This is so NOT a shopping list:
Knitting needles
Coat hangers
Slippery Elm bark
Ballpoint pen
Pastes
Catheters
Gauze (packing)
Curtain rods
Telephone wire
Soap suds
Alcohol
Potassium permanganate
Lye
Lysol
Pine oil
These are among the items listed in the Birth Control Handbook (pdf), written by McGill University students Donna Cherniak and Allan Feingold in 1968. These were just some of the things that were injected and inserted into women on kitchen tables before they could obtain safe and legal abortions in Canada.
Or how about this warning?
Vacuum Cleaner: Connected to uterus — not to be confused with vacuum aspiration — is fatal almost immediately. Rips uterus from pelvic area.
These tools and liquids not only were painful and unhygienic, they were also lethal. If not to the fetus, then to the mother — which meant the fetus went with her.
Nothing like ''perforation of womb and bladder'' which caused ''death from infection or hemorrhage'' to make a woman think twice about having sex or being independent. It's all so biblical.
Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
The Handbook was excerpted last week by The Montreal Gazette which I read while back in my hometown last week. It was appended to a great piece reflecting on the bad olden days.
When Sharon Hager finally got a abortion in 1964, she feared it would kill her.
"It was hell, terrible. I thought I was going to die," recalled Hager, then 20 and living in Vancouver.
"It was illegal to have an abortion and it almost impossible to find someone to do it. A man who called himself a doctor — and you didn't know for sure he was — came to my home and on the kitchen table put gauze in my womb and broke my water."
Painful contractions came a few days later. Hager secretly disposed of the fetus in a river.
If a woman would endure that kind of physical and emotional suffering because she does not want to be pregnant, nothing will stop her from obtaining an abortion by any means necessary.
The contrast between the Gazette's stance on the awarding of an Order of Canada to Dr. Henry Morgentaler and that of The National Post, which is also part of the CanWest chain, is indicative of a media schism in Canada. As op-ed columnist Rob Mitchell wrote in The Star today:
The strongest opposition to Morgentaler comes from the Catholic Church and its leaders, most recently Archbishop Thomas Collins and National Post columnist Father Raymond De Souza. There is cause for argument that the church's prohibition on birth control has placed countless women's lives in jeopardy in pursuit of illegal abortion, or worse forced them into a life of penury trying to provide for children they can't afford.
As The Gazette notes:
A study published last fall in the Lancet journal suggest overall abortion rates worldwide are going down (42 million in 2003 compared with 46 million in 1995), but there is little difference in rates between countries where abortions are legal and illegal, suggesting women who don't want to be pregnant will find a way out.
According to the World Health Organization, 68,000 women die from complications of unsafe abortions each year all in developing countries.
Women's lives are, apparently, very disposable indeed.
(With a hidey-ho to Birth Pangs.)
Read what the people who oppose choice write about women and abortion. They believe only bad women, sinners, have abortions. And those people are Stephen Harper's Old Reform/New Conservative grassroot suppporters. They don't care if women die because of patriarchal politics. They're true believers.
Their last leader believes in Creationism and a literal interpretation of the Bible, fercrissakes.
Posted by: sooey | July 23, 2008 at 07:02 AM
Add to Sooey's list: only bad women, sinners, get pregnant when they don't want a child. Thus they should pay the wages of sin, and suffer the 9-month sentence of carrying the fetus to term.
Bah. I wish we could get over these parochial attitudes and embrace an ethical standpoint that recognizes no woman really wants an abortion, but if she finds herself in a situation where (in her opinion -- nobody else's) she needs an abortion, she should be able to get a safe, hygienic, medical-professional-supervised, abortion.
Posted by: ...pat. | July 23, 2008 at 08:45 AM
Gracious. 68,000 women die from abortions? I wonder how many feti die from abortions every year? Surely, logic must dictate that it is greater than 68,000, unless all abortions are fatal to women.
