Seems convenient doesn't it? Mother with child just as the media is there and she's willing to talk about it? What was her name Charles? This would be pretty simple to figure out.
The difference is one is a staged demonstration. The situation Charles is alluding to is a "plant" if you will purporting to be just an average concerned citizen walking the street and stumbles across this. It creates for the public a picture which may not be true. This is a serious problem particularly in newspaper opinion sections. So called average people write in with a view but never identify themselves and that goes for both sides of an issue. Look at the letters section on the abortion issue. I can find lots of letters from people from NB Right to Life who never identify themselves and even more from those associated with Morgentaler adn Planned Parenthood. Either can write letters but they should identify themselves because the reader is then given a truer picture. Kudos to Charles for identifying this situation. It's frankly an appalling and dishonest practice. Anyone can go to any media event or write a letter but for the sake of honesty, if you have a vested interest in one side or the other, come clean.
Anti-abortionists do what ever they can to try and discredit pro-choice activists. I know for a fact that the clinic did not stage it; they didn't even know Show the Truth was going to do a demonstration there! They also told us all at the pro-choice`anti-choice counter rally that they knew we pro-choice demonstrators were all getting paid to be there! I was one of the organizers for that. I can assure you that I didn't give anyone any money -- I have none! Everyone who was there knew eachother and we all went because we WANTED to. The only people who use dirty tactics are the right-wing extremists who chase after Morgentaler patients screaming "Don't Kill That Baby! Mommy Don't Kill Me" and other insane ramblings. If people want to hold up signs that say Abortion is wrong, fine go ahead. If something unrelated to your group happens and it discredits your organization, don't make excuses and conspiracy theories a part of the rumour mill. Save it for the bible study group.
Thats just silly. So a woman is there with a child, so what? A woman with a child is not allowed to participate in a demonstration? It's not their fault if people are idiots, there isn't even a story with this to even know what it is. If anything, the last thing you'd want at an abortion demonstration is a baby. To call it a plant is just dumb, its a demonstration, you think the media just happened to be walking by?
What difference does it make if you identify yourself as part of an organization? Of course people don't say the organization, because if a letter is printed that has an organizations name on it, people will assume its the organizations opinion, which isn't the case. That's pretty straightforward.
Because it's dishonest 2:35. It usually is the organization's point of view but they want it to come off as an average citizen which usually it is not. I'm not singling one particular group out. Political parties have pulled this type of stuff for years and now activist groups are joining the fray. It's about time we started calling people on it. Maybe that's where bloggers can play an important role.
It's interesting what 1:05 wrote. He/she may be right that people do this stuff although I've never seen it while driving down Brunswick Street on a Tuesday morning or seen it on television from there either. The letters to the editor on this issue have been telling though about the tactics. Those on the pro-abortion side such as 1:05 have almost exclusively used name-calling and other such tactics to discredit anybody who protests abortion. Those against abortion have cried out against the practice but haven't called people names or put labels on them or call them "dumb" or "right wing extremists". It seems pretty low if one has to resort to name calling but that's my opinion from what I've read on this issue.
YEs, but if you only read right wing rags then obviously you are hardly going to come to an objective opinion.
If I am a member of the Boy Scouts of Canada and I write a letter to the editor about any issue, even one that may be of interest to the Boys Scouts of Canada, I'm obviously not going to sign my letter "Boy Scouts of Canada". Because it is MY view, not the view of the entire organization. They have spokespeople for that, and all press is screened by the board to make sure it represents the groups views.
That doesn't mean I'm not entitled to my opinion, but it means I'm not going to speak for an organization. That's fairly obvious and not real difficult to grasp. It would be terribly dishonest if I were to sign the organization to my views claiming that I'm speaking for everybody when I"m not.
As for the name calling, anybody that thinks 'right wing extremist' is an insult hasn't been to many rallies. The anti abortion side frequently screams "murderers" and "killers" and on and on. 'Right wing extremist' is positively benign, and in fact a compliment to a good many people.
