 16, which is the age of consent in Canada. If he's not old enough to know about pregnancy and consent yet, maybe we should up the drinking, voting, driving, and sexing age to 20? 30 maybe? What age is the cutoff for knowing what to do if a woman says "no", and what responsibility you have if she says "yes"?

      You know why we have so many rapes? Because nobody is talking to these kids about how important it is not to while they are still young enough to listen.

  31. Not to defend Bieber, but why are they asking a kid with no record of political or social interest these kinds of questions?

    • Why not defend Bieber? I'm glad to defend him from dishonest people.

      Here's what he actually said about pregnancy resulting from rape: "Um. Well, I think that's really sad, but everything happens for a reason. I guess I haven't been in that position, so I wouldn't be able to judge that."

      Feschuk figured that you didn't need to read that final sentence because, he feels, it makes Bieber "look worse." And you know Feschuk is all about presenting the kid in the best possible light.

      • I know that Feschuk writes a humour column, and does a pretty fair job of it. If this was supposed to be serious journalism, you'd have a point, but it's not so you don't.

        Why not defend Bieber? Well, because he's 16 or 17 years old, an alleged musician, and apparently hasn't read Rolling Stone enough to know that they were going to ask him things like this. I don't like the way the press does things like this, but Bieber is old enough to know it's coming.

        • If it was supposed to be funny, it was a spectacular failure.

          I'm sure Feschuk does view it as a piece of humour, but genuine humour is based on the truth. And moral posturing, even when presented as "just a joke," is always distasteful to me.

  32. In other words, that life that was killed in the womb is none of our business? It's none of humanity's business?

    You can characterize the motives of people who disagree with you on abortion all you want. I think it says more about you than anything else.

    I care about females. I care about males. I care about both in the womb. You?

    • I note that often those who venerate 'life' mean only human 'life' (even when it's a cluster of cells) and only that 'life' before it's born. Afterwards, not so much. Wars, not so much. They just have a fetish for the time while that 'life' happens to be inside a woman. For me, it's her business. It's always been her business. Women always have and always will seek a way to terminate unwanted pregnancy. It's a matter of whether humanity, properly defined, allows that choice to be a safe or a life-threatening one. Not providing access to abortion is compulsory pregnancy, compulsory childbirth. Both have risks of their own.

      • For the record, I am against the killing of all innocent life. Again, any suggestion to the contrary only reflects badly on your agenda. No one else's.

        There are ways of avoiding unwanted pregnancies without the killing of life. For crying out loud.

        • read a book

          • Then why are you the one who's obviously incapable of defending the act of abortion? Next.

          • He obviously has.

            While we're making suggestions, I suggest that you invest in a keyboard with shift keys, which can make capital letters to begin sentences, and punctuation keys, which are handy for ending them.

    • I think a big part of the issue is that many anti abortionists define "life" in white and black terms focusing merely on its existence and not on its quality. Regardless of my stance on the matter, is it worth preserving the life of an unborn child only so that it can be born into a situation in which it is unwanted and neglected? Also, at what expense to the bearer of this child do we determine that this is a worthwhile endeavour?

  33. @sadie0777 – "He should know the answers"??? Do you know the right answers?? If so how many people will think you are wrong?? There is no right answers, there are opinions, and he expressed his opinions and admitted that he had no experience and really could not judge…. What more do you want… As a role model for US tweens, i would say at this point as long as he doesn't gain 300lbs eating fast food, develop a narcotic habit, or knock up a 14 year old girl, then he is doing his bit as a role model… I don't think he needs to start expressing his political and religious views so he can sway teens everywhere to mimic him……. your ridiculous

    • It's always the wrong answer to brush off the severity of an unwanted pregnancy as a result of rape, but especially so when you have the kind of influence Bieber has over teen girls.

      • killing an unborn fetus is NEVER an answer for anything

      • What the hell are you talking about… he basically said he believes in God or Kharma or whatever, and that he doesn't believe in abortion.. he gave his opinion and followed it with the fact that he lacks the life experience to comment much further…..he answered the questions with his opinions as formed as they are.. they aren't your opinions so he is instantly the most ignorant 16 year old??? WTF, i guarantee if i asked your views on multiple things and began drilling you with the most violent of scenarios i could catch you up to… I don't really want our 16 year olds spending their time worrying about pregnancy resulting from violent rape… it's not Justin Biebers job to educate childrenin this respect, it's parents and teachers.

