'Still reviewing' - Macleans.ca
 

‘Still reviewing’


 

Conservative incumbent Brad Trost boasts that anti-abortion advocates convinced the government to defund Planned Parenthood.

The Prime Minister’s Office says it can’t comment on specific applications. A spokesman for International Cooperation Minister Bev Oda says Planned Parenthood’s application is still being reviewed.

That application was submitted in June 2009.

For the rather long history of this government’s dancing around the question of Planned Parenthood, see here.


 

‘Still reviewing’

  1. And so the mask slips off

  2. "Yes. We're still reviewing.

    Also, we'll have those Afghan documents and that whole "Rights and Democracy" thing wrapped up shortly. Just you wait."

    "oops, we called in the RCMP. Can't comment anymore. So sorry. Here, have an EAP! sign."

  3. "Still being reviewed" is code for "I haven't found anyone willing to write NOT on the application yet".

    • Or it could be they are trying to figure out how to spin a document that has "^NOTνNOT" hand written before "recommend for approval"

  4. They didn't even manage to do that in the US….but you can count on our Cons to be anti-birth control

    • Harper and the Harperites are not extremists, they are just slightly to the right of the Tea Party.

      • LOL yeah, the wacko crowd.

  5. Don't worry ladies, Bev Oda is on top of this.

    • ^ NOT

  6. From the CP story, with a quote from Dimitri Soudas

    – Soudas refused to say whether Trost would be punished in any way for straying off message.
    He said he didn't know where Trost got his information.
    "This member of parliament is a backbencher. The government lays out policies."-

    Has he just informed all his backbenchers that they're no longer part of the Harper Government (TM)?

    • Preston Manning just rolled over in his grave.

      But Preston Manning's not dead yet.

      Dimitri's line just killed him.

      Hiyo!

      In other news, pre-2006 Stephen Harper contiues to spin like a top in his grave.

      • Isn't that the truth.

    • Clear from his statement that the MPs voted in by Canadians to represent their needs certainly they don't have the power, the clout, the influence that the likes of Dimitri Soudas has. Or the wh*re-loving Carson. More clout and influence than the elected members.

      And yet there's every likelihood they will again form government. Oh, poor Canada.

      • They're starting to sound like Pierre Trudeau, and we all know how arrogant he was.

  7. Ah yes, Planned Parenthood: The most absurd and Orwellian title ever used by an organization. The idea that killing a fetus is an example of planning for parenthood is utterly absurd. Sorry.

    • Do you think the Conservatives government holds the same view of PP as you do? If they do, why can't they be forthcoming about it?

      • I don't recall anybody else ever commenting about the absurd name they go by. You?

        • Nope. I presumed, though, that you don't support the organization, not just the organization's name. I also presume that the government makes its funding decisions based on more than just the appropriateness of organizations' names. If my assumptions are off the mark, though, I'll withdraw the questions.

          • My comments were about their absurd name. Believe me, there will be no substantive debate on this topic any time soon, let alone this election campaign. I mean, why start now, right? lol

          • I find that "debate on abortions" and "LOL" just don't work well together in the same sentence.

        • Beats Unplanned Parenthood….which is what you get without birth control.

          • How about planned killing?

          • I tried posting a link to pictures of aborted fetuses, but this site wouldn't let it. It's that ugly what you support. I know.

          • Oh I've seen your little faked photos….

          • There's nothing "faked" about killed fetuses. Just go to Google Image search and type in "aborted fetus." This is what you're all so proud of.

          • Yes, they're fake.

            And so are you.

          • Oh, and as I suspected, that specific graphic is bogus. But I can understand why all of you are so desperate to cover up this heinous act of killing unborn kids. It's an horrific agenda to defend, isn't it.

            Planned Parenthood is about abortion: http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/blog/2011/04/12/pla

          • LOL 'Orthodoxy today'….that's your unbiased source?

            Dennis, no one is going to debate abortion with you. Canada made a decision on that years ago, and it's not going to change.

            The only real question you have to ask yourself is if you're going to be a political party, or a tent revival meeting…..because you can't be both.

