Trying to Erase John A. Macdonald from History

[porkmedallions]

Originally Posted by JM5

The only issue I see with banning abortions except for cases of rape or to protect the mother's health is the possibility of circumstances changing after a pregnancy is planned. If the father has died, become disabled, gone to jail or is suffering from a health crisis the justification is there but what if he just lost his job? What if he does not want to continue the relationship for reasons that are not frivolous? Simply asking these questions in order to approve a procedure is a serious invasion of privacy, I think it's best to leave the option available.

Maybe a couple of rule changes would reduce frivolous abortions in a world where other methods of contraception are widely available. Something like a nominal fee for the first one that increases steeply for each additional one might work.

Originally Posted by niwell

While I'm sure these people do exist, I highly doubt it is prevalent. Having known people who go through the procedure it is not exactly fun and can be quite painful physically (much less emotionally). Even the morning after pill can mess some people's bodies up for a bit. It's the same straw-man as the "welfare Queen" and used in a very similar way. After mostly fading out it's now predominant again in the new social conservative circles, which I suppose isn't surprising...

Originally Posted by Reesonov

This strikes me as a slightly curious position to take. I mean, its not that far removed from me being aware that my mother had the option to rebuke my father's frisky advances on that magical night of my conception. Had she stuck to her virtues, I wouldn't be here (had she succumbed a day, hour, or even moment later, I would not be me but instead some genetically similar but, I presume, slightly less magnificent creature.)

Its obviously a very complicated subject for people who can see the merits of both sides of the argument. There is a huge grey area with a lot of difficult questions to answer, and this is probably not the best place to do it.

For the record I don't think it should be banned in any way, for anyone (I should have worded what I wrote better).
I just think its sad that it has become such a normal and accepted thing to do, and that a lot more effort is needed to educate people about other options.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by porkmedallions

I just think its sad that it has become such a normal and accepted thing to do, and that a lot more effort is needed to educate people about other options.

People aren't going out for 5 or 6 abortions for the hell of it, or for whatever red herring you might think up. To use the US as a sample (since data is easier to find than for Canada), in 2013 there were 665,000 abortions (which is less than half of what it was in the 80s and 90s). That same year there were around 4 million births. Add in the fact that approximately 20% of pregnancies end in miscarriage, and we can account for maybe another 935,000 women who were pregnant. So out of a total of 5.6 million pregnancies, 665,000 (12%) were terminated. I don't think that's exceptionally high.

No one wants to get an abortion, it's neither pleasant nor easy, and the toll it takes on a woman's body (and potentially, reproductive system) is disincentive enough.

Originally Posted by esquire

It's regrettable that the typical response to that scenario is to terminate pregnancy via abortion... like it or not, there's a human being paying the ultimate price for that decision.

It's no more a human "paying the ultimate price" than it is when you use birth control - in most cases it's more preventing a pregnancy from occurring than it is preventing an almost-fully-formed human from being born - considering that most abortions occur when it's little more than a fertalized egg. If you personally believe that that therefore means it's a thing with a soul, fine, but medically that's not the case.

[optimusREIM]

I love how everyone becomes an expert in ethics and medicine as soon as the topic comes up.

[Pavlov]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

I love how everyone becomes an expert in ethics and medicine as soon as the topic comes up.

Who claimed to be an expert?

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by Reesonov

Who claimed to be an expert?

No one explicitly claimed it but people start bandying all sorts of figures and numbers which they sorta expect people to just accept and then make these sweeping proclamations as if they were absolute truths. Authoritative statements are made and to question them, well that would be unconscionable wouldn't it?

I guess all I'm saying is that the specific topic of abortion has a special way of bringing out the asinine in people on both sides of the debate.

[lio45]

On the news today, Montreal is moving forward with renaming its Amherst street. (Some historians pointed out they shouldn't, for the record.)

I don't approve but it's not my place to say anything about it, however as a taxpayer I am going to be watching for any threat to Sherbrooke's Amherst street and Amarillo's Confederate statue and will devote time and energy to keeping them as is, should that be required.

There was a pretty serious plan by the city to get a René-Lévesque boulevard in Sherbrooke maybe some 15 years ago and we managed to defeat it, so it can be done. René is only getting his boulevard now... a brand new one, as it should. It doesn't actually take that much opposition to defeat plans to dump long-standing historical names.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lio45

On the news today, Montreal is moving forward with renaming its Amherst street. (Some historians pointed out they shouldn't, for the record.)

I don't approve but it's not my place to say anything about it, however as a taxpayer I am going to be watching for any threat to Sherbrooke's Amherst street and Amarillo's Confederate statue and will devote time and energy to keeping them as is, should that be required.

There was a pretty serious plan by the city to get a René-Lévesque boulevard in Sherbrooke maybe some 15 years ago and we managed to defeat it, so it can be done. René is only getting his boulevard now... a brand new one, as it should. It doesn't actually take that much opposition to defeat plans to dump long-standing historical names.

You actually actively fight these things personally?

For reasons of principle as opposed to just being a multiple property owner who doesn't want the hassle of changing addresses?

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Acajack

You actually actively fight these things personally?

For reasons of principle as opposed to just being a multiple property owner who doesn't want the hassle of changing addresses?

Actually, I only did it once in my life (the René-Lévesque proposal in my hometown - and I didn't have to do much because many people in Sherbrooke shared my opinion so the opposition movement grew quickly and the plan was dropped).

I'm a heritage and history buff, and even though I'm busy and might normally not really bother actively fighting that kind of fight, reasons of principle have made me more committed lately. However, I would greatly prefer not having to do it - I should have better things to do with my free time.