        • Actually, I think his opinions and ideas are probably more fully formed and articulate than yours, not that that makes them especially good. If he's entitled to his opinions, then he's entitled to be held to account for them. My opinions on abortion have nothing to do with how ignorant and insensitive the suggestion that women who get pregnant as a result of rape have been blessed by God or Karma or whatever, as you so eloquently put it. I don't think he necessarily meant it in the way that it sounds, and I don't think he has the life experience or intelligence to have a nuanced opinion on the topic, but that doesn't mean what he said is excusable. By all means, though, keep reinforcing the status quo of rape culture as it currently exists.

      • So, if an impregnated 16 year old victim of rape who decided to keep her baby had said that she believes that everything happens for a reason, but as everyone's experiences are unique she's in no position to judge others' choices, would you still characterize that statement as "brush(ing) off the severity of an unwanted pregnancy as a result of rape"?

    • "As a role model for US tweens, i would say at this point as long as he doesn't gain 300lbs eating fast food, develop a narcotic habit, or knock up a 14 year old girl,"

      Wow, Bell39, you are tough on your role models.

      • You hand kids piles and piles of money and throw them into adult situations that famous adults quite obviously can't handle, then act surprised when they let the kids down??? Parents and Brothers and Sisters should be the role models…. I hardly think Hollywood holds the ideals i want for my family.. Therefore my expectations of him as a role model are not tough, they are realistic

  34. I kind of feel sorry for the kid. Why would the interviewer set out sabotage him like this – it's a cheap shot and Scott if you actually read any post on your forum here you should be ashamed as well – my respect for journalism has just gone down another notch not that it was very high to begin with! – quite honestly who cares what he thinks about any politiclally controverserious (is that a word Scott?) subject – a canadian boy doing good in POP gets this sort of treatment from you and yours Scott – you ought to feel real proud right about now.

    • Hold on…psiclone, are you suggesting the reporter should relax his questions because of who he's talking to?

      Isn't that what you accuse the Great Liberal Media Conspiracy of doing?

      This kid has a bigger staff of PR flaks than any Canadian politician, and his handlers should never have let him play with the big boys if they thought he couldn't take a few questions.

  35. You have to remember his own mother was only 17 years old when she had him.

    Not that I, myself, am antiabortion, but Justin Bieber having this viewpoint, especially as a teenager lacking perspective, makes perfect sense.

    • What is the perspective he's lacking?

      • I was trying to express that it is unrealistic to expect a person of his age to hold strong, well-formulated opinions on complex issues. Perspective, as a result of direct experiences, is what drives our opinions and beliefs. Thus, a younger person lacking experience cannot be expected to have such strong opinions, at least ones that are not subject to change as a result of growth and maturity.

  36. "Those who oppose access to abortion often have at the bottom of their dark mids (sic), a dseire to punish or control women."
    I do not agree with your opinion. I have a belief that human life begins at conception and that human life is sacred. I also believe that mercy killing of the sick and elderly is wrong too.

    • It's easy to believe that if you never have to make the decision.

      • Addendum to my thumbs up: Mothers' lives are sacred too. I know several women who have almost died in childbirth despite the best emergency medical care in the late twentieth century. Having a baby puts your life at risk, fortunately not at huge risk as in past centuries, but at risk.

  37. I am truly shocked. "Quarter Chicken Dinner"? Gawd! What is this world coming to?

    • DO NOT DISPARAGE THE QUARTER CHICKEN DINNER!

      • With mashed and gravy of course. Not that heathen cole-slaw.

        • The Swiss Chalet mafia chased the St. Hubert crew out of my city. I am bereft, I tell you.

          • That is sad.

        • I don't know about the mashed with gravy, though I do love that.

          Their poutine is not bad.

    • I get that, I think it's nostalgia. Bieber comes from pretty humble beginnings, and I know from personal experience what a treat a night at Swiss Chalet can be for a kid.