Write what you want but if you're a board member of the Boy Scouts and it's an issue affecting the Boy Scouts, you should say by the way, I'm a member of the Boy Scouts. This covert stuff being done these days is getting WAY out of hand but you've given me a great idea for a blog in the future.
Haven't heard those comments you're talking about on Brunswick Street so I can't say. Seems like a pretty peaceful group at least in Fredericton. The U.S. might be different. Still, the letters to the editor have been downright hateful coming from the pro-abortionists. Most of the pro-life letters have been respectful. Obviously both sides are entrenched and there's little give. After all if one reads only right-wing (are there any in Atlantic Canada?) or left-wing rags (better known as most of mainstream media) one would hardly come to an objective opinion.
I really have to laugh at the utter stupidity and conjecture that people are claiming is at the root of these two opposing sides.
the real issue is that of protecting human life from being extinguished from existence. It is not about far left wing or, far ritht wing or even middle of the road views. It is about the Sanctity of Human from the Moment of conception to Natural Death. I believe that Abortion on demand is promoting Sexual Promiscuity, or you can be sexually eresponsible and if you get pregnant just have an abortion. Well sorry that is a Human life you are destroying and that my friends is called murder plain and simple.
Mr. B.A.: It's clear to the vast majority of thinking people that abortion is neither plain, simple, not murder. Insisting that it is makes people wonder how you could possibly have a degree in liberal arts, which degree us supposed to enable and encourage critical thinking. And reasonable spelling, but that's another story.
Spinks: I'm no zealot, and certainly not "pro-abortion", but I'm definitely anti-bullying. And I have twice just happened by the Morgantaler clinic on "abortion days", and the tactics of the Right to Life members have been shameful, genuinely mean-spirited and abusive.
Which reminds me: Peter Ryan, the spokesperson of N.B. Right to Life, keeps insisting that his organization has nothing to do with those protesters. They don't represent his group, they just happen to me members. I'm wondering what you think of this tactic.
I heard Ryan say his group invited them in so obviosuly they agree with the tactics. I've already written here many times I don't agree with the tactics by this group only because it exposes children to it. Adults should see this however to make an informed choice. I'm just not sure how the message gets out in a way that doesn't affect children. I'm with Michael on one thing though, killing another person is murder and that is pretty plain and simple.
No name calling? The protesters outside the Morgentaler clinic have on numerous occassions called VOLUNTEER clinic escorts "little lesbians" and "she-devils". You know, BESIDES the "murderers" and "baby-killers." I know all of this because I AM one of those volunteers. That's right, I volunteer to escort and protect young girls on their way to a doctor! You'd never see this on the way to a hospital! Protestors see the girls and charge after them screaming about babies and we have to block the protesters and yell loud enough to drown out the crazy. These people ARE right wing extremists. Or crazy, which I don't think are too far from eachother.
Spinks: Of course killing another person is murder, and that is plain and simple. (Well, usually: if I kill someone who's about to kill me, ie in self-defence, that's not murder. It's also not murder if I'm driving, following all the rules of the road, and a pedestrian pops out in front of my car and I run him over and kill him. It also was ot murder if I was sent to war during WWII and killed some Nazis in battle. See? Nothing is ever really "plain and simple": taking the life of another person is absolutely not always murder, AND not always wrong.)
But i digress. Those of us who are pro-choice are not convinced that a fetus is a person. If I was convinced, I would be in favour of criminalizing abortion. But, no matter how many times someone says "a fetus is a person", no matter how loudly they say it, and no matter how colourful or how large the placards they hold then they demonstrate, it isn't objectively true just because someone feels it in his heart to be true. A fetus is a person at the moment of conception? I know there is a small but determined minority out there who believes beyond a doubt that this is true, but I think most people think it's is not "plain and simple". We doubt that a day-old fetus is a person. When does a fetus become a person? On birth, for sure. Before that? I don't know -- because it's not "plain and simple".
Well put 10:53 and I DO understand where you're coming from. If you actually thought the baby inside the womb was a baby instead of an extension of a woman and still thought it was okay to kill it, well let's face it, I think we can agree that anyone who thought that is a monster.