Posted by: johnnykap | July 23, 2008 at 12:37 PM
Re: johnnykap
Yep, let's not focus on the women, shift it back IMMEDIATELY to the embryo! Better still, don't acknowledge the fact that in Canada over 90% of abortions are done before 12 weeks, so let's call them all "fetuses" (or "feti"; but if you're using the Latin, you should probably put the 'o' back in) even though that is not accurate for the stage of development for over 40% of the terminations.
You missed the big one, though... you didn't rant about the .8% of abortions that can be classified as "late term" so for that: FAIL.
Posted by: Gigi | July 23, 2008 at 01:49 PM
The "68,000" number is likely quite low. There are untold numbers of women in developing and war-torn countries who die giving birth as a result of unwanted pregnancy due to rape or lack of contraception and those numbers have risen since the Reagan "global gag rule" tied US aid to organizations which are not allowed to give contraceptive INFORMATION, never mind actual contraceptives - in other words, they can't even tell a woman where to go to get what they need. Then there are the thousands and thousands of children born to women or families who can't afford to feed them or get health care for them or who can't protect them from being sold into slavery or child soldiering. Those lives are unimportant to Popes of the Roman Catholic Church and fetus fetishists everywhere. And yet they continue to propogate the myth that they believe in the dignity and sanctity of human life. Sometimes the hypocrasy is just unbearable.
Posted by: hysperia | July 23, 2008 at 04:27 PM
Hmmmm.... I'm not sure if I'm one of "them" because I appreciate AZ’s sense of humour, but here is what I think:
The choice question is a no brainer. Women should be in control of their own bodies, including foetuses. That the message is not getting across is, I think, due to the lack of participation of men in feminist issues. It has become scattered groups of women vs. a (male dominated) Parliament. It should be people against injustice. It needs to be the strong voice of women against patriarchal wrong-headedness. The women's movement (which seems to have flagged over the years) must gain a spokes organization (like NOW used to be) and build up steam. Thinking men will rally to a just cause such as this. The time is now. Get organized.
Posted by: Big Dave | July 23, 2008 at 04:57 PM
That global gag rule, about which I recently opinionated, is Washington's way of telling women that their lives are worthless.
http://thestar.blogs.com/broadsides/2008/04/memory-wipe.html
And i totally agree with Big Dave. Feminists in Quebec are organized. They have media influence and impact. Their concerns are on the political agenda. But not in the most of Canada. It's not like that there aren't many organizations out there, from shelters to advocacy groups. There are. But they don't speak with a united voice the way those unreal R.E.A.L. women do.
Whether this is a function of the current government's attitudes towards women's issues or not, I don't know. We all know how the Harpies cut funding to advocacy groups.
Maybe it's because so many of the pioneers have passed on or moved on.
Maybe it's because the current generations feel the war is over, and the rights have been won.
Posted by: Antonia | July 23, 2008 at 05:12 PM
Well, I was no pioneer, but I'm a boomer and I turned my body out for countless demos, yadayada. And yeah, I took my eye off the ball there for a while. This Conservative government though has refocused my efforts. Cuts to women's programs, the Court Challenges program, private bloody member's bills nosing into our crotches again. The Morgentaler brouhaha.
The fundies are strong in the US and their successes energize our fundies, of which, thank gord, we have not so many. But they're relentless and they'll do anything -- lie, cheat, freep polls -- to turn the clock back.
Young feminists are good. They just don't realize what they're up against yet. They'll learn.
Posted by: fern hill | July 23, 2008 at 07:35 PM
Antonia said: "Maybe it's because so many of the pioneers have passed on or moved on.
Maybe it's because the current generations feel the war is over, and the rights have been won."
Even though I think that what you're saying in this quote is true, Antonia, I'm more inclined to think a large majority of women and men have stopped protesting these assaults on the rights of women, as well as on most of the other overwhelmingly important societal issues screaming for our attention just now, because so many of the women and men who might otherwise be involved in these movements are popping Prozac or some other emotion-and-thought-suppressant drug on the instructions of their over-worked doctors, egged on by a culture that celebrates drug taking as the answer for everything.