          • Yes, you hate Christians. That's not big tent. And why can't unborn babies be a part of that tent?

          • Not going to discuss your religious fantasies Dennis….you really need professional help. Sorry

          • This is the kind of ugly agenda and politics you support. When someone dares to question it, predictably, you lash out. Thank you. Next.

          • Go find a street corner to preach on Dennis, cuz I'm not interested in your nonsense.

          • "Planned Parenthood is about abortion"

            And because of out wonderful legal and parliamentary system, you're free to believe that and say it out loud.

            But it must make you crazy that the Conservatives won't actually say they've defunded Planned Parenthood in public. Quite the betrayal. You must consider them a bunch of cowards, no?

          • It does make me think they are cowards, yes. Plus, it is harder to make the case that it is the right thing to do if it isn't done in the sunlight.

            I also don't particularly see why it is necessary. If the right of matris potentia over your children is extremely important to you, you probably aren't going to vote Tory anyway.

          • That's your opinion, Dennis and you're welcome to it but the question is does Harper believe in a woman's right to choose? Ignatieff has just come out supporting that right, why can't Harper make his belief on this clear. This not wanting to discuss it just doesn't cut it.

          • I don't speak for Harper. I believe in a woman's right to choose, and a man's. Those choices should be made before life is created. Not killed afterwards.

          • In all cases? Does a woman get to choose whether or not she gets raped?

          • Thank you for conceding that the only time choice is actually an issue when it comes to abortion is when rape is involved. You're right. In the case of an abortion, a woman has no choice. So, when it comes to choice, should we only restrict ourselves to the 1% of cases where rape is involved, and admit that all the other cases, where consensual sex is involved, the choices were already made? Can we do that?

          • I have conceded no such thing. I mentioned a specific example.

            Abortion is an ugly thing to discuss. I truly hope that anyone who contemplates an abortion is not doing it purely for convenience. I hope that for everyone it is a difficult decision.

            That being said, I think that society/government should back off and not impose their judgment on a person having an abortion. As far as I am concerned this is best left to the woman who is pregnant, the man who impregnated her, and the doctors who are looking after her.

          • Slippery ethics. If murder is murder, then the circumstances really shouldn't matter. Besides, as you know, easy wimmin, the ones who love sex but hate looking after babies, would just cry rape to get the abortion. And then what could you do?

            I love the evangelos who scream murder, but only if…

          • You can go off on your own little crusade all you want. The specific topic was choice. Have anything to add to it, especially based on what people have actually written on here? Thanks.

          • Well, most people recognize self-defense as justification for murder, whether it involves abortion or not.

            But yeah, if abortion was confined to cases of rape, incest, or threats to the health of the mother, there would probably be a lot less opposition to it. Even if the numbers claiming rape were artificially inflated to the degree that they fooled no one. Heck I think there might be less opposition to abortion if we had abortion laws like those in most other western democracies, rather than the free for all we have.

            Of course, I don't think there is going to be any change on abortion legislation or abortion numbers until there is a cultural shift for women to recognize their own heirs. As it stands now, if a man wants to keep the child it is generally kept. If a man doesn't want to keep the child, it isn't. People generally think of a child as being the man's child that a woman gestates, even now in the 21st century.

            What is more, there isn't any real advantage to keeping a child unless you want a lifestyle that involves children at the present time. They aren't a continuation of your legacy and heirs to your power. For most people, everything they have is converted to liquid assets and vanishes in a puff of smoke upon their death. All there is is working for a boss, and maximizing the pleasure of your off-work hours. If you want children and you don't have to make a significant sacrifice to your lifestyle, you keep them. If you don't… you don't.

          • Forgive me for questioning who's side your on. You just seem way too eager to voice the opinions of the other side. Sorry.

          • No need, the internet doesn't carry tone of voice, and the format of the Macleans website scatters commentary that you can't really see what you are responding to.

            I will say though that If you don't voice the opinions of the other side better than they can, you can't refute them.

        • Why is 'Conservative' an absurd name? Because they support abortions?

    • You realise that PP provides a full range of services. They aren't Abortions R Us.

      • Who are you trying to kid? The ONLY reason they are a story right now is because of their killing of fetuses, and the support of this service by the modern left.