Amherst Street in Sherbrooke is not a major artery at all, it's a small street in the (pre-mergers) city's main Anglo neighborhood ('cause obviously only Anglos would name a street after him), so it might escape radars and stay as is.

[SkahHigh]

^the goal (in Amherst's case) is not forgetting about history or trying to hide it, but to not glorify a figure who clearly did very wrong things by naming a street after him...

[lio45]

Originally Posted by SkahHigh

^the goal (in Amherst's case) is not forgetting about history or trying to hide it, but to not glorify a figure who clearly did very wrong things by naming a street after him...

Most historical figures did very wrong things. They also did "good" things which is why our forebears who built this city and this country ended up choosing to name stuff after them.

[Acajack]

A neighbourhood near where I live is named for Nobel prize winners. Recently it was discovered that two of them were Nazis (or strong sympathizers).

The names were changed for Rue Albert-Einstein and Rue Marie-Curie.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Acajack

A neighbourhood near where I live is named for Nobel prize winners. Recently it was discovered that two of them were Nazis (or strong sympathizers).

So all their scientific work, the permanent contributions to the sum of humanity's knowledge, which was enough to warrant naming streets after them, is now irrelevant because they secretly didn't dislike fascism?

On the other hand - a whole neighborhood named after Nobel Prize winners and they did not already have an Albert-Einstein street nor a Marie-Curie street?!?!?

Oh, did they name these streets after people who won one Nobel Prize? Maybe that's why Marie Curie, who won two, was not in the running originally....

[SkahHigh]

Originally Posted by lio45

Most historical figures did very wrong things. They also did "good" things which is why our forebears who built this city and this country ended up choosing to name stuff after them.

In this case, what did Jeffery Amherst do good? He tried to exterminate natives and deported thousands of Acadians.

I don't think we should honour such a figure. Sure, don't remove him from any history books as he plays a major part but naming streets after him?

[lio45]

Originally Posted by SkahHigh

In this case, what did Jeffery Amherst do good?

From a British point of view? Is that even a serious question?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lio45

So all their scientific work, the permanent contributions to the sum of humanity's knowledge, which was enough to warrant naming streets after them, is now irrelevant because they secretly didn't dislike fascism?

On the other hand - a whole neighborhood named after Nobel Prize winners and they did not already have an Albert-Einstein street nor a Marie-Curie street?!?!?

Oh, did they name these streets after people who won one Nobel Prize? Maybe that's why Marie Curie, who won two, was not in the running originally....

The two dudes were Philipp Lenard (German) and Alexis Carrel (French). I didn't feel strongly either way but I doubt their scientific renown will be diminished by the fact they no longer have streets of semi-detached houses (some with pinkish brick, probably) in suburban Gatineau, Québec named for them.

[SkahHigh]

Originally Posted by lio45

From a British point of view? Is that even a serious question?

?

We're talking about Canada, not Great Britain. Who cares what he did for them? We're talking about our streets and our monuments.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by SkahHigh

?

We're talking about Canada, not Great Britain.

They've been the same thing for a couple centuries. That's like saying people like Samuel de Champlain and Jacques Cartier should not be honored anymore in modern Quebec, because those guys were French and modern France is a foreign country so there's no reason for us to honor French nationals with our names here. I can see the argument, but I have to discard it as it doesn't make any sense.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lio45

They've been the same thing for a couple centuries. That's like saying people like Samuel de Champlain and Jacques Cartier should not be honored anymore in modern Quebec, because those guys were French and modern France is a foreign country so there's no reason for us to honor French nationals with our names here. I can see the argument, but I have to discard it as it doesn't make any sense.

Yeah. The modern Canada is very much the direct descendant of the British colonial entity that Jeffrey Amherst helped create. Much more so than any part of Canada (even Quebec) is really a direct descendent of anything administratively French.

Coucou!

[SkahHigh]

Originally Posted by lio45

They've been the same thing for a couple centuries. That's like saying people like Samuel de Champlain and Jacques Cartier should not be honored anymore in modern Quebec, because those guys were French and modern France is a foreign country so there's no reason for us to honor French nationals with our names here. I can see the argument, but I have to discard it as it doesn't make any sense.

That's not the same thing though. Jeffery Amherst tried to exterminate what was already here. He was a general who led wars for his country. De Champlain and Cartier were both explorers who actually found, explored and defined what is now our country.

Comparing these two with Amherst is apples and oranges. Your argument make even less sense.

Can you imagine an Armenian person living and walking on streets named after members of the Ottoman Empire who tried to exterminate their ancestors? Or an Adolf Hitler park in Germany? Because that's the same for First Nations here. Just doesn't make sense to give any public recognition to bad historical figures. Even on the pretext of "history".

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by SkahHigh

That's not the same thing though. Jeffery Amherst tried to exterminate what was already here. He was a general who led wars for his country. De Champlain and Cartier were both explorers who actually found, explored and defined what is now our country.

Comparing these two with Amherst is apples and oranges. Your argument make even less sense.

Can you imagine an Armenian person living and walking on streets named after members of the Ottoman Empire who tried to exterminate their ancestors? Or an Adolf Hitler park in Germany? Because that's the same for First Nations here. Just doesn't make sense to give any public recognition to bad historical figures. Even on the pretext of "history".

This works under a decolonization scenario or in the case of Germany where you kind of do an entire shutdown and then reboot of the country's governance structure.

But Canada never really did that. (See the picture of the lady above!)