Everywhere I turn I see quietly desperate people, overwhelmed by the pressures peaking in them because of their unfocused, media-driven and directed, I-am-a-Consumer lifestyles, candidly admitting to a dependence on anti-depressants. It's how they get from morning to night and back again, according to the ones I've gently prodded for some explanation for their obvious distress.
Posted by: arthurdecco | July 23, 2008 at 08:50 PM
Gigi, why are you upset that I focussed on the baby? The woman is in total control of the situation, so taking her situation into account is meaningless. She had control prior to becoming pregnant, and she maintains life and death decision making authority over the baby until such point as it takes its first breath.
As for the late term abortions, I prefer to just think of them as baby seals, and my compassion immediately dissipates.
I think Canada, between the seal hunt and the way you've treated the Indians and with all the abortions that have already been performed, has seen enuff death. It's time to get serious about banning abortion, once and for all. You will all feel so much better about yourselves once that noble goal has been achieved. I can virtually assure you of that. And Antonia will be able to finally focus on losing those 45 pounds she promised us she would lose back she restarted this blog.
I do believe she owes us, her loyal fans, an update on her progress.
Posted by: johnnykap | July 23, 2008 at 09:28 PM
"Thinking men will rally to a just cause such as this."
Don't bet on it, Big Dave .....
Posted by: The Stygian and his Shemitish Dogs | July 24, 2008 at 01:18 AM
Glad to have you back Antonia! Just thought you should know some idiot has been up to no good: when I clicked on the link to view these comments, I got an 'error' message from Microsoft. It said the page had been "aborted" then I got the 'cannot connect page'. I had to click on the back arrow to see the comments.
Posted by: jb | July 24, 2008 at 02:14 AM
I'm not upset. It's just par for the course and utterly predictable.
As for the rest of your reply: did you perhaps skip your meds today?
Posted by: Gigi | July 24, 2008 at 03:32 PM
Dear johnnykap, please deign to lecture us poor canucks about the deaths we wreak on civilization when your beloved Bush regime stops making more guns than you have people, and ceases its imperialist adventuring in the middle east and elsewhere, and decides whether or not it truly believes the mythology about spreading democracy enough to stop supporting dictators, and eliminates so many other contradictions, hypocrisies and out-and-out lies.
Posted by: mozo | July 24, 2008 at 04:17 PM
Johnny: Give up your Canadian passport yet? or are you holding on, just in case?
Posted by: Antonia | July 24, 2008 at 05:17 PM
Mozo, as a citizen of Canada and the US, I am in the unique position of being objective about the status of both countries. You are not. Therefore, I respectfully ask that you acknowledge my objectivity on all matters pertaining to both Canada and the US (the greatest country in the world, after all).
Why are so many of you Canadians hostile to the US? And don't blame it on Bush. Your collective distaste for the US predates his regime. Is it because a US team wins the Stanley Cup each year? Is that your collective motivation? Did the US start hating Canada when the Jays won 2 consecutive World Series? Of course not. We Americans are bigger than you. We congratulate you for your success, even though all the players were American.
Antonia, although I did answer your very query on Sooey's blog, I will take the time to answer it again here. I recently obtained my US passport and I have no desire to discard my Canadian passport. Why would I give up something that may have some future value to me for nothing in return? Who knows? I may end up retiring in Canada for the free health care. It is still free, isn't it? The thot of all of you paying taxes to support my future health care does please me greatly, I must admit. And given your collective Canadian compassion for others (well, as long as you aren't a baby seal or a baby baby), it should please all of you, as well.
I have also registered to vote and I am pleased to announce that my first vote as a US citizen will be against Barack Obama.
Posted by: johnnykap | July 24, 2008 at 05:45 PM
I just figured Johnnykap out! Everything he says is ironic. We're supposed to view him as the wrong-thinking American, and realize that the truth is diametrically opposed to everything he says! The scales have fallen from my eyes.