      I defy anyone to deny the appeal of the Festive Special (though I did prefer it when it came with Toblerone).

      • annndddddd a tob-ler-one barrrrrrrrr….

  38. As several people pointed out, these questions were unfair. The boy is 16 years old and being a teen idol does not mean he'll have informed opinions on controversial matters. What does this have to do with his career as a musician? Why would the interviewer ask him these questions except to stir controversy and make people buy the magazine? It's a stupid tactic and the article writer should be ashamed.

    • If you wish to have media coverage, the price you pay is talking to the media. Unfair questions? As soon as you sit in the chair across from a reporter, there are only questions.

      Besides, had his handlers wanted, they could have ended the interview at any time.

  39. I didn't know a good role model meant being unaware of world issues … hmm.

  40. I REALLY don't like the headline.

    What Bieber said was that EVERYTHING "happens for a reason".

    EVERYTHING.

    Rape, war, genocide, puppies, rainbows… EVERYTHING. Plenty of people believe there's a God. Plenty of people believe God has a plan for the universe. Plenty of people believe that everything in the universe happens because of that plan, and that therefore "everything happens for a reason".

    To twist this to suggest that Bieber thinks that women who were raped were raped "for a reason" – implying some sort of culpability, as the headline does – makes me pretty queasy.

    • In keeping with the Feschukian fondness for parsing, let's do a little more:

      "When asked if it was acceptable in cases of rape, he told Rolling Stone: "Um. Well, I think that's really sad, but everything happens for a reason. I guess I haven't been in that position, so I wouldn't be able to judge that."

      Now, if we just shift that little period after "reason" a little to the right, so that it follows "I guess", it changes the presumptive tone of Bieber's response from callousness (i.e. you were impregnated from a rape? Sucks to be you, but *hit happens) to an attempt at empathy (i.e. it's terrible what happened to you and you must be asking yourself "why" and, although I haven't experienced what you're experiencing and therefore can't relate, I believe things happen for a reason, so maybe some good can come from this situation). I think the latter is far more likely the actual viewpoint of a person whose own mother probably had to convince herself "everything happens for a reason" when she became aware of her unplanned pregnancy.

      • Well, and worse imho is that to my eye the headline "Justin Bieber says you got raped for a reason, ladies" STRONGLY implies that Bieber was suggesting that the victim's in question "had it coming", which is just PATENTLY false.

        I was certainly SHOCKED when I read the headline, and wondered why the story wasn't on CNN yet. Then I read what Bieber actually SAID and I thought, "Really? All he said was 'everything happens for a reason'??? That's almost the most benign statement one could make about ANYTHING! What possible relation could that innocuous truism have to the headline of this post"?

        When I later read that he followed up "everything happens for a reason" with, basically, "who am I to judge" I really started to wonder what the Biebs ever did to Feschuk to make Feschuk go after him like this.

        • You guys have had to work really hard to handwave away those rape culture attitudes, and while you have successfully parsed out all of the possible interpretations of such a phrase except the negative ones, the issue is that you don't make that kind of halfassed statement when it comes to the subject of sexual assault. There is no halfway. There is no maybe. There is no perhaps, there is no neutral, there is no fence-sitting. The only thing you can do is not respond and redirect the interview to subjects of relevance to you. What you DON'T do is give some mealy-mouthed platitude that ends up sounding horrifically offensive to even the most casual observer.

          • postfremenist. are you an complete idiot. how can anything that a 16 year old kid says be held in this kind of contempt. you need to get some help before you come crashing out like this. you must have somehow missed being a child or something really bad happened to you to be this angry about what a child said in an interview. as i said before get some help, maybe show your therapist this article and what you wrote and see what she thinks.

          • She was simply being realistic about the way to stage manage a media interview. If Bieber had decent handlers, he'd have been prepped properly.

          • A sixteen year old kid said that it's sad when a victim of rape becomes pregnant, though he believes that everything that happens happens for a reason. More importantly, he then said that having never been in such a horrible position himself, he's in no position to pass judgment on anyone who is.