        • That's the only part conservatives seem to object to. Hopefully they don't object to the other services they provide. Are you going to pull a Jon Kyl and insist that abortions are over 90% of the services they provide?

          Let's not get into this debate. Last time you seemed to arrive at the conclusion that even if the mother's life is in danger, woman dies, fetus lives. Got it.

          • Planned Parenthood is the left's shrine for the butchering of unborn babies. Why hide from that?

          • As a leftie, I love butchering unborn babies. Some days it's all I think about on my lunch break.

            Or maybe you're a self-righteous pig.

            Can't quite decide.

          • You support it as a precious right. I don't. Right? I want human rights extended to the unborn, you're OK with having it snuffed, aren't you. It's not my fault it's an ugly truth. Is it?

          • What is your stance on capital punishment?

      • For the Conservatives, however, it is sufficient that they do.

        • Oh, it's all about abortion for the left-wing, too. Who are you kidding?

          • How can you be such a Harper fan if you don't think he's going to do something to eliminate abortion if he gets a majority?

          • Because he's still a heck of a lot better than the nonsense we call an opposition these days.

          • How is banning discussing it 'a heck of a lot better'? Surely you are relying on more than that? Trost certainly is.

          • I think you're asking me a question. You might try English the next time.

          • Not you, that's for sure. You're far too, uh, serious and, um, unblinkered for me to kid.

        • That's actually pretty much hitting the nail on the head. I mean, we believe the unborn have the right to life, and that termination of an unplanned pregnancy is the end of a life. Even if Planned Parenthood only spent a fraction of a percent on providing abortions, the fact that it is part of their mission makes them something I can never, ever support. It is also something that must be stopped for the sake of the lives being lost.

          Now we have a disagreement on whether unborn lives have any value in and of themselves. It is going to be an emotional and heated discussion, involving whether human life is sacred, how much responsibility we bear towards our blood kin, whether the right to end pregnancies is a sign of individual power or of submission to societal pressures, and whether losing an unborn child is losing a unique gift or an easily replaceable part of a larger society.

          But liberals can take heart. In this country they have four parties to vote for that think the opposite of what I do on all of those questions. I'm stuck with one.

          • Amazing how some people come on here under false pretenses, and then have the gall to accuse others of a hidden agenda. Amazing.

            Planned Parenthood does not spend a fraction of a percent providing abortions. Abortions are an integral and crucial part of its agenda, as well as of those that support it: http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/blog/2011/04/12/pla

            But I can understand why some of you would want to hide such a fact. After all, the abortion agenda is an ugly one to defend, isn't it.

            whether the right to end pregnancies is a sign of individual power or of submission to societal pressures, and whether losing an unborn child is losing a unique gift or an easily replaceable part of a larger society.

            So you think killing life in the womb is some kind of individual power, and that life in the womb is an "easily replaceable part of a larger society?"

            You mean like old people? Are they as disposable as you want unborn kids to be? My God, what kind of agenda has this been anyway? Ugh.

          • You are not recognizing your friends here. I'm on your side.

            I don't believe that fetuses are an easily replaceable parts of a larger society. Many people however think that human progress and development occur at a societal level, and that largely the contributions of an individual matter less than socio-economic conditions. To them, any person, given a similar upbringing, cultural indoctrination, and education can do replace the life that was lost.

            Nor do I believe that Planned Parenthood spends a fraction of a percent on abortions (and I don't think Emily's source is on the up and up either). I'm just saying it wouldn't matter if they only performed an elective abortion once every few decades. Their mission includes abortion, and therefore it must be opposed.

          • Yes. They provide abortions. Even says so on their website, so I'm not sure how that's "hiding".

            If you don't like the law, Dennis, feel free to get it changed. All you need is a majority, and a government willing to say what they'll do up front. Why not get the PM to answer some questions? see where he stands?

            Or, you can argue here, where the discussion is strictly for your own amusement. What are you doing to change the situation, Dennis?

          • If they're providing bogus stats about how many abortions they provide and advocate for, and if their supporters are desperately trying to minimize the role that abortions do play with an organization absurdly named "Planned Parenthood," then how isn't that "hiding?"