Now... back to more serious matters. What actions can we take to enable women across Canada to have access to safe abortions? They're not available in PEI. They are difficult to come by in rural areas.
What organization(s) can best benefit from our attention and funding to help change these problems?
Posted by: ...pat. | July 24, 2008 at 09:28 PM
Johnnykap:
The traditional antipathy and resentment of Canadians towards Americans dates back to at least the American Revolution. United Empire Loyalists, not wanting to break ties with Britain, left the Thirteen Colonies as refugees and were welcomed to the loyal colonies (ie: the ones that became Canada). This was a huge influx of immigration, and without it Canada as a country may not have come to be. So, you see, we were partly founded by people who were suspicious of the USA from the get-go. There's a rather nice statue dedicated to the UELs in Hamilton if you're interested.
As for your assertion that the woman was "in control" before the conception as well as after... wouldn't that be nice if it were true? But it isn't, and that's only one reason why legal and safe abortions are so important. Women's control gets compromised and taken away all the time in this world, which is why the desperate attempts to get it back that Antonia listed in her post are doubly worth remembering -- not just as ways that have been tried as abortion/contraception, but as the lengths women have gone to just to try to win back any amount of control over our bodies. If you can imagine being so desperate you'll pump cleanser into yourself, you might, just might, have some idea where women are coming from.
Posted by: Kat | July 24, 2008 at 09:55 PM
I see we're back to the REAL reason conservatives hate abortion -- they want to punish women for having sex. That's all it is. Otherwise, they might actually give a damn about the children in question AFTER they're born...which they don't, judging from their raging polemics against welfare recipients, single mothers, and public child care.
And I'm sure Johnny won't be able to unload his Canadian passport fast enough when we start taxing world income like the US, "the greatest country in the world, after all", does. He'd best enjoy his dual citizenship while he has it...
Posted by: Chris Moorehead | July 25, 2008 at 12:29 AM
Johnnykap: being a citizen of 2 countries does not make you objective. You make that painfully obvious with every pompous comment you write. You really need to get a new dictionary, or at least study one in the first place, because this is not the first word you have mangled the meaning of. As for the ability for others to be objective: extensive experience qualifies one to form educated opinions, citizen or not. I did say EXPERIENCE, which means simply living somewhere does not qualify. Unfortunately, too many citizens of too many countries just live drone lives, never paying any attention to what is really going on around them, never questioning, never seeking knowledge. But you do seem to be asking a question: Why do Canadians dislike Americans? The question you should be asking, however, is Why do people in every country in the world dislike Americans? This is not some flaw that you can write off as 'envy' on the part of Canadians. Nor are the people I live and work with in several different countries everyday all suffering from envy of the US. They, and I, all have plenty of first hand experience with American people, travelling extensively in the US, dealing with American tourists and expats in our respective countries, and the effects of US foreign policy around the world. Maybe if Americans stopped the navel gazing and stopped making pompous and incorrect assumptions about the rest of the world and our alleged jealousy, they would start to see the truth. (Your sweeping assumption that anyone who disagrees with you is only a resident or citizen of one country, with no experience with the US, is case in point.) The truth is out there for those with the brains and the stomach to face it.
Posted by: jb | July 25, 2008 at 03:27 AM
And for the last frikin' time: PRO CHOICE DOES NOT EQUAL PRO ABORTION. It just means that I have the right to make decisions that affect MY body, MY health, and MY life. Just as every pro-lifer has the choice to go jump off a bridge if they so choose...
Posted by: jb | July 25, 2008 at 03:31 AM
PRO CHOICE DOES NOT EQUAL PRO ABORTION.
I'm afraid it does now. Semantic change, you know. If you hadn't kept boring on about "choice" all these years, narrowing its meaning ....
"libel" and "vigilante" used to be good words.
Like "Republican" is a good word in the US and a bad one in Ireland.
"It just means that I have the right to make decisions that affect MY body, MY health, and MY life."