            It might not be the most nuanced and sensitive statement a 16 year old kid has ever made regarding rape and abortion in the history of pop music, but I fail to see what's quite so upsetting about it.

          • On the contrary, the Biebs may not be deep, but he is sensitive. As you say, he stated his position on abortion (bad), addressed the question about fetuses conceived by rape with a philosophical point (God has a plan for every fetus) and then quickly realized that his philosophical point might be hurtful to a rape victim. (Not to mention: badly phrased.) So he followed up with a personal corollory: philosophy aside, that's a sad circumstance that he doesn't want to make worse with a hasty judgment. I've never given much thought to Justin Bieber one way or the other, but after reading this I have to say that he seems like a nice kid.

  41. Dreadful, dreadful, just awful person and cultural phenomenon.
    We're really hitting rock bottom this century.

    • Come on.

      Feschuk's not THAT bad.

      • yes kenny, with fools like you and scott around, it is a sorry century

        • There's a fuure for you in the Conservative Party, Marie.

  42. Now that is funny stuff !

  43. someone beat this kid about the head and neck with a biology textbook please? These religious idiots and their "everything happens for a reason" and "god's will" crap is too much. they have got to go. no more religious idiots.

    • OK Russell……….we`ll get right on that.

    • Go where? We talking extermination here or what? Do you think all religious persons should be exterminated. Talk about extremes.

      • yes, all bigoted so-called religious peoples should be exterminated and eradicated.

        • That sounds like a Hitler diary entry ._.

    • That’s stupid of you to say that. Those are his views on the matter.
      I guess we should get rid of you next for having an opinion yourself.

  44. On the politics/Korea thing I definitely cut Justin some slack. I may think it's a bit sad, but I'd be willing to bet that the average 16-17 year old wouldn't give a much better answer than Justin did, and Justin's been working a full-time career on top of his schooling since he was 14. If you manage to do well enough in life that you could afford to buy your Mom a house before you were licensed to drive a car, I'll forgive a slip up on the politics and geography of the Korean peninsula.

    Just sayin', for however bad this interview seems to some, I've seen rock stars in their 50s do worse on politics questions. FAR worse.

    Hell, I've seen Presidents of the United States of America make worse mistakes in interviews than Bieber's Korea mistake.

  45. Let him have his own thoughts guys! People paid for his singing not his political and diplomatic acumen. As for intelligence, I am sure we all have our moments.

  46. Why are you all defending him? This little fluff ball makes more money than you ever will, marketing sex to preteen girls, and he thinks rape victims should have the baby. You guys seriously feel bad for this nitwit?

    • I think you mistakenly thought this was the Larry Flynt thread. But shame on both of them for making money.

    • Rich people, poor people and all in betweens are entitled to what's in between their ears.

  47. I'll give him a break that he is a sixteen year old – but won't cut a break for his handlers that should know what he will be exposed to.

    He WILL be a spokesperson whether he wants to or not.

    I don't think a hostile reaction at this point is productive.

    Take this kid to a rape crisis centre and hear stories from a variety of victims – all ages, sizes, backgrounds and work experience.

  48. Macleans is dirty for posting such a title- you've twisted the words for a tween idol to be completely sensationalist. He doesn't say that women deserve the rape- shame on you Macleans.

  49. I think people here should not be treating a 16 year old like a child. No wonder the world is so messed up. Let him be responsible for what he says and realize he has a bunch of people (who actually are kids) hanging on his every word. Don't answer the question if you don't have the right words to say. I knew that when I was 16.

  50. Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. Romans 12:21
    Rape is certainly evil, but is abortion good?

    • biology textbook? it is a wonder you are able to spell the words, oh yes, this site has spell check for the bigots. it has long been a scientific mantra that everything happens for a reason you idiot. it is called cause and effect. from physics to the arts,it all happens for a reason, otherwise, we would not be able to explain anything. the kids 16 and is probably far more understanding and forgiving of your views and beliefs than you are of his. i on the other hand, find all forms of zealotry disgusting, no matter which side of an argument they are on

    • Is forcing an innocent victim of rape to go through nine months of pregnancy, and then the pain and danger of childbirth just and good? This is the victim, lets not forget. Don't quote bible verses as a way to justify continued victimization of innocent women and girls.