            Harper said it himself a while ago. It's not his job to change the culture on social issues. So, until the culture changes, no politician will confront the ugly truths surrounding the killing of human life in the womb.

            As for my part, I'm not a politician. I'm confronting those ugly truths when I can, ain't I?

  8. I can't remember, how long did it take the Conservatives to review the long form census?

    • Apparently they were preparing that idiotic move for two months prior to making it public!

      I thought it was a poorly thought-out spur of the moment policy, but it turns out that they had put some thought into it.

      Now, why they weren't able to tell us what their thoughts actually were and had to hide behind StatCan bureaucrats, I have no idea.

      • Again I remind everyone that we have a sophisticated modern government that makes its decisions methodically and that takes time. All the options are examined, all the implications are carefully weighed and then the best policy ideas are rejected one by one in order to implement the ideologically correct solution.

        • It's surprising how many people think exactly the way you suggest. My spouse gets annoyed with me because apparently I have no respect for 'why the government's rules exist the way they do'. And my retort is that 'you have no idea how those rules came to be, and if you did you'd become a staunch libertarian'.

          She thinks I'm too full of myself (guilty as charged). I think she's too trusting.

  9. I have some questions.

    Let's say I'm a social conservative, I'm pro-life, and I'm a faithful Conservative supporter. Harper isn't touching the issue of abortion with a 10-foot pole, and he repeatedly says he has no plans to reopen the debate. Now, do I believe he's telling the truth? If so, why am I still supporting the Conservatives? Or, do I believe he's playing possum on it so he can get a majority and make some changes? I'd love to hear some so-con responses to those questions.

  10. BREAKING NEWS — If PP is prepared to support the evangelical Christian international anti-abortion agenda, they can apply for funding.

    That puts paid to that. We must now return our gaze to not focusing on the economy.

  11. Oh goodie! I've been secretly hoping for another opportunity to read some Planned Parenthood = Eugenics diatribes again!

    Bergkamp? You're on the clock…. ;)

    • Sure. Always glad to point out how amoral left wing types are.

      I find it astonishing that Hilary Clinton would accept an award named after Sanger but there you go – liberal malevolence in all its glory.

      "The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it" Margaret Sanger

      "Our highest honor, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America Margaret Sanger Award, is presented annually to recognize leadership, excellence, and outstanding contributions to the reproductive health and rights movement." Planned Parenthood website

      "Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in America. 78% of their clinics are in minority communities. Blacks make up 12% of the population, but 35% of the abortions in America." Black Genocide website

      • I see you left out a key word there in your Sanger quote…it's "the most merciful thing that a LARGE family does…" See, she's arguing that large families, the kind she saw in the 1920s with 10 or 11 kids, are detrimental to the families themselves and society as a whole.

        Or we can pretend that Sanger hated kids and wanted them killed for her own personal entertainment…whatevs.
        http://www.bartleby.com/1013/5.html

        "The immorality of large families lies not only in their injury to the members of those families but in their injury to society. If one were asked offhand to name the greatest evil of the day one might, in the light of one's education by the newspapers, or by agitators, make any one of a number of replies. One might say prostitution, the oppression of labor, child labor, or war. Yet the poverty and neglect which drives a girl into prostitution usually has its source in a family too large to be properly cared for by the mother, if the girl is not actually subnormal because her mother bore too many children, and, therefore, the more likely to become a prostitute. Labor is oppressed because it is too plentiful; wages go up and conditions improve when labor is scarce. Large families make plentiful labor and they also provide the workers for the child-labor factories as well as the armies of unemployed. That population, swelled by overbreeding, is a basic cause of war, we shall see in a later chapter. Without the large family, not one of these evils could exist to any considerable extent, much less to the extent that they exist to-day. The large family—especially the family too large to receive adequate care—is the one thing necessary to the perpetuation of these and other evils and is therefore a greater evil than any one of them."<i/>

        • "Or we can pretend that Sanger hated kids … "

          She does hate kids, no need to pretend. She claims that prostitution, war, low wages and prostitution all exist because of children, for god's sake.