What about MY Healthcare, MY (childrens') education, MY selection of media?
No choice there.
Posted by: The Stygian and his Shemitish dogs | July 25, 2008 at 10:09 AM
Pat: you're getting what you want. Little fetuses are being expunged on a daily basis, probably at a higher rate than either baby seals or Indians are being killed off. PEI has about the same population as the city of Oshawa, so it would be like telling someone in Oshawa that they have to go Ajax for an abortion. No big deal. Just hop on the GO train.
Kat, I enjoyed your historical analysis of why most Canadians hate Americans, but does that really apply to the present day? I realize most of you don't think it has anything to do with the jealousy issue, but I believe that is the core of it.
jb,let's be honest. The US is the leader of the world militarily, financially, technologically and politically. Naturally, anyone would be envious of that level of success, the end result being resentment. Doesn't everyone outside of Toronto hate Toronto? Of course they do. But you did synthesize insulin and invent the Canadarm. The US would never have been able to invent a robotic arm or hire a country other than Canada to do it. Thus the whole space program would have had to have been shut down. And who among us doesn't have a Blackberry? So you've done three things.
Mr. Moorehead, I do applaud Canada for not having an estate tax like the US does (altho the tax is repealed completely for one year in 2010. Imagine how many people will be killing off their elderly relatives to saves taxes; you liberals can justify that by calling them extremely late-term abortions). Why would anyone, con or lib, want to punish someone for having sex, as you believe, Mr. Moorehead? Was it not Barack Obama who said that he didn't want one of his daughters to be "punished" by having a baby?
Posted by: johnnykap | July 25, 2008 at 05:43 PM
JKap
There is a world of difference between having the population of Oshawa and having the geographic placement of Oshawa. The problem faced by PEIers is that going off the island to have an abortion adds another level of complexity to trying to get the abortion financed through the health care plan (and, to be honest, I do not know if the PEI health plan reimburses for abortions).
Don't be so foolishly reductionist.
Posted by: ...pat. | July 25, 2008 at 09:44 PM
-What about MY Healthcare, MY (childrens') education, MY selection of media?-
What is the connection here with a woman's choice about pregnancy that will affect her for the rest of her life???
Your healthcare and education are run by the governments that are elected by the citizens. Last I checked, you are free to choose which party you vote for, or to get involved in politics if you like. You also have the choice to live a healthy lifestyle, and to be active in your children's education (taking them to the library, reading with them, controlling their tv and video game time, visiting cultural sites and events, helping with homework, and if you are lucky enough to afford it, private tutoring).
As for media selection, you vote with your dollars, as well as who you choose to lead the country. The problem is that apathetic couch potatoes rarely stand up and make themselves heard beyong their own living rooms.
However, if I am impregnated against my will, I cannot simply vote for a different political party, get involved in politics personally, buy a different newspaper, or write a letter to the editor in order to change my circumstances. My life would be changed forever, my health would be affected both physically and mentally, and all that because of one man who made a decision for me to either force sex on me, or lie about using a condom, or maybe contraception failed despite conscientious efforts on both sides. Either way, it's not comparable to general healthcare, education or media.
As for pro-choice meaning pro-abortion because words have changed meanings... what a load! Just because ignorant people who dislike people who don't think the same way as them misuse or misinterpret a word, the meaning still does not change. Liberal (one of the expamples given) is only a 'dirty word' to closed minded Americans who are unwilling to accept that everyone else in the world does not have their self-centred ideas. Their lack of understanding of language and word meaning does not change the word meaning. Contrary to popular belief among likeminded individuals, the misuse of words by a certain regular commenter to this blog, no matter how many times he mangles the language and misuses a word, still does not change anything. You will still not find the word "choice" in the dictionary defined as "support for abortion".
Posted by: jb | July 26, 2008 at 02:04 AM
One more word to johnnykap:
Are the FBI and Homeland Security aware of your amazing ability to mindread every citizen of the world? You are a one man weapon of mass destruction, dude! With you in their employ, they'd be able to stop every single attack or plot against the US before they even happen!