However, most of those (or at least I hope so) who agree with abortion don't view the child as a baby. The baby is viewed as a mere extension of the woman and she can decide like a pair of tonsils whether it should be removed. Thus those who support abortion can look at it as morally indifferent. I understand that way of thinking. I don't agree but I understand.
But take a look at it from the other side, the folks who do view the baby as a human being with organs, unique fingerprints, seperate brainwave patterns, etc. It's pretty easy to see why they're so upset. They disagree with babies being killed and not speaking out or not doing anything would be to condone it. Neither side is going to likely change it's mind. I'm not going to convince you that it's a baby anymore than you're going to convince me it's a blob of unfeeling tissue. However, it's still good to have this discussion and I welcome a civil one. Calling people crazy though is not the way to do it. They're not crazy at all. It's simply a point of view which differs.
There are no 'separate brainwaves' at conception, not even close. This is how the argument gets bogged down because people will argue ideologies and not facts. Likewise, anybody that thinks the mainstream media is 'left wing' hasn't looked lately at who owns them or their content. If you think the Globe and Mail or Irving are 'left wing', go have a talk with a union rep sometime and find out how hard it is to get any coverage.
Irvings have been studied in many papers to see just how biased they are. Bell Canada and Global tout the corporate line all the way to the bank, they aren't stupid.
You'll notice how little coverage pro abortion demonstrations get in the paper, compared to the anti abortion.
And we can just look at the comments from the above person who was there to validate just how wrong a person who only reads the right wing papers can get. Even if the person is lying, it still points out the fact that people don't know what actually went on, they only know the media spin. I can second that point about 'lesbians' and 'she devils' and there are far far worse.
And we've seen how the 'anti abortion' people are 'misguided ' in representing graphic pictures of an abortion because kids might see it, but pro abortionists are being 'extreme' for something as benign as putting red paint on their legs. That's bias as well, and pretty blatant.
As for arguing that people have to list all the organizations they belong to when writing a letter to the editor, that's just silly. You only get a very limited number of words, are people supposed to list "PTA, Chamber of Commerce, Canadian Soccer Association, United Church..." and on and on before getting to their point? That's absurd.
What's very obvious is the REAL criticism, which is that some people like to dismiss criticism outright by claiming "yes, but they're a member of .." In other words, rather than dealing with the specific arguments presented, they want to make it about broader issues, or ones that have nothing to do with the arguments presented.
Babies aren't aborted on the day of conecption at the Moregntaler Clinic though, are they? Brainwaves CAN be detected at 43 days. Babies are aborted much later than that.
I think Spinks' notion that letter writers and demonstrators are somehow obliged to disclose their various affiliations completely impractical to the point of silliness, and I think you make that point.
Still, I know what he's getting at. Attentive newspaper readers wonder, when they see a string on letter critical of Bernard Lord, whether it might be a campaign organized by the Liberal party, or a Liberal candidate, or, for that matter, some guy who developed a hatred for li'l Bernie back in grade four. Not sure everyone does that.
I know I have read letters that pretend to be "the voice of the people", and thought, when I recognized the name, "hey, that guy's biased!". And wondered if other readers get that.
In the end, though, I think it's much ado about nothing. The vast majority of people know a kook when they see one, and when people go overboard with drama or trickiness, most people sense it and just discredit their views.
The whole idea that maybe some protests are staged and others not is a bit passe, anyway. There's no such thing as a spontaneous demonstration anymore. Whether the issue is abortion, immigration policy, Atlantica or hospital bed closures, and whether the protesters are "left" or "right", protests are organized in advance, bullhorns rented, placards professionally produced, and even buses rented.
Tim Smith and Charles LeBlanc may have undertaken the only spontaneous protests this city (Fredericton) has seen in years. And those were one-man shows.
Nobody is pro-abortion. There are pro-choice and anti-choice, that's it. I personally don't approve of abortion but I approve of letting women have a choice.
It's a shame that medical science can't come up with fetus transplants to replace abortions. All of the radical anti-choice activists could have the unwanted fetuses transplanted into their bodies. Everybody would be happy then.