  51. Good lord! Leave the kid alone-he's 16 for pete's sake – what would many of us have answered at that age regarding what this interviewer asked? I'm in my early 60's and I couldn't answer the reporters questions about Korea – how the heck is a 16 year old kid supposed to! Leave him alone – do you seriously believe that any of his tween/teen fans give a rats' a** about what is happening in Korea? Some of them (granddaughter included) are against abortion – however why did the reporter have to bring up rape? He answered a lot more intelligently than the person asking the question!

  52. Looks like Justin Bieber can't win for losing. In the US, the Right is really coming down hard on him because he also called the US health system "evil." Spoken like a true Canadian, I say. Okay, the kid doesn't believe in abortion. Okay, he thinks that rape must happen for a reason. If people believe in God or some kind of "Intelligent Design," things like rape, murder and war must happen for a reason. Otherwise, why would a god who is presumably kind and compassionate permit something so horrible like rape to happen to a woman? Has there ever been a woman who truly deserved it? We shouldn't be surprised that a 16-year-old doesn't have all the answers. The politicians and theologians don't have all the answers either.

  53. News Flash: Adolescents occasionally say dumb things!

  54. I just wanted to make a point outside of the threads that I made in a couple of replies. Justin Bieber is certainly not the only person in the world who believes that "everything happens for a reason". In particular, I think people who are laying in to the Biebs for that phrase may not have considered that one group of people who probably believe quite strongly that everything happens for a reason are impregnated rape victims who decide to keep their babies.

    Presumably no one would mock them for believing that "everything happens for a reason" and expressing that belief publicly.

    It wouldn't surprise me at all to discover that some of Justin's fans are pregnant young girls living through a tragedy and who have decided to keep their babies. To the extent that his fans read Rolling Stone, I think some fan out there may well have taken a tiny bit of solace from hearing Justin say that "everything happens for a reason".

  55. I think that if he finished the sentece it could have turned out better maybe something like everything happens for a reason she could have new baby to love . Then the story would be different.
    But you know hate on a kid whos just trying to make it in the world.
    God forbid he makes a poor choice of words.

  56. I believe the rest of quote said 'I guess I haven't been in that position, so I wouldn't be able to judge that.' I think that changes the context of what he said – he just simply is not in a position of experience to comment. Poor kid – he's about to learn how everyone loves to take down a celebrity.

  57. Just as we have laws that prevent a minor from being charged as adults, I think we should also abstain from perceiving comments made by this demographic in an "adult" manner. He has no idea what he's talking about. It was a sound byte question answered in a sound byte style, thrice removed.

  58. I don't even like the music, but I know irresponsible journalism when I see it. Most celebrities don't make media gaffes like this because they usually have their handlers to stop questions like these. This was simply predatory and taking it out of context, borders on libel. Sexual assault and abortion are not black and white issues, and even Beiber recognizes that when he says, "I guess I haven't been in that position, so I wouldn't be able to judge that."

    While I'm at it, this needs to be said… we NEED journalistic integrity. http://www.avaaz.org/en/canada_fair_and_balanced/

  59. Wow. A lot of you are saying that it's totally okay for a seventeen year old to be blatantly ignorant about the issues that affect the youth of today so astronomically.
    He's a kid, so don't take it seriously. He's a kid so he can be ignorant. He's a kid so he shouldn't really be thinking about these things.
    You amaze me all of you.
    Plus, seventeen isn't really that young, not in this day and age.

    As for Bieber's comment, seems that Rolling Stone twisted his words a bit and blew it up into a headline.
    Poor guy, but hey that's what you get when you're famous.

  60. Turns out only the men wanted to talk about abortion.

    • Rolling Stone wanted to talk about abortion. MacLean's wanted to talk about rape. Bieber wanted nothing to do with either conversation, though he was honest enough to try to state his position and move on. (Abortion is like killing a baby. Rape is sad.) Me, I respectfully disagree with the young man on abortion, but I share his position on rape.

  61. I suppose the Hollywood loons will now work overtime convincing Justin that indiscriminate sex, porn and abortion are just the bomb. Sad.