Once again, since you seem to keep missing the point, the problem with 'pro-lifers' and Americans in general, is their presumption that they are capable of knowing what everyone else is thinking, and even thinking FOR others and making their decisions for them. There is a word that describes that kind of behaviour: arrogance. When was the last time you heard someone say "Look at that jerk, he's so arrogant, I wish I could be just like him"?
Posted by: jb | July 26, 2008 at 02:14 AM
I would like to put this whole thing in perspective. In regards to the article, you basically claim that if we don't allow them to have abortions they will anyway and could die doing it so we should let them have the choice to have a proper one. To me, that is like saying, so you went and messed up your life by YOUR CHOICE (all rapists aside) so rather then live with the consequences of your actions lets help you out so you don't do more damage again, by YOUR CHOICE.
Pro choices also think they are helping people and you may help some, this is true. However let me tell you 3 quick personal stories. #1 my mom was going to "get rid" of me. I love my mom, I am so glad to have had the chance to live in spite of lifes hardships. #2 my friends mom did get an abortion, its a decision that haunts her all the time, she brings it up with me every once in a while as she can't bare the pain of her decision (she also doesn't know my situation). #3 I also know someone who got raped and pregnant....she decided to have the kid and give it up for adoption. She is happy that she made that choice and it was a hard one for her to make, especially as a teenager. THere are many people out there eagerly waiting to adopt babies that can't becasue there is such a long waiting list. Never mind the men, what about their choice. This CHOICE was half of a mans and half of him should be in it even though it is not his body, his life is in that body and I know of a guy who had to go through that and was devestated!
So while you might help a few women get rid of the CHOICE they made, you may also end up hurting some emotionally for life, discarding really good people that never had a chance to live and depriving others of babies that they wait their whole lives for.
Another thing to consider is what values does it teach when we say, oh its not human yet so its ok, you don't want to go through labour, have stretch marks the rest of your life, have people make fun of you, we understand, just kill it and it will be ok. I am seeing a new and scary trend of people setting out to genuinely help others and in so doing make things just as bad or worse...not just in abortion but EVERYWHERE! From bsl (breed specific legislation), to the foster care system (I know many foster kids and parents and even a worker and wow is that a messed up system, to the way people spoil their kids and dogs and think they are showing them "love" and then wonder why all they do is think about themselves, have panic attacks, huge emotional problems, etc
My last cry is to stop the arguing and the hate, it's pointless! Instead, put your heads together as a team and think of something logical that will actually benifit society as pure choice is not the answer.
Posted by: Agape | July 26, 2008 at 01:05 PM
Here we go again...every anti-choicer argument essentially boils down to a variant on "she had a choice before she had sex". This is the real problem they have with abortion...it lets the hussies off too easily! They need to be forced to bear and raise a child they may not be capable of having...to remind them to keep their legs closed!
And, Agape, if you think that women have abortions to keep from "hav[ing] stretch marks the rest of your life", then you have serious problems. In fact, you make Johnny sound quite reasonable by comparison. Virtually no woman makes the decision to terminate a pregnancy lightly, contrary to what the anti-choicers seem to think.
Johnny, I wasn't referring to death taxes. I was referring to US citizens being required to declare and pay tax on their world income, which makes "citizenships of convenience" a whole lot less convenient. As far as your comment on returning to Canada to use the health-care system when you're old and infirm, well...that would make you akin to the "welfare cheats" that those of your political persuasion are always blathering on about, wouldn't it?
FYI, I am married to a dual US/Canadian citizen who dutifully files two tax returns each year, and I lived in the US for three years as a permanent resident. I do not, however, believe in multiple citizenships, so I declined to obtain US citizenship though I was entitled to do so. Fear not, though -- my wife will be cancelling out your anti-Obama vote in November (despite being a Hillary supporter).
