Talking a woman out of an abortion: mortal sin.It looks like some lefties consider their civic duty to talk women out of motherhood. So when a woman doesn't listen - they blast her with cynical remarks and graphic language; one that would earn them a "human rights" complaint and a hefty fine at the very least, if they dared to say the same about homosexuals or visible minorities.
Talking a woman out of having 17 kids: A-OK
If Mark Morford is hysterical about Duggar kids because their parents are raising them Christian, one "unrepentant old hippie" (aka JJ) simply believes that having that many kids is "just not cool".
JJ claims there's "there's nothing natural about having 17 kids". Hmm... I wonder how many children would she consider "natural"? 1.48 kids per woman which is the average for Canada? Or maybe she believes, just like John Guillebaud, the head of so called "optimum population trust", that "children are bad for the planet" and that only those in the developing world should be allowed to have children because they consume less? Thanks God we have the Duggar family, the Littleton family and many other families that don't believe in this suicidal ideology.
As for the lefties that hate Christian families with lots of kids, I wonder if they consider it fair that once those kids enter the workforce they'll have to contribute quite considerable part of their wages to pension fund, from which the lefties will receive their pensions and to taxes which will be used among other things to provide JJ and Mark Morford with their homecare, let alone healthcare.Related article: Leftard Freaks Out Over Kids
8 comments:
"Hmm... I wonder how many children would she consider "natural"? 1.48 kids per woman which is the average for Canada? Or maybe she believes, just like John Guillebaud, the head of so called "optimum population trust..."
Why don't you ask her, instead of dishonestly trying to imply what you think she believes, in order to set up a straw man argument.
I appreciate that you don't get it, so here it is:
Just because some one disagrees with a particular choice, does not mean that they disagree with having the ability to make that particular choice. I may not agree with the Duggars having 17 kids either, but I certainly agree that is their choice. I think its a bad choice and I would not make it, but hey, free country and so long as it does not break my legs nor pick my pocket, go for it, its their choice and they are free to make it and live with it.
But to say this disagreement with the Duggar's choice is morally equivalent to the abortion debate is absurd. No one on the left, as you put it, is demanding that the Duggar's choice to have 17, 30 or 100 children (or none), or the choice of any family, be taken away from them, even if we think their choice is wrong or bad. SoCons, on the other hand, are quite happy to take away the choice of women to make a decision they do not agree with and think is wrong.
So, tell me, which side is being consistent with their principles here?
<<So, tell me, which side is being consistent with their principles here?>>
We don't call ourselves "pro-choice", do we? Our views are quite consistent: once the life begins, it's nobody's "choice" to terminate it. You are the ones that use the "my body - my choice" slogan. So, even though this slogan has its flaws (as it doesn't consider the baby's body), it would be quite reasonable to expect that at the very least you don't bad mouth someone who chooses motherhood rather than abortion. Otherwise, just as Suzanne said, you guys are simply pro-abortion, not pro-choice.
"it would be quite reasonable to expect that at the very least you don't bad mouth someone who chooses motherhood rather than abortion. Otherwise, just as Suzanne said, you guys are simply pro-abortion, not pro-choice."
How so? We are not demanding their choice be taken away. My wife and I would not choose an abortion, ever, for our personal reasons. But we would not dare tell another person what they could do with their body. We would not dare tell some one they cannot make a choice - even a bad choice, in our eyes - because we do not agree with it.
As I stated over at JJ's (if you have actually ever read her blog) rather than trying to force your particular religious views on everyone (views not shared even by most Christians, BTW), why don't you work hard to make abortion the choice NOT chosen. Some groups are trying this. Wouldn't your money and time be better spent trying to set up homes, work for adoptions and ensure that all the other options besides abortion are easy to take advantage of. Much better then lining the pockets of lobbyists and marching in parades and harassing people who make a decision you do not agree with.
And no one is "badmouthing" someone who chooses motherhood instead of abortion - that is a false dichotomy. People are making fun of someone having 17 kids(a pretty extreme case of choosing motherhood), instead of say 3 or 4 or some other number that is closer to norm for the last 150 years. And when the Duggar's decide to make their life public, they should expect to made fun of, or find out that people don't think what they do is a good idea. Abortion never entered the equation until Suzanne and you brought it up.
The Duggars are free to make the choice to have 17 kids. I would defend that right anytime. And those of us who think that that is a silly idea are free to make fun of that choice.
If you want to "badmouth" someone who chooses to have an abortion, knock yourself out. So long as you don't try to take away that choice or physically intimidate or use force to prevent someone from making that choice, I will defend your right to do that as well.
<<And no one is "badmouthing" someone who chooses motherhood instead of abortion - that is a false dichotomy. People are making fun of someone having 17 kids(a pretty extreme case of choosing motherhood), instead of say 3 or 4 or some other number that is closer to norm for the last 150 years.>>
Then we have different understanding of what making fun is. For me, remarks like "her insides must be like overboiled macaroni" or "vagina - still not a clown car" or "I wonder what's on their bedside table, astroglide or Polyfilla™?" sound more like badmouthing. If such language was used on any protected group (aboriginals, visible minorities, homosexuals etc) it would become a matter of a human rights complaint and no arguments about free speech, let alone having a sense of humor would help. (Don't believe me - ask Bill Whatcott, he's learned that the hard way.) So it does somewhat anger me that what couldn't be said about a member of a protected group, could easily be told about an ordinary family who's done nothing wrong except for having more kids than some consider usual.