  62. I don't think he meant that the rape happened for a reason, I think he was talking about the resulting pregnancy. Still, a difficult question for anyone, let alone a 16 year old. Rolling Stone set him up for this for the sake of sensationalist headlines.

  63. In the first place, if Maclean's had the time to add an update, they most certainly should have had the time to change the article's title. Using "Justin Bieber says you got raped for a reason, ladies" is irresponsible, not to say, inflammatory journalism. Don't we have enough of that style of reporting from less credible news agencies? And in the second place, he is 16 years old. How could he possibly have anything meaningful to say about such an adult topic?

  64. Who knows what Bebier really said. Why sling such mud at a young boy with no evidence that he even said, this thus giving some people an opportunity to attack him.

    Shame on the reporter. Shameful journalism.

  65. He's a teenager trying to express his thoughts on a complex topic. It does not help when Rolling Stone DELIBERATELY edits his comment to be MISLEADING.

  66. The title of your article in entirely misleading, just like the quote in the Rolling Stone on Justin Bieber. The guy is 16 for Pete's sake!!! And then the Rolling Stone decided NOT to publish his complete answer.
    And now, YOUR title. Really scraping the bottom, don't you think, MacLean's????

  67. Hahaaahhaaaahahahahahahahahahahaha! Too funny, so much response for a snot nosed pre teen idle!! I shall be so glad when his voice changes.

  68. Hey Maclean's, fix the freakin' headline. The Rolling Stone interview was misleading, and now, so is the headline. Seriously, Maclean's is better than this.

  69. I think the reporter who asked that question of this a kid should be ashamed.No one cares or believes for a minute that this child has the life experience needed to formulate an intelligent response. LET THE KID SING! and give it a rest.

  70. In the old days what you did was started out with your mates from high school, one guy knew how to drum, the other bass, and the other lead guitar. And someone who knew how to stretch his vocal chords. And what you would do is get together after school (skip your homework!) , get a blessing from Mom and Dad, and get your selves into what was once called a "jam session", basically just getting together and learning each others styles and rhythms and kind of 'jam' or hash something out (think of why you never hear of a hash session – lol) and then if everyone tacitly agreed it was good (usually by nodding to each other during the session) it would be practiced, worked upon and refined. Sometimes arguments result but that would be life, too. And sometimes, back then, you might have your own little groupie, just some guy who thinks its cool to just hang out and watch and shout encouragement (thumbs up if you LIKE this!)…but these days you could just drop out of church choir, put something on YouTube, get a bunch of hits and along comes the world beating a path to your door and you are a global superstar. Meanwhile who are you really, where do you come from and why did you want to be a rock star? For Justin those kinda tough questions come later. I think how Sonny Bono and his mates started out in a rough and tumble world when the world had a harder edge. It still has that edge but seeing it and experiencing it has got to be a different thing than watching it on TV. Music has affected and changed the world, from world hunger to ending apartheid, to political movements. So rock on Justin. Too bad you will never ever really know the meaning and value of hard work (fast tracker) and perseverance you phony little zit cream spokesperson. Before you could start out with a hometown base, people you loved and loved you and cheered for you, you put your name and your home town on the map. People will always remember where you are from. Not so with JB I think I forgot already. Oh yes now I remember, isnt his hometown that place called YouTube? He personifies snotty eastern bred values with a dollop of preppiness for good measure. So put your mustache and beard shadows on his photos now while the going is good. This could take come time. :)

  71. I think that his notoriety has gone to his head and he should refrain from commenting on matters of which he has no knowledge.

    • Seriously? you've never answered a single question that you weren't 100% sure on? That's all he did here, and his FULL answer (the one with the deleted sentence put back in) is actually very professional and clear. Read something once in a while, too many people read a headline, judge it, then open their mouths… Hope your foot tastes good ;)

      • He should have said something about how it’s her body and if she was raped and doesn’t want to keep it then it’s her decision opand her life. And you were not there for the interview. For all you know he could have saw that what he did say wasn’t winning him any points and blamed the interviewer.
        Hope your foot tastes better.