Posted by: Chris Moorehead | July 26, 2008 at 08:15 PM
johnnykap said: "...Imagine how many people will be killing off their elderly relatives to saves taxes; you liberals can justify that by calling them extremely late-term abortions ..."
In a nutshell, a classic obfuscative pronouncement typical of rightwing neo-cons everywhere. Never take responsibility for your actions, but be quick to throw the blame onto others.
Your choice to enjoy dual citizenship, as well as all the benefits and entitlements thereof are characteristic of your type: motivated by extreme GREED.
Posted by: deBeauxOs | July 28, 2008 at 04:46 PM
“What is the connection here with a woman's choice about pregnancy that will affect her for the rest of her life???”
And healthcare and education ‘choices’ don’t?????????????
“Your healthcare and education are run by the governments that are elected by the citizens.”
In the sort of a nonfree society as you seem to want, paradoxically, true.
“Last I checked, you are free to choose which party you vote for, or to get involved in politics if you like.”
For the moment.
“You also have the choice to live a healthy lifestyle (‘My life would be changed forever, my health would be affected both physically and mentally”
The esteemed and beautiful moderator of this blog would probably agree that living a healthy lifestyle ‘will affect your health, both physically and mentally’, either in a good or bad sense’, for all your life, probably be horrified at the way I have chosen to cite her.
“and to be active in your children's education (taking them to the library, reading with them, controlling their tv and video game time, visiting cultural sites and events, helping with homework”
That’s frippery. A lot of that they can do on their own if you set an example. Genuine choice in education would involve some degree of control over the curriculum, appointment (hiring and firing) of principals, vice-principals, teachers, etc.,
“and if you are lucky enough to afford it, private tutoring).”
If people had genuine choice in education they could choose to direct all their school taxes to private education
“As for media selection, you vote with your dollars, as well as who you choose to lead the country.”
If that is the case, then why can I not withdraw my shares in the CBC, and direct the money elsewhere? As long as buying a TV channel is not as easy as taking out a magazine subscription, then talking about choice here is pointless. And I see no productive role for the CRTC either.
“However, if I am impregnated against my will”,
ah. There we have it.
“I cannot simply vote for a different political party, get involved in politics personally, buy a different newspaper, or write a letter to the editor in order to change my circumstances. My life would be changed forever, my health would be affected both physically and mentally, and all that because of one man who made a decision for me to either force sex on me,”
in the narrow sense, that’s rape. That’s still a crime, although if trends documented in areas with large groups of followers of a certain cult continue (fortunately not to any great extent in Canada) to hold, it might cease to be one, or be accompanied by mitigating circumstances, etc. etc. But in any case, it’s your decision, too.
“or lie about using a condom”
and you never noticed at the time???????????????????????????????????????
“or maybe contraception failed despite conscientious efforts on both sides.”
Life involves a certain amount of risk. Sex which might involve pregnancy is a bit like solitary mountaineering, biking without a helmet, or driving when you think you’re OK, but maybe a cop might disagree about whether x beers impairs you ......
But one point, that is funny in a sort of grotesque way, is that you seem to think that you can get pregnant off a vibrator. There is a guy involved, who you must have SOME feelings for (or why would you go to bed with him?). Shouldn’t there be some way of holding him accountable? It's incredible that noone seems to have thought of this, in an era of punitive support payments, etc. Maybe at least make the guy liable for the cost of putting adoption through?
“Either way, it's not comparable to general healthcare, education or media.”
The level of argumentation certainly isn’t.
“As for pro-choice meaning pro-abortion because words have changed meanings... what a load!
Just because ignorant people who dislike people who don't think the same way as them”
Speak for yourself
“misuse or misinterpret a word, the meaning still does not change”
that’s actually an important driver for semantic change - and you guys have been misusing ‘choice’
“Liberal (one of the examples given) is only a 'dirty word' to closed minded Americans who are unwilling to accept that everyone else in the world does not have their self-centred ideas.”