          Liberals haave an odd idea of what love is – abortion, euthansia – killing the weakest/most vulnerable members of society is all about love, apparently.

          Not sure why you are cracking wise about eugenics because Sanger was in favour of the policy and she didn't hide it.

          RS Argent Were you the one reading Engels a few months ago? It would explain a lot of you are the one who thought Engels has something to teach us about human nature.

          "We do not want word to get out that we want to exterminate the Negro population." Margaret Sanger

          Which key word have I left out here that will completely change meaning, at least according to you?

          • Yes, I suggested that you read The Conditions of the Working Class in England in 1844 – it is a wonderful historical document. Pity that you haven't taken me up on it.

            And as for your last quote – 20 seconds of internet research has taught me that it is laughably taken out of context – Sanger was actually arguing that the last thing they want if for people to start thinking that they want to exterminate the Negro population….because they don't want to exterminate the Negro population, and that would be a bad thing for people to believe about them.

            It's like if I said "I do not want word to get out that I secretly find Stephen Harper is dreamy" and you turned around and said "See! That proves that RSA thinks Stephen Harper is dreamy!"

            Man, I was hoping you had a little more heft to your hate – so far this is pretty pathetic.

          • Selective editing of quotes — de rigueur for the discerning Conservative this season.

          • " …. Sanger was actually arguing that the last thing they want if for people to start thinking that they want to exterminate the Negro population….because they don't want to exterminate the Negro population …"

            How hard do liberals have to spin to make Sanger seem reasonable? If any conservative said anything remotely like Sanger did we would be hung drawn and quartered but liberals go out of their to claim that Sanger was a humantarian, y'all.

            "Man, I was hoping you had a little more heft to your hate … "

            I don't hate people, just feel sad for them. It is a shame that people are so empty inside that they have to murder children to make their life better. The only people I hate are abortion providers, like Planned Parenthood, but I believe in karma and know that those people who work for those type of orgs will be coming back as lice in a cat's arsehole. It all evens out in the end.

            And the only thing Engels has to teach us is how not to behave, what not to do. Engels is one of the fathers of the most murderous ideology man has created, his understanding of human nature is suspect to say the least.

          • Don't have to spin at all. Why not read the whole quote? It's talking about how Negro doctors would be helpful because Negroes are more comfortable dealing with them rather than white doctors (and in the Segregated US, can you really blame them?), and those doctors (and ministers) can dispel any rumours about Planned Parenthood wanting to exterminate Negroes.

            "It seems to me from my experience . . . in North Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee, and Texas, that while the colored Negroes have great respect for white doctors, they can get closer to their own members and more or less lay their cards on the table. . . . They do not do this with the white people, and if we can train the Negro doctor at the clinic, he can go among them with enthusiasm and with knowledge, which, I believe, will have far-reaching results. . . . His work, in my opinion, should be entirely with the Negro profession and the nurses, hospital, social workers, as well as the County's white doctors. His success will depend upon his personality and his training by us.The minister's work is also important, and also he should be trained, perhaps by the Federation, as to our ideals and the goal that we hope to reach. We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs"

            See Ma? No Spin!

            You really should read that Engels book, it might help you out with your embarrassingly poor understanding of historical empathy.

          • " …can dispel any rumours about Planned Parenthood wanting to exterminate Negroes."

            Listen to yourself! You are arguing that Sanger was opeing abortion clinics in minorty comunities in order to dispel rumours about PP wanting to exterminate Negroes. They aren't 'rumours' if black children are being aborted, it is fact.

            Sanger wanted to use black doctors, clergy and other black middle classes to bamboozle lower class blacks. It was insidious and racist and still is today.
            ——–

          • Wow, you really only see what you want to see, don't you?

      • "The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it" Margaret Sanger

        That's an interesting quote. I wondered what the context was for such a thought, so I found the book. It sounds like it's not a suggestion for large families to kill their children, as much as a hyperbolic response to the abysmal conditions that many large families had to live in before the child eventually dies at an early age. I'm not condoning this quote, but it's a fascinating discussion.