If an abortion was surgically done exactly the same as a caesarean section, is it still technically an abortion? It's an easy way around the whole debate. Have a caesarean section at 1 month and if the "baby" lives, then it lives, but if it doesn't, it doesn't. Problem solved.
Only certain areas of the world are overpopulated.
I'm all for voluntary sterilization but it's not a politically correct mission for any of the global aid agencies to advertise. I would donate money towards having women in countries that are so poor they can't feed/clothe/house themselves (let alone ten children), get a tubal ligation, but I'm not supportive of efforts to encourage these women to keep having children by the dozen with no means of supporting them.
Every place has 'voluntary' sterilization. The world can easily be said to be overpopulated, current rates of growth aren't sustainable, and Canadians, who have a miniscule population, use up more resources per capita than the entire continent of Africa. That is very much overpopulation. Many places such as India and Africa have the largest populations, but have very miniscule energy, food, and water requirements. Canadians, again with a tiny population have succeeded in wiping out most of the resources in a mere three hundred years, most of it in thirty.
North America is the most overpopulated place on the planet, they use fully 40% of the worlds resources for essentially two countries. Per capita Canadians are even worse than americans.
But we can notice that most people's addresses to the use of resources is to make 'other people' change their behaviour, not themselves.
Hey Anonymous, It is one thing to be able to think critically, and it is another thing to live in an anything goes society where no one is accountable for their actions. Abortion is Wholesale Murder and Fredericton's own Nazi concentratin or, death camp if you as I like to call it is just that you go in and they will kill the human life inside of you for a Good heafty price. Well I don't think that the tax dollars of the voting residents of this Province should pay for that kind of thing. if these individuals wish not to be responsible in their conduct then they should at least be decent enough to either have give birth and put the child up for adoption if they do not wish to raise the child themselves or keep their legs closed until they are more properly able to care for the life they have helped to create.
24 comments:
Seems convenient doesn't it? Mother with child just as the media is there and she's willing to talk about it? What was her name Charles? This would be pretty simple to figure out.
So what if it was? The anti-choice gang protests are regularly scheduled and staged.
The difference is one is a staged demonstration. The situation Charles is alluding to is a "plant" if you will purporting to be just an average concerned citizen walking the street and stumbles across this. It creates for the public a picture which may not be true. This is a serious problem particularly in newspaper opinion sections. So called average people write in with a view but never identify themselves and that goes for both sides of an issue. Look at the letters section on the abortion issue. I can find lots of letters from people from NB Right to Life who never identify themselves and even more from those associated with Morgentaler adn Planned Parenthood. Either can write letters but they should identify themselves because the reader is then given a truer picture. Kudos to Charles for identifying this situation. It's frankly an appalling and dishonest practice. Anyone can go to any media event or write a letter but for the sake of honesty, if you have a vested interest in one side or the other, come clean.
Anti-abortionists do what ever they can to try and discredit pro-choice activists. I know for a fact that the clinic did not stage it; they didn't even know Show the Truth was going to do a demonstration there! They also told us all at the pro-choice`anti-choice counter rally that they knew we pro-choice demonstrators were all getting paid to be there! I was one of the organizers for that. I can assure you that I didn't give anyone any money -- I have none! Everyone who was there knew eachother and we all went because we WANTED to. The only people who use dirty tactics are the right-wing extremists who chase after Morgentaler patients screaming "Don't Kill That Baby! Mommy Don't Kill Me" and other insane ramblings. If people want to hold up signs that say Abortion is wrong, fine go ahead. If something unrelated to your group happens and it discredits your organization, don't make excuses and conspiracy theories a part of the rumour mill. Save it for the bible study group.
Thats just silly. So a woman is there with a child, so what? A woman with a child is not allowed to participate in a demonstration? It's not their fault if people are idiots, there isn't even a story with this to even know what it is. If anything, the last thing you'd want at an abortion demonstration is a baby. To call it a plant is just dumb, its a demonstration, you think the media just happened to be walking by?
What difference does it make if you identify yourself as part of an organization? Of course people don't say the organization, because if a letter is printed that has an organizations name on it, people will assume its the organizations opinion, which isn't the case. That's pretty straightforward.