Liberal is also a dirty word to most Albertans, as this “Green Shift” nonsense is reminding them. Most Canadians who don't fall for demagogy will clue in too, given time.
I didn’t cite that one, actually. Thanks for reminding me. In South Africa “liberal” used to have another meaning. Membership in the Communist Party was illegal, so actual Communists would often say “I’m a Liberal”. And ‘Liberal’ is still a good word in Australia.
“You will still not find the word "choice" in the dictionary defined as "support for abortion".”
Stay tuned - you will. These things take time.
Some more examples
‘Gay’ used to mean ‘happy, carefree’
‘Green’ used to denote a colour, now it denotes a sort of a replacement psychosis for Marxism
The esteemed and beautiful moderator will recall that Greek grammars published about a hundred years ago (and still quite serviceable) used “Lesbian” in the sense of “Ancient Greek dialects”.
And what’s the opposite of “diversity”? University.
Posted by: The Stygian and His Shemitish Dogs | July 28, 2008 at 09:35 PM
Antonia, I didn't realize that this goes onto two pages. You're extremely popular.
jb, you claim I know what everyone else is thinking (I can't begin to imagine how a liberal's thinking processes work) which is akin to accusing me of stereotyping. And then in the next paragraph you lump all Americans together to fit your own stereotype. I do believe an apology is warranted in this case, jb.
Agape, you have done a wonderful job of summarizing the pro-life side and you have now exposed yourself to vitriol that will be beyond your wildest dreams.
Mr. Moorehead, why shouldn't I take advantage of something that may put me in a more favorable position? And I certainly have paid my fair share of Canadian taxes over the years, and received minimal medical treatment, so I'd only be "evening out" the situation. I have put myself in a position in life where I have options that others do not have. Do not hate me for that, Mr. Moorehead. I do question your "belief" about dual citizenship, however. I can understand your having beliefs about god or something, but dual citizenship?
Hello, deBeauxOs. That's a very challenging name to type. I do love how everyone who isn't a die hard libtard automatically defaults to "neo-con". We're all motivated by greed, debbie. The difference is, I admit it. You go around pretending to be some paragon of decency and fairness. How can you reconcile your decency with the fact that you advocate the killing of the innocent unborn? Isn't that the ultimate in greed and convenience? You have created the disposable society.
Posted by: johnnykap | July 28, 2008 at 10:03 PM
--in the narrow sense, that’s rape. That’s still a crime, although if trends documented in areas with large groups of followers of a certain cult continue (fortunately not to any great extent in Canada) to hold, it might cease to be one, or be accompanied by mitigating circumstances, etc. etc. But in any case, it’s your decision, too.--
Maybe you'd like to clarify that; could be a problem with grammar, and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt despite your obviously good writing skills- because it looks like you wrote that it is a woman's decision to be raped.
Posted by: jb | July 29, 2008 at 08:05 PM
Johnnykap: you want to know why Americans are hated? Check out this video for a great answer. I'll even give you the Cole's notes version:
"What would we say if China was doing that here or in the Gulf of Mexico?" Ron Paul re US military presence in foreign countries.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROtjFmSgzAA&feature=related
As for an apology, I do offer my heartfelt apologies to all Americans who do not support the Bush administration, all Iraq War deserters, and all Americans who are ashamed of what their country does to others. To fundamentalists who believe/preach/do the opposite of what Jesus actually taught, no apologies.
Posted by: jb | July 29, 2008 at 08:16 PM
"Maybe you'd like to clarify that; could be a problem with grammar, and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt despite your obviously good writing skills (thanks! S&hSD) - because it looks like you wrote that it is a woman's decision to be raped."
I'm sorry if I didn't make myself clear. There are a lot of ways women can fight serious rape in the narrow sense, and more power to them. It's just I got the impression from your post that you seem to think that women are powerless in this area. But a second's thought shows that clearly you can't really think that.
Posted by: The Stygian and his Shemitish Dogs | August 01, 2008 at 12:18 AM