Tuesday, January 06, 2009

Abortion "debate?" What abortion "debate?"


JJ has it about right -- fuck the debate. And here's why.

There's nothing to debate.

Seriously, what's to debate? When one entertains the possibility of a "debate," one normally expects that both sides are going to come to the table with, you know, information. Or facts. Or logic. Or something like that. And what exactly would the anti-choice fetus fetishists be bringing to the table?

They don't like abortion.

Yeah, we get that. Honestly, we totally fucking get that. You dingbats have made that abundantly, adamantly, relentlessly, shriekingly clear for years. You hate abortion. Alright, already, we get it!! But that's not the basis for reopening the debate.

I mean, really, in the context of an actual debate, no one gives a shit how upset you are. That's just not relevant. If you have some new facts, then by all means, bring it on. New information? Let's hear it. But if all you have is more of the same pissing, moaning and whining, that's not a "debate." It's just you wanks wanting to keep bringing up the same issue over and over and over and over and over, until you get the result you want, at which point I'm guessing you'll suddenly decide that we don't really need to debate anymore. Do I have that about right?

So -- and I say this with all due respect -- fuck off with your ignorant, dishonest debate bullshit. We sane people have all the information we need, we have digested it and we have made our decision. We know what an abortion is. We know what it involves. We know what fetuses look like -- oh, dear God, we know what they look like since you wanks seem positively obsessed with posting pictures of them. So, really, we're pretty sure we have all the information we need to make up our minds.

Again, don't get me wrong -- if you really have new information that we should know, then bring it on down. But understand, once and for all -- whiny, sore loserism on your part does not represent an obligation for further debate on our part. That's not debate -- that's just you whining. And I'm fairly sure that doesn't constitute the basis for any more debate.

27 comments:

sooey said...

Oh no, they love abortion, it's their raison d'etre. They just want to dehumanize women by taking away our rights.

TnT said...

you know I used to think there should be debate. It's good to be able to you know, talk about important things like rational human beings. But have to say was dead wrong.

This prize pro lifer's only real return to me was and I quote: "But I ask you answer this: would it have been OK for your mother to have aborted you, if that was her choice?"

He actually asked me, if it was ok if my mommy aborted me.

I'll let that just stand on it's own.

Filcher said...

"They don't like abortion."



does anyone get pregnant because they love abortions?

They don't understand it is freedom of choice, not freedom to abort or not abort. They consistently miss the point it is not about abortion, but about where a women's rights end and society's begins. Until they understand it is a question of right to have a baby versus force to have a baby, there should be no debate.

agsharma said...

well put CC!!!

roblaw said...

Typical fascist small "l" liberal rhetoric.. "we're right, becuase, well, we're right".

Well put? No, actually, pretty stupidly put. And I'm pro-choice for fucksakes..

There should be laws in Canada relating to abortion, of some kind. Only an idiot would posit that, during the birthing process, it would be legal for a doctor to administer a lethal substance to a "fetus" and kill it. Yet that is the state of law in Canada.

Until that, child, fetus, whatever - is out of the birth canal, it can be terminated at will, without legal consequence. That would seem, well, wrong - but then I'm not as smart and everything as CC..

How about a law suggesting no abortions after the second trimester? Would that be too offensive?

KEvron said...

i'm wearing my debatin' shoes....

KEvron

Frank Frink said...

Shorter roblaw: "I'm a small 'c' conservative but I still support nannystatism"

CC said...

roblaw gets his panties in a bunch:

"How about a law suggesting no abortions after the second trimester? Would that be too offensive?"

Let me see ... how should I respond? Oh, right ... and why should we consider this? Ah, yes -- because abortion outrages you.

Next.

Mike said...

"Only an idiot would posit that, during the birthing process, it would be legal for a doctor to administer a lethal substance to a "fetus" and kill it. Yet that is the state of law in Canada."

And yet, in over 20 years of this being the state of the law in Canada, this has never happened. Not once. After millions of live births.

But we should pass a law anyway, just in case?

"Until that, child, fetus, whatever - is out of the birth canal, it can be terminated at will, without legal consequence."

Really? Without consequence? As a lawyer, could you perhaps think of a way for their to be legal consequences under the current law? Considering that until the child, fetus whatever is out of the birth canal, it is part of the mother's body. Are you seriously telling me you couldn't come up with a criminal charge or find something actionable in that?

"How about a law suggesting no abortions after the second trimester? Would that be too offensive?"

How about yes, that would be offensive. Would you stand for a law that required you to donate blood if you had a rare type? Would you stand for a law that outlawed breast reduction surgery or appendectomies? Would you stand for a law that required you to give up one of your kidneys for donation if you matched, and it meant for certain another person would live?

You wouldn't stand for any of these. If you wanted to keep your kidney, you'd keep it, even if it meant certain death for someone. If you wanted your appendix out, you'd fight tooth an nail for the operation. Because only you gets to saw what goes into or comes out of your body, even if it condemns another person to death.

No you might find this reasonable but I don't think the state has any business telling me what I can do with my body, what I can put into it or what kind of medical procedures and can have done on it.

The state of the law in Canada is that the fetus is part of the mother and the mother's will prevails. Period.

If a law was passed, we would see exactly what we have seen in other jurisdictions - a toe hold leading to further erosion of the right to bodily security and integrity. 24 weeks will become, 20, then 15 then 10 the 0. This kind of incrementalism is what real religious wing nuts want.

Remember, your horror scenario never happens, but mine has in many US states.

Part of living in a free society is letting people do things and make choices that you would not make.