Because it's dishonest 2:35. It usually is the organization's point of view but they want it to come off as an average citizen which usually it is not. I'm not singling one particular group out. Political parties have pulled this type of stuff for years and now activist groups are joining the fray. It's about time we started calling people on it. Maybe that's where bloggers can play an important role.
It's interesting what 1:05 wrote. He/she may be right that people do this stuff although I've never seen it while driving down Brunswick Street on a Tuesday morning or seen it on television from there either. The letters to the editor on this issue have been telling though about the tactics. Those on the pro-abortion side such as 1:05 have almost exclusively used name-calling and other such tactics to discredit anybody who protests abortion. Those against abortion have cried out against the practice but haven't called people names or put labels on them or call them "dumb" or "right wing extremists". It seems pretty low if one has to resort to name calling but that's my opinion from what I've read on this issue.
YEs, but if you only read right wing rags then obviously you are hardly going to come to an objective opinion.
If I am a member of the Boy Scouts of Canada and I write a letter to the editor about any issue, even one that may be of interest to the Boys Scouts of Canada, I'm obviously not going to sign my letter "Boy Scouts of Canada". Because it is MY view, not the view of the entire organization. They have spokespeople for that, and all press is screened by the board to make sure it represents the groups views.
That doesn't mean I'm not entitled to my opinion, but it means I'm not going to speak for an organization. That's fairly obvious and not real difficult to grasp. It would be terribly dishonest if I were to sign the organization to my views claiming that I'm speaking for everybody when I"m not.
As for the name calling, anybody that thinks 'right wing extremist' is an insult hasn't been to many rallies. The anti abortion side frequently screams "murderers" and "killers" and on and on. 'Right wing extremist' is positively benign, and in fact a compliment to a good many people.
Write what you want but if you're a board member of the Boy Scouts and it's an issue affecting the Boy Scouts, you should say by the way, I'm a member of the Boy Scouts. This covert stuff being done these days is getting WAY out of hand but you've given me a great idea for a blog in the future.
Haven't heard those comments you're talking about on Brunswick Street so I can't say. Seems like a pretty peaceful group at least in Fredericton. The U.S. might be different. Still, the letters to the editor have been downright hateful coming from the pro-abortionists. Most of the pro-life letters have been respectful. Obviously both sides are entrenched and there's little give. After all if one reads only right-wing (are there any in Atlantic Canada?) or left-wing rags (better known as most of mainstream media) one would hardly come to an objective opinion.
I really have to laugh at the utter stupidity and conjecture that people are claiming is at the root of these two opposing sides.
the real issue is that of protecting human life from being extinguished from existence. It is not about far left wing or, far ritht wing or even middle of the road views. It is about the Sanctity of Human from the Moment of conception to Natural Death. I believe that Abortion on demand is promoting Sexual Promiscuity, or you can be sexually eresponsible and if you get pregnant just have an abortion. Well sorry that is a Human life you are destroying and that my friends is called murder plain and simple.
Mr. B.A.: It's clear to the vast majority of thinking people that abortion is neither plain, simple, not murder. Insisting that it is makes people wonder how you could possibly have a degree in liberal arts, which degree us supposed to enable and encourage critical thinking. And reasonable spelling, but that's another story.
Spinks: I'm no zealot, and certainly not "pro-abortion", but I'm definitely anti-bullying. And I have twice just happened by the Morgantaler clinic on "abortion days", and the tactics of the Right to Life members have been shameful, genuinely mean-spirited and abusive.
Which reminds me: Peter Ryan, the spokesperson of N.B. Right to Life, keeps insisting that his organization has nothing to do with those protesters. They don't represent his group, they just happen to me members. I'm wondering what you think of this tactic.
I heard Ryan say his group invited them in so obviosuly they agree with the tactics. I've already written here many times I don't agree with the tactics by this group only because it exposes children to it. Adults should see this however to make an informed choice. I'm just not sure how the message gets out in a way that doesn't affect children. I'm with Michael on one thing though, killing another person is murder and that is pretty plain and simple.