        Thus we see that the second and third children have a very good chance to live through the first year. Children arriving later have less and less chance, until the twelfth has hardly any chance at all to live twelve months.

        This does not complete the case, however, for those who care to go farther into the subject will find that many of those who live for a year die before they reach the age of five.

        Many, perhaps, will think it idle to go farther in demonstrating the immorality of large families, but since there is still an abundance of proof at hand, it may be offered for the sake of those who find difficulty in adjusting old-fashioned ideas to the facts. The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it. The same factors which create the terrible infant mortality rate, and which swell the death rate of children between the ages of one and five, operate even more extensively to lower the health rate of the surviving members. Moreover, the overcrowded homes of large families reared in poverty further contribute to this condition. Lack of medical attention is still another factor, so that the child who must struggle for health in competition with other members of a closely packed family has still great difficulties to meet after its poor constitution and malnutrition have been accounted for.
        http://www.bartleby.com/1013/5.html

        EDIT: Beaten by R_S_A.

        [Shakes Tiny Fist of Fury]

        • Now there's an edit to make a man smile on a chilly spring afternoon!

          cheers!

        • We can all agree though, that Margaret Sanger is not the best voice that the pro-choice movement could find for themselves, given her racism, fascination with eugenics, and her general belief that the best solution is for poverty is to limit the number of poor by getting rid of the "excess population". I mean, even in context she's pretty much quoting Ebenezer Scrooge in the Christmas Carol for pete's sake.

          • That's a reasonable statement, Yanni. I've had a similar issues with the pro-life movement, with their incredible fixation on the issue of abortion–often soliciting a great deal of enthusiasm and energy–and far less of a focus on pre and post-birth support for new mothers who struggle with an unwanted pregnancy. Some are strong supporters, but it's a niche market compared to the primary focus of many in the pro-life movement.

            I'm not saying this to highlight hypocrisy, but to instead highlight the support networks we would need to create in order to keep unwanted pregnancies from becoming a major social problem. I don't know Sanger at all, but I would hope that someone with the above view would be relating it in order to bring attention to a need and suggest a solution, not advocating for a quick fix.

        • What's her definition of large?

          Is it alright for parents to start murdering their children after 5 children or 8 or maybe 10? It is so hard to know when it is considered acceptable to murder your offspring so others won't suffer low wages.

          • I think she was saying that after 12 children you wouldn't have to murder your offspring, as they'd all die off on their own.

            I guess the real question for me would be whether it's moral or not to give birth to more children than you can reasonable expect to support, knowing full well that many will die a miserable death due to starvation and other mortality issues. To me, that's simply murder by neglect, and just as abhorrent. I guess I've viewed this subject always been a tug-of-war between trusting in God and using your God-given noggin.

  12. I'll fix that typo from Oda's office:

    "A spokesman for International Cooperation Minister Bev Oda says Planned Parenthood's application is still ^not^ being reviewed."

    You're welcome!

    • PP's application has now been put into the notty corner.

  13. I go to church every week, and I find that site absolutely repugnant. Perhaps they can put up at least one single verse that encourages the Church to get involved in politics.

    I'll wait here patiently.

    • Eh, there is a downside to the Church remaining neutral on politics as well. I am sure you can think of more than a few cases in history where churches had a responsibility to confront something evil and merely minded the store rather than confronting that evil and speaking out.

      Separation of Church and State doesn't mean that churches (or in this case faith groups) cannot be politically active. They are free to lobby and influence voters and politicians just as secular organizations (such as Planned Parenthood itself) are allowed to do. All that separation between Church and State means is that there isn't an established or official church of the state (such as the Church of England) and that churches don't have official roles and responsibility in the governing of the state (ie. ecclesiastical courts, sovereignty over territory, etc.).

      • All good points, Yanni. I'm not saying they should be neutral; the church has an absolute right–and some would say an obligation–to highlight issues that are of importance. But I vehemently disagree that the church should ever take the next step and start highlighting candidates that match a subset of "family values" that they believe should be shared by all believers, such as this site has done.

        It's one thing to highlight important issues; quite another to highlight appropriate candidates. And I think this is the case Biblically, not legally. I have no legal issues with a church advocating for a candidate, I have religious objections to it.

