Trying to Erase John A. Macdonald from History

[elly63]

Originally Posted by rousseau

Anyone against abortion who claims it has nothing to do with hate or oppression is a complete and utter moron. And since not everyone out there is a complete and utter moron, it follows that most people against abortion are malevolent, at least on this issue.

Because they are actively seeking to inflict unimaginable pain and suffering on women.

I think the speech rights on university campuses is a tough one. The anti-abortion brigade aren't quite as toxic as the racists, the white supremacists, the alt-right morons and the like, but they're getting there. At what point does an intellectual debate turn into a grandstanding display of authoritarian nonsense whose main and very explicit purpose is to harm people (though of course they would make the idiotic claim that they wish to "save babies")?

You have some wickedly serious prejudices. And the bolded point is kinda what you're doing with what you previously said in your post.

[rousseau]

Originally Posted by elly63

You have some wickedly serious prejudices. And the bolded point is kinda what you're doing with what you previously said in your post.

Prejudices? I don't have a clue what you're talking about. If you're going to respond to a post, at least make a coherent point.

[Dr Awesomesauce]

Originally Posted by rousseau

Anyone against abortion who claims it has nothing to do with hate or oppression is a complete and utter moron. And since not everyone out there is a complete and utter moron, it follows that most people against abortion are malevolent, at least on this issue.

Because they are actively seeking to inflict unimaginable pain and suffering on women.

I think the speech rights on university campuses is a tough one. The anti-abortion brigade aren't quite as toxic as the racists, the white supremacists, the alt-right morons and the like, but they're getting there. At what point does an intellectual debate turn into a grandstanding display of authoritarian nonsense whose main and very explicit purpose is to harm people (though of course they would make the idiotic claim that they wish to "save babies")?

Not exactly one of your more intelligent posts.

To render an issue as complex as abortion down to malevolence towards women and to then conflate it with racism is irresponsible and unintelligent and I doubt you're either of those things.

If nothing else, I suppose this illustrates just how screwed our culture is - no discussion, just name-calling.

[rousseau]

Originally Posted by Dr Awesomesauce

Not exactly one of your more intelligent posts.

To render an issue as complex as abortion down to malevolence towards women and to then conflate it with racism is irresponsible and unintelligent and I doubt you're either of those things.

If nothing else, I suppose this illustrates just how screwed our culture is - no discussion, just name-calling.

Huh? Complex? Abortion in the West is a settled issue (well, outside of the crazier precincts of the American south). Being against abortion is the preserve of crackpots and religious nuts. Either that, or it requires carefully tiptoeing across an insane tightrope of cognitive dissonance.

Deciding to stake a claim on protecting nervous-system-less embryos and fetuses at all costs (because souls are implanted in the fertilized eggs that manage to adhere to the uterine wall, or something) regardless of the unimaginable pain, suffering, oppression and death to women that would result from holding them captive to their wombs, as was the case before the advent of proper medical abortion, is clearly a malevolent position to hold. How could it not be?

This is probably a needless and unwelcome tangent on this thread, though.

[JM5]

Originally Posted by manny_santos

With respect to the pro-life/anti-abortion groups, a lot of the opposition to those groups on university campuses has come from an idea that people who hold those views "hate" women and just want to oppress them.

The trouble is, a lot of these groups today are comprised heavily of women. And having talked to some of them, I've found their intentions have nothing to do with hate or oppression. You can't convince the SJWs of that though; the popular notion of elderly male Knights of Columbus members protesting against abortion in the 1980s is still what they (JT included) think the anti-abortion movement is comprised of. Most of those men are long dead.

The pro-choice/pro-life debate is one that I have not thought much about, but actually there are many things to consider and many points of view.

The orthodox stance is that pregnancy is a woman's health issue, therefore the choice must be left up to her. This is tempered only by the cut-off date whereby the foetus starts to be considered alive (a person) and abortions are only allowed if there is a very real danger to the mother. Since I'm no doctor, for the purposes of this argument I will assume that the demarcation between a foetus being pre-life and life is valid. The late term abortions in turn seem to be justified on utilitarian grounds, because the mother is a grown productive individual deemed more valuable than a "potential" person.