No name calling? The protesters outside the Morgentaler clinic have on numerous occassions called VOLUNTEER clinic escorts "little lesbians" and "she-devils". You know, BESIDES the "murderers" and "baby-killers." I know all of this because I AM one of those volunteers. That's right, I volunteer to escort and protect young girls on their way to a doctor! You'd never see this on the way to a hospital! Protestors see the girls and charge after them screaming about babies and we have to block the protesters and yell loud enough to drown out the crazy. These people ARE right wing extremists. Or crazy, which I don't think are too far from eachother.
12:25 am here again.
Spinks: Of course killing another person is murder, and that is plain and simple. (Well, usually: if I kill someone who's about to kill me, ie in self-defence, that's not murder. It's also not murder if I'm driving, following all the rules of the road, and a pedestrian pops out in front of my car and I run him over and kill him. It also was ot murder if I was sent to war during WWII and killed some Nazis in battle. See? Nothing is ever really "plain and simple": taking the life of another person is absolutely not always murder, AND not always wrong.)
But i digress. Those of us who are pro-choice are not convinced that a fetus is a person. If I was convinced, I would be in favour of criminalizing abortion. But, no matter how many times someone says "a fetus is a person", no matter how loudly they say it, and no matter how colourful or how large the placards they hold then they demonstrate, it isn't objectively true just because someone feels it in his heart to be true. A fetus is a person at the moment of conception? I know there is a small but determined minority out there who believes beyond a doubt that this is true, but I think most people think it's is not "plain and simple". We doubt that a day-old fetus is a person. When does a fetus become a person? On birth, for sure. Before that? I don't know -- because it's not "plain and simple".
Well put 10:53 and I DO understand where you're coming from. If you actually thought the baby inside the womb was a baby instead of an extension of a woman and still thought it was okay to kill it, well let's face it, I think we can agree that anyone who thought that is a monster.
However, most of those (or at least I hope so) who agree with abortion don't view the child as a baby. The baby is viewed as a mere extension of the woman and she can decide like a pair of tonsils whether it should be removed. Thus those who support abortion can look at it as morally indifferent. I understand that way of thinking. I don't agree but I understand.
But take a look at it from the other side, the folks who do view the baby as a human being with organs, unique fingerprints, seperate brainwave patterns, etc. It's pretty easy to see why they're so upset. They disagree with babies being killed and not speaking out or not doing anything would be to condone it. Neither side is going to likely change it's mind. I'm not going to convince you that it's a baby anymore than you're going to convince me it's a blob of unfeeling tissue. However, it's still good to have this discussion and I welcome a civil one. Calling people crazy though is not the way to do it. They're not crazy at all. It's simply a point of view which differs.
There are no 'separate brainwaves' at conception, not even close. This is how the argument gets bogged down because people will argue ideologies and not facts. Likewise, anybody that thinks the mainstream media is 'left wing' hasn't looked lately at who owns them or their content. If you think the Globe and Mail or Irving are 'left wing', go have a talk with a union rep sometime and find out how hard it is to get any coverage.
Irvings have been studied in many papers to see just how biased they are. Bell Canada and Global tout the corporate line all the way to the bank, they aren't stupid.
You'll notice how little coverage pro abortion demonstrations get in the paper, compared to the anti abortion.
And we can just look at the comments from the above person who was there to validate just how wrong a person who only reads the right wing papers can get. Even if the person is lying, it still points out the fact that people don't know what actually went on, they only know the media spin. I can second that point about 'lesbians' and 'she devils' and there are far far worse.
And we've seen how the 'anti abortion' people are 'misguided ' in representing graphic pictures of an abortion because kids might see it, but pro abortionists are being 'extreme' for something as benign as putting red paint on their legs. That's bias as well, and pretty blatant.
As for arguing that people have to list all the organizations they belong to when writing a letter to the editor, that's just silly. You only get a very limited number of words, are people supposed to list "PTA, Chamber of Commerce, Canadian Soccer Association, United Church..." and on and on before getting to their point? That's absurd.