  14. “He's a backbench MP who, without question, isn't aware of the way that our program works,” he said, adding that the Conservatives would be willing to work with International Planned Parenthood and others who “focus” on the strict criteria set out in the government's G8 initiative.
    “I honestly don't know where he got his information,” Soudas said.

    Well Soudas apparently Trost thinks he's had some input to those "strict criteria". But what your saying is that Conservative backbenchers don't have a clue that they really don't have any consequence.

  15. Great answer, thanks.

  16. Nicely put. I don't agree with you but it's well-thought out and doesn't rely on being a lemming. Take care and let's just hope that whatever happens on May 2nd, that Canada comesout on the winning end.

  17. Pro-life means no capital punishment, no war save for defense, no assisted suicide, and no abortion.

    It has nothing to do with what someone deserves or wants. It is about what everyone has a right do, and that is life.

    • Being against abortion means you're against the killing of innocent life in the womb. Simple.

  18. If it was merely about enforcing male power, I'd want to reintroduce patria potestas. Then I could control whether my children had the right to live or die.

    No, I genuinely believe that abortion is de-powering for women, because in order to compete and have a place in society they have to sacrifice their own heirs. It also reinforces the idea that women are forced to carry a man's seed to term rather than it being her offspring and heir, as if she was a pot for a plant.

    I also think that one has natural responsibilities to care for your blood kin, and that extends to legal responsibilities. Under law, you have a responsibility to care for poverty-stricken parents, even if they were horrible people. You have the responsibility to pay child and spousal support, even if you were betrayed by them. Carrying a child to term is an extension of those principles.

  19. Please don't tell me what my positions are or how intellectually rigorous they are.

    • Well they certainly aren't medically rigorous.

      • Are you trying to say that an abortion is "medically" OK for the unborn child? My God, what kind of an agenda is this?

        • One that doesn't fetishize the fetus, I hope.

  20. Nothing gets Dennis going like a good abortion debate in the morning.

    Myself, I like my fetuses with ketchup.

  21. I don't speak for Harper. I honestly don't know what you're going on about now.

  22. No, that is not my position. In repect to rights, I don't take a position. Under individual circumstances, I don't know what goes in to making the decision to abort or not. I HOPE that the decision is not an easy one. However, I am not prepared to sit in judgment on whether every abortion is right or wrong. I think that is best left to the people most closely involved.

  23. Thank you for that excellent answer, Yanni. Grab an IntenseDebate account; we could use you around here!

  24. But Dennis_F is here too, and he has a high rating. Don't they cancel out? :)

    I appreciate where you're coming from. Best of luck wherever you end up.

    • Dennis could be better, I'll admit. Several others as well. Emily though is here every night, every day, every thread poisoning everything. It is impossible to have a debate of any civility as long as she is here.

      Dennis and the others have other things to do occasionally, at the very least.

      • I have only once attempted to engage her. She demands the last word, which can make for lengthy exchanges.

        And I don't have a problem with Dennis_F being here, I hope I didn't give that impression. I was simply contrasting the left and right extremes. But the pathological need to comment continuously–while a little close to home for me–can go to far, I readily admit.

  25. You certainly are willing to sit in judgment. You have made a decision and judged me in your comments.

    I do think that abortion is a terrible thing. I wish that it never happened. However, I am not willing to impose my will on others who are making a terribly difficult decision. I would hope that they at least get counselling on the decision before doing it.

    • So if someone robs a bank for reasons they think is justified, that's OK to you, too? If someone slaughters thousands to keep power and peace, that's OK, too. If someone lies to advance themselves, no problem. If someone defrauds the government for personal reasons, that's just great. This is the kind of moral code you abide by, is it? Horrific things can be done because you don't want to be "judgmental" of anyone. In the meantime, countless babies in the womb get slaughtered. But, hey, that's OK, because you don't want to be "judgemental." Terrific.

      • Why are you so judgmental? Why are you trying to put words in my mouth?

        I said I don't think abortion is OK; I said it is a terrible thing. So, how can you suggest that I think all those other things are OK?