We don't need an abortion law, we are doing just fine without one.

wv=dimner

Mike said...

Rob,

Also remember that your horror scenario would, as history of the last 20 years can attest, happen absolutely without the consent of the mother.

Now, grab your Martins and let see what kind of lawyer you are.

jj said...

"Only an idiot would posit that, during the birthing process, it would be legal for a doctor to administer a lethal substance to a "fetus" and kill it. Yet that is the state of law in Canada."

Oh boy, here we go again.

Just because that is "the state of law", it doesn't necessarily follow that it's what's actually happening. There are no "moments before delivery" abortions, although it's a canard that anti-abortionists flog relentlessly. There are few (.04%) abortions after the 2nd trimester, and even then, only in cases of dire emergency.

As with most medical procedures, doctors police themselves. The CMA oversees and has set out procedural guidelines for abortion that doctors follow to a T. Even if there was an abortion law crafted, it would just codify the status quo -- guidance for writing such a law would come from -- where else? -- the CMA's procedural guidelines.

Canada's abortion rate is lower than that of countries like the US and France that do have laws, and it drops every year. Without regressive legislation. We don't have an abortion law because we don't need one, it's that simple.

LuLu said...

How about a law suggesting no abortions after the second trimester? Would that be too offensive?

Does this "law" contain exceptions if the mother's life is in danger? Or if the pregnancy is a result of rape? How about incest?

If your answer to any of those questions is "no", then yes, I would find it exceptionally offensive.

Next question.

Ti-Guy said...

Typical fascist small "l" liberal rhetoric.. "we're right, becuase, well, we're right".

Are you a very good lawyer, Roblaw?

This is hardly an apt conclusion to draw from this post. The only thing I can say is that there are no more good reasons left to proscribe abortion. When something doesn't require legislation, then it shouldn't be legislated.

You'd think a Libertarian would understand that.

Believe you me, if you think legislation at this point would put an end to this interminable debate, you're mistaken. Canadians only have to look South to see why. Legislation itself is what causes this to be a never-ending focus of public policy. That's what legalism does.

jj said...

Ti-Guy - "When something doesn't require legislation, then it shouldn't be legislated."

That's it in a nutshell. Why have even more stupid intrusive legislation than we have already, just for the sake of having "a law"?

As you aptly point out, all that an abortion law would do is allow anti-abortionists to continue lobbying to make it ever-more restrictive.

CC said...

Shorter roblaw: "What if we curtail your fundamental reproductive rights just a little bit? Would that work for you?"

KEvron said...

"during the birthing process, it would be legal for a doctor to administer a lethal substance to a 'fetus' and kill it."

let's cross that wild fantasy when we come to it, shall we? sheesh....

KEvron

KEvron said...

"How about a law suggesting no abortions after the second trimester? Would that be too offensive?"

no, that'd be too arbitrary, you phoney.

KEvron

KEvron said...

more:

you say you're pro-choice ("I'm pro-choice for fucksakes"), yet you feel the need to arbitrarilly ("There should be laws.... of some kind") impose a limit to that right to choice. i gotta ask: exaclty what kind of libertarian are you? and what's the difference between day 180 and day 181 that you feel the need to pass a law.... of some kind? you do understand that contractions don't begin until around day 260, right?

KEvron

liberal supporter said...

Could we outlaw abortions at least on the day of birth?

We need this principle established, that the State can assert an interest inside our bodies, independent of ourselves. Otherwise how will we ever get legal protection for the chip implants that we will need to improve our safety from terrorists?

KEvron said...

"Could we outlaw abortions at least on the day of birth?"

is it really necessary? i don't imagine there's a doctor on the planet who'd be willing to perform, mother's own safety notwithstanding.

but let's ask rob what he feels. it would be, afterall, a law of some kind. and what libertarian doesn't appreciate lots of laws of some kind.

KEvron

Romantic Heretic said...

Eh, Roblaw's just a libertarian because it sets the tone of the debate.

To oppose libertarianism is to oppose freedom, which is something only evil people can do.

If you really want to win a game, make the rules yourself.

KEvron said...

"Roblaw's just a libertarian because it sets the tone of the debate."

i've noticed that dynamic with most of the self-described libertarians i've met. the label's more of an affectation with them than an indication of any philosophy.

libertarian always struck me as an arbitrary term. i can see why rob likes it....

KEvron

liberal supporter said...

is it really necessary?
If you want to keep the State in the wombs of the nation, it is necessary. By extension the State then has jurisdiction anywhere inside the body. And we need that so we can force chip implants into everyone.

TnT said...

Libertarians. Any I've encountered have tended to be the slippery slimy bastards that are the moving targets in any debate.

the rev. paperboy said...

If Roblaw and his fellow travellers don't like abortions, that's fine -- they don't have to get one. But those who need them shouldn't have to break the law to get the help they need. No one has the right to force someone to have a child.

As far as the "illegal only in the third trimester" argument goes, how about if we make slavery legal only on Tuesdays and Thursdays, and you can be free the rest of the week? Think what it would do for the economy!

KEvron said...

"the 'illegal only in the third trimester' argument"

i really liked how rob arbitrarilly set the limit at day 180 (because, you know, even a pro-choicer like him sees the need for a limit.... of some kind), then cited delivery day in his example. as reasonable as it was realistic.

you say you're a lawyer, rob?! huh. go figger.

KEvron, war president

KEvron said...

"Or if the pregnancy is a result of rape? How about incest?"

personally, i've always found these exceptions to be distasteful. if right-to-lifers believe the fetus is an individual, endowed with rights, then why should they want for it to pay for the sins of the father?

KEvron