As for the "norm for the last 150 years" - as as far as I heard, even 50 years ago, families with more than 10 children were quite common in some areas of the country (like rural Quebec). So I bet if we look further back, to the mid-19 century, when birth control was unheard of and not every child lived to be a teenager, we'll find out that the norm was much more than 3-4 children.
And another thing: <<why don't you work hard to make abortion the choice NOT chosen. Some groups are trying this.>>
Believe it or not - that's what our primary goal is. But those who call abortion a "choice" don't like it when someone else refers to abortion as bad choice.
"If such language was used on any protected group (aboriginals, visible minorities, homosexuals etc) it would become a matter of a human rights complaint and no arguments about free speech, let alone having a sense of humor would help. (Don't believe me - ask Bill Whatcott, he's learned that the hard way.)"
Well, no it wouldn't, but that is neither here nor there. You are over blowing it. And, I might add, that both JJ and I, while we both think Whatcott is a slack-jawed idiot and absolutely dead wrong in all his opinions, defended his right, and FD's right, to free speech at her blog. In fact, we welcome guys like Whatcott spouting his nonsense, because to most sensible Canadians, it shows just how ludicrous his ideas really are. And we are free to counter them.
So yet again your anger and frothing are misplaced. You are titling at straw men and caricatures of "the left" and positions which many of us do not hold. And you still seem to conflate the ability to make a choice, with a particular choice made.
"Believe it or not - that's what our primary goal is. But those who call abortion a "choice" don't like it when someone else refers to abortion as bad choice."
Well, I for one do not believe it. It has been pretty clear for years that rather than trying to convince women that there are alternatives to abortion, or actually providing those alternatives, the majority of your movement has been fighting to outlaw and criminalize abortion - to take away the right to choose, rather than provide alternative to the choice you do not like.
The recent games on Facebook with the Great Canadian Wish List was an example - your wish was to outlaw abortion and take away a woman's right to control her own body. The wish was not "To see less women choose abortion" or "To see more easy alternatives to abortion".
And some of your movement - so called "Right to Life" - have taken to murdering doctors, bombing clinics and killing police officers. They aren't doing that in order provide better alternative choices to abortion.
Randall Terry and his brown shirts aren't standing outside abortion clinics screaming, harassing and calling women about to make one of the hardest decision of their lives "murderers" in order to advertise their latest adoption and mother care program. If they are, they really need a better PR firm.
No Leonard, you are being dishonest when you say your primary goal is to present alternative to abortion. You goal is to outlaw it and to imprison women seek them and doctors who perform them. For how long? 10 years? Life?
Meanwhile, with no other alternatives to abortion exist, because you guys spend your money defending killers in court and paying lobbyists. Your actions speak louder than words.
Looks like you've never heard about organizations such as Show The Truth, Canadian Centre For Bio-Ethical Reform or Silent No More which try first and foremost educate people that the unborn is a person; that it has his heart beating, that it has his personality developing, that it can feel pain just like any of us, so taking away his life for sake of what you believe is "woman's right to control her body" is at the very least - cruel.
I gave you an example when Silent No More was making a presentation at McMaster university and what was the union's reaction. There are plenty of other similar examples when pro-life groups were banned from university campuses (Carleton U, Ottawa ON; Mount Allison U, Sackville NB). Banned for what? Collecting signatures to have abortion outlawed? No, simply for trying to persuade their co-eds that life begins at conception and that considering a baby that has just weeks (days, hours, minutes) to his first breath "unperson" is discriminatory.
Now you accuse us of wanting to jail women who had abortions. Could you name a pro-life organization that came up with the idea? Could you name an MP that introduced private member bill proposing jail time for those women? Here's a rebuttal to those accusations, posted on Suzanne's blog. Hope it closes the door on the subject.
Ditto about those who shoot abortion providers. Not a single pro-life organization in Canada supports those actions, let alone paying for their legal defense. Those are marginals and judging a pro-life movement by their actions is same like judging NDP by the actions of some radical antiglobalist who voted for them in the last election. Especially if those actions are widely condemned by the movement itself. Unfortunately there are extremists on both sides but that doesn't mean everyone is like that.
As for "no alternative to abortion" - what about adoption? In New Brunswick, at least 600 abortions out of 1000 are purely abortions on demand. At the same time hundreds of NB families have to adopt overseas, spending thousands of dollars which they could use to feed and clothe the baby. It would be great if the province does something to get the women who want to abort and the families willing to adopt together. Up until then - there's not much we can do but standing by the abortion clinic with prayers and leaflets.
The idea for the original blogpost that I wrote on the subject was inspired by the treatment of Elizabeth May's comments on "frivolous abortions" and that "no one in their right mind" favours abortion.
Now some left-wingers defended Emay, and some condemned her.
They seemed to be condemning on the principle that being pro-choice means supporting EVERY abortion of woman decides to undergo, even if one disagrees with it morally.
I have even see sex-selection abortions defended by pro-choice ideologues-- even if the notion is completely offensive, their abortions must be supported and not criticized, because the women in those situations know best. Those who oppose a woman's abortion are not pro-choice.
So the question becomes: does that standard apply to women who have 17 children? Does pro-choice mean that her decision must be supported as well, because she knows what's best for her circumstance?
Is is a case of there being a double standard between abortion and childrearing-- all abortions must be supported, all pregnancies may not be?
That is the question I am raising.
I understand the idea that people agree that there are things they consider immoral that should be legal. I think condom usage is immoral, I don't think they should be illegal.
But if you're going to say that you're the "pro-choice" movement, and no reproductive choice may be criticized, then you should be consistent about it.
That's all I'm saying.
Post a Comment