        No, I don't believe that abortion is OK. I think it is sad and tragic. However, I know that there are sad and desperate circumstances that make abortion a likely outcome. I wish it were not so. I am not, however, going to impose my sense of morality on everyone else. I am not in their shoes; I am prepared to leave the decision to them.

        • I know that there are sad and desperate circumstances that make abortion a likely outcome. I wish it were not so. I am not, however, going to impose my sense of morality on everyone else. I am not in their shoes; I am prepared to leave the decision to them.

          So that is your position for all "terrible things" done by people, is it?

          • I said that was my position on abortion. I thought you were a wordsmith….

            In regards to all terrible things…

            If it was your decision, would you send Canadian troops to Libya, Iran, Syria, North Korea, and any number of other countries to stop the terrible things from happening there?

          • So you treat the "terrible thing" of abortion differently than you treat other terrible things. Why?

  26. I know who does, Yanni, and they receive my support in multiple ways.

  27. I know that when Congress was discussing the funding of PP in the States recently (they're still going to fund it btw) that Senator John Kyl claimed that well over 90% of what Planned Parenthood does is abortions. Later it came out that the actual number is slightly lower (3%). I presume that this number represents either PP's American operations or their global operations. Anyone have any idea what the number in Canada might be?

    I know I've seen a lot of PP public service ads on the bus on the way to work lately, but I haven't seen one talking about abortion yet.

    Also, back to the Kyl thing, I should point out that I LOVED the response from the Senator's office to the fact that his number was off by a factor of 30. The Senator's office simply issued a release explaining that the Senator's comment, in a speech on the floor of the Senate mind you, was "not intended to be a factual statement". LOL. That's got to be one of the funniest lines from a Congressional office in the history of the Republic! Of course, it led to this, and the invention of a new Twitter hashtag: #NotIntendedToBeAFactualStatement It's great fun actually. Tweet any nonsensical, completely factually incorrect thing you want, and by simply adding "#NotIntendedToBeAFactualStatement" you can get away with it!!!

    As Colbert said of Kyl “You can't call him out for being wrong when he never intended to be right. … That is an amazingly liberating defense.”

  28. I can't for the life of me understand how Emily's rating is so high, but that number aside, I do question that she is a "respected commentator". On a lot of issues she's probably ideologically closer to me than many other commenters who are more on the right, but I respect those other commenters a LOT more. I'd even go so far as saying that I respect Dennis_F (whom you discuss below) more, and that guy drives me NUTS sometimes.

    Anyway, allow me to also add a note of thanks for a great reply to gottabesaid.

  29. You're a history grad and you still think Engels is worth paying attention to?

    Richard… as a fellow history grad, you made me sad.

    • Yes, that specific book is a wonderful historical document that gives us a detailed glimpse into the mind of 19th Century socialism and the conditions they were so desperate to solve.

      You don't have to agree with Engels to see its historical value.

      • Oh, I thought you were enamored of Hegel/Marx's/Engel's view about zeitgeist and development of society as evolving to higher levels of consciousness.

        I'm happy again.

        • Nah, not so much. I used to be a fan of Structuralism, but seem to have turned into a bit of a technological determinist of all things :)

          cheers!

  30. It is ironic that some people can't get past Sanger's 1920s racism, and put it in context, in a country where most of the founding fathers were slave-owners.

    • I love founding father discussions, they are my heroes, and would like to point out my two fav ff's – J Adams and B Franklin – were both anti-slavery.

      • Yeah, the American founding fathers were pretty cool.

        The slavery issue is interesting too in this context. Take Thomas Jefferson for example, a man known as a fierce champion of liberty, but who owned hundreds of slaves in his life and relied on them for his businesses, but who was also anti-slavery, but who freed none of the slaves belonging to him except for those believed to be related to him by blood (the children of Sally Hemmings were apparently the only slave family set free from Monticello).

        It was a complicated time (but then, aren't they all?).

        • Jefferson tried hard to ban slavery but he was not successful in his agenda during Constitution talks. I think Jeffferson was anti-slavery but he was also broke his entire adult life and could not afford to free his slaves and hire people as labourers. Finances before principles.