From a traditionalist point of view, abortions are seen as pre-empting the will and creation of God. This argument does not hold any merit in the world of reason. Otoh, I consider God to be a fabrication created by humans to serve a variety of critical purposes and the values attributed to God to have evolved and proven adaptive. This would suggest that if "God" forbids abortions, there must be a real adaptive reason for it. Imo, it's easy enough to guess what that might be. Anybody with a background in anthropology will tell you that society is nothing more than an organised reproductive scheme and rules tightly controlling reproduction are central to all traditional cultures. This is most likely so because if individuals in a traditional society didn't at least seem to be following the "rules", paternity would frequently come into question, male competition within society would go up and social cohesion would go out the window. The group would then be left open to conquest by a more cohesive group. Does this scenario still apply to todays society though? I think not because paternity tests are routine, suspicions can be put to rest for better or worse.

Should a potential father not have a say in the matter though? This is a tough one but his rights cannot trump hers as she actually assumes the risks of carrying the child. Maybe technology will soon provide the answer for men who want a child without a woman needing to assume much risk or responsibility.

Why kill a foetus when women could just take the pill or use contraception? Pills have side effects, condoms and other methods can fail and circumstances can change after a pregnancy was initially planned. Abortions should be available as an additional option. Perhaps they should not be provided for free, but I think the reason they are has a lot to do with paying for a procedure today which eliminates the need for ongoing social assistance tomorrow (but I digress).

The final issue I want to broach is the effect that widely available abortions have had on society as I suspect this is what's really behind arguments to ban them. Our society has changed dramatically in a short time. Even fifty years ago, virtually all of the risk of an unwanted pregnancy fell on women. The costs were steep indeed and women were accordingly cautious. Today, through legislation and technological change this has been largely reversed whereby a great deal/majority of the risk is assumed by men without them having any choice in the matter. The reprecussions of this fundamental shift will take a generation or two to fully reveal themselves and are today certainly not well understood from what I can tell. My suspicion is, laws will need to be tweaked to place a bit more of the burden of responsibility back onto women in order to reflect their power to exercise choice and reduce the temptation of entrapping men.

No, at least for now, I don't think abortions should go away.

[elly63]

Originally Posted by rousseau

Huh? Complex? Abortion in the West is a settled issue (well, outside of the crazier precincts of the American south). Being against abortion is the preserve of crackpots and religious nuts.

Unfortunately the only person sounding like a crackpot here is you.

[porkmedallions]

I tend to view abortion as a very unfortunate thing in most cases. Being adopted, Im aware that my birth mother had the option to terminate if she wanted, and Im obviously thankful she opted not to. So you can see why this issue would hit close to home, especially when I hear about people who are on their 5th or 6th abortion and are seemingly using them as a safety net in order to continue their irresponsible behaviour.

Im not the type of person to protest or shame those who do choose to have the procedure done. In fact, I do think it should be legal for cases of rape, incest, health of the mother etc. I also think the patient should be fully briefed on the benefits of adoption before they make their decision.

The "religious nuts" so hellbent on preventing every single abortion are nothing more than extremists. So too are people like rousseau - he is just on the other side of the argument. Personally I find any type of extremism off-putting.

[sunsetmountainland]

Originally Posted by porkmedallions

I tend to view abortion as a very unfortunate thing in most cases. Being adopted, Im aware that my birth mother had the option to terminate if she wanted, and Im obviously thankful she opted not to. So you can see why this issue would hit close to home, especially when I hear about people who are on their 5th or 6th abortion and are seemingly using them as a safety net in order to continue their irresponsible behaviour.

Im not the type of person to protest or shame those who do choose to have the procedure done. In fact, I do think it should be legal for cases of rape, incest, health of the mother etc. I also think the patient should be fully briefed on the benefits of adoption before they make their decision.

The "religious nuts" so hellbent on preventing every single abortion are nothing more than extremists. So too are people like rousseau - he is just on the other side of the argument. Personally I find any type of extremism off-putting.

This is a very poignant but also a very reasonable view in my opinion. My best friend growing up was also adopted.

[sunsetmountainland]

Not to mention a best friend uncle whom had down syndrome. I may have not had this relationship if others decided to play god.

[kool maudit]

If this question is of any significance, it is a spiritual question relating to ensoulment and what happens after death and before birth.