What's very obvious is the REAL criticism, which is that some people like to dismiss criticism outright by claiming "yes, but they're a member of .." In other words, rather than dealing with the specific arguments presented, they want to make it about broader issues, or ones that have nothing to do with the arguments presented.
That is far more dishonest.
Babies aren't aborted on the day of conecption at the Moregntaler Clinic though, are they? Brainwaves CAN be detected at 43 days. Babies are aborted much later than that.
Well said, 1:25.
I think Spinks' notion that letter writers and demonstrators are somehow obliged to disclose their various affiliations completely impractical to the point of silliness, and I think you make that point.
Still, I know what he's getting at. Attentive newspaper readers wonder, when they see a string on letter critical of Bernard Lord, whether it might be a campaign organized by the Liberal party, or a Liberal candidate, or, for that matter, some guy who developed a hatred for li'l Bernie back in grade four. Not sure everyone does that.
I know I have read letters that pretend to be "the voice of the people", and thought, when I recognized the name, "hey, that guy's biased!". And wondered if other readers get that.
In the end, though, I think it's much ado about nothing. The vast majority of people know a kook when they see one, and when people go overboard with drama or trickiness, most people sense it and just discredit their views.
The whole idea that maybe some protests are staged and others not is a bit passe, anyway. There's no such thing as a spontaneous demonstration anymore. Whether the issue is abortion, immigration policy, Atlantica or hospital bed closures, and whether the protesters are "left" or "right", protests are organized in advance, bullhorns rented, placards professionally produced, and even buses rented.
Tim Smith and Charles LeBlanc may have undertaken the only spontaneous protests this city (Fredericton) has seen in years. And those were one-man shows.
How many people in this thread have wombs?
Nobody is pro-abortion. There are pro-choice and anti-choice, that's it. I personally don't approve of abortion but I approve of letting women have a choice.
It's a shame that medical science can't come up with fetus transplants to replace abortions. All of the radical anti-choice activists could have the unwanted fetuses transplanted into their bodies. Everybody would be happy then.
If an abortion was surgically done exactly the same as a caesarean section, is it still technically an abortion? It's an easy way around the whole debate. Have a caesarean section at 1 month and if the "baby" lives, then it lives, but if it doesn't, it doesn't. Problem solved.
Actually, if the world is overpopulated, as many say it is, then many would be pro-abortion.
Only certain areas of the world are overpopulated.
I'm all for voluntary sterilization but it's not a politically correct mission for any of the global aid agencies to advertise. I would donate money towards having women in countries that are so poor they can't feed/clothe/house themselves (let alone ten children), get a tubal ligation, but I'm not supportive of efforts to encourage these women to keep having children by the dozen with no means of supporting them.
Every place has 'voluntary' sterilization. The world can easily be said to be overpopulated, current rates of growth aren't sustainable, and Canadians, who have a miniscule population, use up more resources per capita than the entire continent of Africa. That is very much overpopulation. Many places such as India and Africa have the largest populations, but have very miniscule energy, food, and water requirements. Canadians, again with a tiny population have succeeded in wiping out most of the resources in a mere three hundred years, most of it in thirty.
North America is the most overpopulated place on the planet, they use fully 40% of the worlds resources for essentially two countries. Per capita Canadians are even worse than americans.
But we can notice that most people's addresses to the use of resources is to make 'other people' change their behaviour, not themselves.
Killing babies seems like a pretty cruel way to achieve those goals 9:49.
Hey Anonymous, It is one thing to be able to think critically, and it is another thing to live in an anything goes society where no one is accountable for their actions. Abortion is Wholesale Murder and Fredericton's own Nazi concentratin or, death camp if you as I like to call it is just that you go in and they will kill the human life inside of you for a Good heafty price. Well I don't think that the tax dollars of the voting residents of this Province should pay for that kind of thing. if these individuals wish not to be responsible in their conduct then they should at least be decent enough to either have give birth and put the child up for adoption if they do not wish to raise the child themselves or keep their legs closed until they are more properly able to care for the life they have helped to create.
Post a Comment