      • Passionately defending Justin Bieber while trolling forums is no way to go through life, son…

      • How about you tell me when i stick up your ass

  72. The flippant HEADLINE in this poorly constructed pseudo-story tells us more about Maclean's attitude toward its women readers than all the interviews Little Bieber will ever be subjected to!

    Hey, Scotty, sure, there's nothing like a catchy headline by your Macleans gofer-boys to get attention, eh?

    Some real sensitivity shown here by Macleans' deteriorating sense of journalistic integrity! A "sensitivity" that would at least have demanded a less insulting attitude to victims of violent crimes — and some respect to women.

    Hell, Scotty, why don't you pick more hilarious subjects, eh?!

  73. MACLEANS' HEADLINE IS DISGUSTING! Unless you're celebrating with the boys at Tahrir Square….with "I got my Religion" Bieber-type mature grasp of issues!

    Way to go Feschuck!

  74. No, this ain't funny, Scot Fffschuk. Get a grip on ironic humour, semantics and enroll at a Writers' Class at a College of your choice. Your "story" on Bieber's lack of maturity really exposes your own inferiority complex….

  75. I'm seeing this post after SF has already added the update… and besides the fact that I want to put my two cents in that the title of this piece is disgusting and unfair, I can't decide whether Feschuk is being deliberately ironic when he says "which is a pretty big omission on Rolling Stone‘s part, don't you think?” After the "pretty big omission" in the quote he used himself, I sure hope so.

  76. Sixteen is NOT too young to know right from wrong. This honest young person by his straight answers puts to shame the smug self-styled "sophisticates" who refuse to acknowledge the obvious, that every abortion kills an innocent human and so is intrinsically evil.
    A sorry article by Freschuk and another black-eye for Mcleans.

  77. I think the question was beyond him but I do think his music is respectful of young relationships compared to the many other songs on the radio that our children listen to, you know those hip hop songs full of sex and disrespect (these are breeding grounds for brainwashing our youth) and I am there are more "rapes" happening because of them.

  78. “His original Rolling Stone 'quote' had a chunk missing. Rolling Stone coughed it up later after the dust was settling.
    I know Rolling Stone wants to seem cool and relevant, but they should take care in not setting up green 16 year olds who are obviously good kids.”

  79. Bravo, Justin. We love you more than ever. Your mother really raised you well. May God bless you now and ever.
    Hope that all teenagers will follow you.

    Love and kisses from Sachiko, Yosh, and all our friends.

  80. Rolling Stone should ask Bieber why no one likes Michael Ignafief, or why Stephen Harper can't win a majority government.

  81. 1. Rape does happen for a reason..No act in the universe is done without a reason.

    2. Bieber isn't the only one who needs an education, as they can't title this properly with the content. He said "everything happens for a reason" in regards to rape based abortions.

    3. He's a child..hell, even the bulk of adults worldwide are nothing more then over grown children, so what would you expect from a child?

    4. I can decipher this in no time. It's his way(like so many before him) to sit on the fence. After all, supporting abortion of any kind for any reason is a career killer in the States…by saying what he did regarding rape based abortion, he neither approves or disapproves, dispite disapproving abortion in general

    but knocking the kid for saying this sh*t happens for a reason? sorry, it does, you're just being too lazy in figuring out the obviousness of why it does happen.

    • Plenty of things happen with no reason.  Conception is random.  The choice of victim could be random.  The universe if full of random.

  82. I couldn’t care less baout what Justin Bieber has to say!

  83. I think he is right, God makes everything happen for a reason, even if we don’t understand that reason. And abortion is totally wrong. Like100%% Pro-Life

    • Looks like we got an person here who thinks that this specific species, out of millions of others on a speck of dust orbiting a common star which is only one out of 30’000’000’000’000’000’000’000 stars in the observable universe, is special. Yes that’s the current estimate and we have yet to discover more. Say one more time that god created the whole universe for a single species and actually would care about such petty issues such as whether a few cells being “killed” is important.
      There is no life in a few weeks old fetus as you know it and there is nothing being killed other than the potential of a human being born. There are no feelings involved.