We do not have a common spiritual consensus in Canada or Europe, with many holding varying beliefs or none at all. Thus the common ground, and for many the absolute reality, is materialism. Other beliefs are permitted as 'bolt-on' options packages provided they are reasonably isolated to the self and demand little of others save tolerance.

Materialism's moral order is individualistic, rights- and harm-based, hence our laws and Rousseau's (dominant) view. Canada would need to be a very different sort of country for this to change (it would have to have a social consensus, or a ruling body willing to enforce consent to the idea, that abortion destroys an individuated human being).

[JM5]

Originally Posted by porkmedallions

I tend to view abortion as a very unfortunate thing in most cases. Being adopted, Im aware that my birth mother had the option to terminate if she wanted, and Im obviously thankful she opted not to. So you can see why this issue would hit close to home, especially when I hear about people who are on their 5th or 6th abortion and are seemingly using them as a safety net in order to continue their irresponsible behaviour.

Im not the type of person to protest or shame those who do choose to have the procedure done. In fact, I do think it should be legal for cases of rape, incest, health of the mother etc. I also think the patient should be fully briefed on the benefits of adoption before they make their decision.

The "religious nuts" so hellbent on preventing every single abortion are nothing more than extremists. So too are people like rousseau - he is just on the other side of the argument. Personally I find any type of extremism off-putting.

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.

[niwell]

Originally Posted by porkmedallions

I tend to view abortion as a very unfortunate thing in most cases. Being adopted, Im aware that my birth mother had the option to terminate if she wanted, and Im obviously thankful she opted not to. So you can see why this issue would hit close to home, especially when I hear about people who are on their 5th or 6th abortion and are seemingly using them as a safety net in order to continue their irresponsible behaviour.

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...

[Pavlov]

Originally Posted by porkmedallions

I tend to view abortion as a very unfortunate thing in most cases. Being adopted, Im aware that my birth mother had the option to terminate if she wanted, and Im obviously thankful she opted not to. So you can see why this issue would hit close to home, especially when I hear about people who are on their 5th or 6th abortion and are seemingly using them as a safety net in order to continue their irresponsible behaviour.

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.)

[esquire]

Everytime the subject of abortion comes up, it doesn't take long for the "what about rape and incest" card to get played... but I'd be willing to wager that the far more common scenario is one of consensual sex that leads to an unplanned pregnancy. 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.

I think part of the reason campus activists freak out over the garish anti-abortion displays with photos of mangled fetuses, etc. is that it probably hits a little too close to home... it's an uncomfortably stark reminder that there is more than just one person affected by the exercise of one's right to choose.

[Acajack]

Has this discussion really become about abortion, of all things?

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Has this discussion really become about abortion, of all things?

I'm surprised it hasn't gone off on a city vs. city tangent yet

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by esquire

I'm surprised it hasn't gone off on a city vs. city tangent yet

Let me start it off. Montreal is better than Toronto.

In seriousness though, the fact that it has gotten to this point reinforces that the whole abortion thing is still very relevant.

How this all relates to John a MacDonald is beyond me though

[rousseau]

Originally Posted by kool maudit

If this question is of any significance, it is a spiritual question relating to ensoulment and what happens after death and before birth.

We do not have a common spiritual consensus in Canada or Europe, with many holding varying beliefs or none at all. Thus the common ground, and for many the absolute reality, is materialism. Other beliefs are permitted as 'bolt-on' options packages provided they are reasonably isolated to the self and demand little of others save tolerance.

Materialism's moral order is individualistic, rights- and harm-based, hence our laws and Rousseau's (dominant) view. Canada would need to be a very different sort of country for this to change (it would have to have a social consensus, or a ruling body willing to enforce consent to the idea, that abortion destroys an individuated human being).

Well said. A few inanely retrograde opinions on a discussion forum don't represent a consensus. The vast majority of Canadians understand how horrific it would be to roll back abortion rights.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by rousseau

Well said. A few inanely retrograde opinions on a discussion forum don't represent a consensus. The vast majority of Canadians understand how horrific it would be to roll back abortion rights.

I think varying degrees of discomfort with abortion is a little more common than you might think.

[rousseau]

Originally Posted by esquire

I think varying degrees of discomfort with abortion is a little more common than you might think.

Sure. Having to do with sex and reproduction, you don't casually mention it to friends and family like you would a hernia operation.