I'm seriously not trying to pick on our friends to the north. I grew up right near the border in Upstate New York and have fond memories of trips across the border. However what are they thinking by giving the man responsible for bringing legalized abortion to their country twenty years ago the Nation's highest honor, the Order of Canada.
His comments show he is a man who has no remorse and in fact credits himself for Canada's low crime rate because his efforts have successfully killed off generations that might have committed crime.
He said that in the 20 years since the Supreme Court of Canada struckdown the criminal law against abortion in the case that bears his name, abortion has become one of the safest surgical procedures. Women are no longer killed, injured or left infertile because of abortions, he said, and violent crime has become much rarer due to a decline in unwanted pregnancies.
"There are people out there who would otherwise have been murdered. That makes me very happy indeed," he said.
According to Canadian abortion groups over 110,000 abortions are performed in Canada every year a ratio of about 30 abortions to every 100 live births. There are no real conscience protections to speak of and pro-life counselors are not permitted by law to directly advise an individual to not obtain an abortion.
This man who is responsible for at least 2,200,000 deaths in Canada since 1988 does not see himself as the violent one but according to him the pro-life churches in Canada are the vicious ones
He said he is surprised that the negative reaction to his honour from religious groups "is not more violent that it already is. The negative opinions all come from the usual suspects: the Catholic Church, fundamentalists, women opposed to women's rights."
His opinion on the views of people of faith is eerily similar to those who are pro-abortion such as People for the American Way and Americans Untied for Seperation of Church and State in the U.S.:
He said opposition to abortion on religious grounds does not trouble him, "as long as they are not allowed to influence other people, by force or by any other means."
Comments (3)
I am pro-choice for the following reasons:
1: I believe most Americans recognize that there is a moral and ethical distinction to be made between the termination of a pregnancy and the wanton killing of a living, breathing human being.
2: I believe most Americans know that while a woman’s fertilized egg or blastocyst is genetically “human,” the resemblance to a person ends there.
3: The vast majority of abortions take place within the first trimester of pregnancy, and most American still prefer that women still have that option.
4: The most emotional arguments against abortion hinge on religious beliefs: That a human pregnancy is somehow “sacred” or that a fertilized egg is imbued with some kind of “soul” or other supernatural characteristic. Since such relgious beliefs vary widely from person to person, all I can suggest is that pro-lifers are welcome to conduct their own reproductive lives as their conscience and religious beliefs dictate. They have absolutely NO right to demand that others do the same.
5: I consider a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy absolutely FUNDAMENTAL to her right to self-determination. PERIOD.
6: In my lifetime alone, the human population of this planet has DOUBLED from over three billion to over six billion, and it could conceivable TRIPLE to nine billion by the time I'm 70. These are all people that will have to be clothed, fed, educated, housed, employed, transported, and have their medical and sanitary needs met. Inevitably more forests will be cleared to make room for it all, energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions will continue to skyrocket, climate change will continue to spiral catastrophically out of control ... and TRUST ME, Jesus ain't gonna come descending out of the clouds to make it all better!
So with that in mind, YES, I'm not only pro-choice, I'm PRO-ABORTION.
July 3, 2008 9:48 AM | Comment Permalink
While Ms. Exner is obviously very articulate and intelligent, in this instance she is quite wrong. The simple truth is that abortion does stop a beating HUMAN heart ... despite the fact the little dude might or might not look like a human dude. The simple fact is that to have an abortion is to terminate the life of a human being. The word "pregnancy" in point 1 fails to hide this fact ... and the fact that to have an abortion is "the wanton killing of a living ... human being" despite the fact the little dude ain't breathing yet.
As far as her contention that religious beliefs are the main fuel in the attitudinal prohibition of abortion ... what are we to make of her belief that abortion is a "FUNDAMENTAL" right to a woman's self-determination. That value system has to be birthed from somewhere. It wasn't created "ex nihilo" (out of nothing). It is highly close kin to a secular humanist value system. Thus, she may well be quite hypocritical in blaming people for opposing abortion on religious-philosophical grounds ... while she herself is supporting it as "FUNDAMENTAL" on secular-humanist-philosophical grounds. Certainly she is not saying that religious beliefs are subjective, while secular humanist beliefs are objective is she?
Lastly, allow me to make a point about point 2. I touched on it earlier, but it deserves more attention. She makes the point that the similarity of the earliest of unborn babies is solely in the genes ... and not in the looks. My question is are we going to dissolve into determining human status based solely on looks? Philosophically this is quite a dangerous game to play. Jim Crow laws enshrined in the American legal system that people of color were less human than white people. The Australian Aborigines in yesteryear ... and some would argue still ... look different that white Australians and have been treated horribly. They were even deemed the evolutionary "missing link." Is it possible that this philosophy of being less human with less human rights based upon looks is what led to the horrible death by starvation of Terri Shiavo in Florida?
It looks like she may need to rethink her deeply held beliefs. Notice that I have not thumped a Bible at her, but have approached her arguements on philosophical and consistency grounds.
July 3, 2008 12:20 PM | Comment Permalink
Ms. Exner, on the matter of women's rights.. shouldn't a little woman's natural right in the womb come before her court-given choice as an adult?
Blaming others and demanding a way to escape the responsibility of promiscuous sex only gets you so far. Pregnancy naturally holds people accountable for their actions. Unfortunately, abortion on demand allows you to abnormally avoid having your child so you won't be "punished by the problem" as the Junior Senator Obama refers to it.
Believe it, if the child were allowed to live, you would experience blessings like no other through your child. Yes, it may get complicated and require hard work as you sort out the drama of having a child out of wedlock; but that is a far better alternative than stopping a life and living with the mental anquish and tormenting guilt that follows the rest of your days. People learn from life's lessons and make better decisions next time, e.g. get married, plan, etc.
Although you are correct, no one has the right to demand anything of you and you don't have to listen to others. Just if you are pregnant and quiet, you will hear your baby say, "I love you mommy".
July 9, 2008 3:51 PM | Comment Permalink