    • Women should have the right to their own bodies, it isn’t for you to decide what they do with their lives. As for ‘Everything happens for a reason’, there are wars going off, or are you ignorant towards that too? Innocent adults and children die everyday, just look at what happened in Connecticut- are you saying those victims deserved to die? Because if you are then you are even sicker than I originally thought.

      The thing about abortion is, the foetuses haven’t developed when the procedure takes place. You can’t be against abortion because you support ‘Pro-Life’ if there wasn’t life there to start with.

      Have you been raped? Because I have. I was twelve years old I got pregnant. God wasn’t there for me then, and don’t you dare tell me that everything happens for a reason, because there was no reason for what happened to me. The baby died while it was still inside of me, so it couldn’t have been to give me a child. I was depressed for years, judged by my family, claimed to be a liar.

      Rape is rape, it happens because we allow it with ignorant behaviour like this. It does NOT happen for a reason or because it is God’s will.

      Where was God when I needed him most? When thousands of men and women need him?

      • Thanks for sharing that and giving a dose of reality. In Islam if a woman is raped, unless there is a witness she is guilty of adultery. There are plenty of women in jail for this. In Africa many women are raped as an act of war and in many cases this is still not a war crime. Where is God when a woman is raped during a war. And this happens for a reason? Sounds like a God of terror to me. Men who are true feminists should support pro-choice. I volunteered for Planned Parenthood as a counsellor for 3 years. I can tell you it opened my eyes.

  84. Hey uh, Bieber. If you’re going to associate yourself with a respectable religion, can you please at least not prioritize rape as more okay than abortion? Just keep your mouth shut and stick with singing pointless, repetitive songs, at least that way we can pretend you don’t exist. Thanks.

  85. You disgust me.

  86. If a woman wants an abortion, it’s her body. she can do whatever she wants. believe in it or not. it’s not believe. IT’S LAW/RIGHTS ;)

  87. “I say it’s two weeks tops before Kim Jong-il drops his reply and THIS RAP WAR IS ON.” Ugh… You should probably focus more on reporting the news than trying to be funny

  88. pretty sure he meant everything happens for a reason having to do with the baby being conceived. like, every life has matter and has a purpose so every PREGNANCY happens for a reason. he’s not saying that rape is okay or anything. he’s saying the outcome of the girl being pregnant afterwards happened because the baby has a purpose.

  89. He should not have been trained, prepped or told specific things to make his interview better, nor should the interviewer have asked “fluff” questions. Part of the reason that teenagers are no longer taken serious on any level anymore is because of these images of them. If Justin Bieber is going to have an interview he should be well prepared enough on his own opinions of politics and social issues to handle the interview and the questions himself, after all he is a public image. These days they make it so that public images are almost robotic, only answering fluff answers, or answering serious questions with answers that were fed into their mouths. If these celebrities expect to be taken seriously, even a seventeen year old one, they should be able to have strong enough opinions and evidence to create a solid argument and be able to voice that argument to the public.

  90. Well in a way I think that what he said is kind of true. People can get raped for a reason. If the person that is getting raped was wearing short shorts and a crop top I can see the reason as to why someone would want to rape her. Of course there are several cases where the girl was wearing appropriate clothes. In all cases it isn’t fair to be raped, but if you wear provoking outfits, I feel like you should be ready for the consequences.

    • What are you even talking about.Clothes shouldn’t be a reason to get raped.Men don’t have a right to rape anyone because you had put on yourself anything other than monk’s habit.People should control their desires .Just because you see a cake that looks delicious and you’re hungry staying in the bakery ,doesn’t mean you have to steal it BECAUSE YOU HAVE A NEED TO EAT.

  91. I just looked this up, he’s 19. At 19, he is exempt for no questions political or otherwise, and in his now undisputed ‘manhood’, he should be treated as a man. That means that he is also no longer exempt from being considered sheltered and ignorant when he says things like this

  92. People are stupid, he didn’t mean that RAPE happens for a reason, he meant that the pregnancy did, as if to say “Don’t kill your baby, your child isn’t the one who did this to you, they still deserve life. Everything happens for a reason, they’ll grow up and cure cancer or some shit”

  93. I fukin hate him go burn in hell u bastard

Sign in to comment.