Sunday, January 18, 2009

Dear Gord:


For the love of God, shut the fuck up already.

Dear Progressive Bloggers Membership Committee: What the hell were you thinking?

37 comments:

jj said...

Notice how the only ones who thanked Gord for the "reasonable debate" were the two fetus fetishists that showed up? I think ProgBlogs has been infiltrated.

Then again, there are at least 12 Gords on Bruinooge's super secret "pro-life" caucus -- socons who wear red ties instead of blue ones. The Liberals need to clean house.

sooey said...

Ah, the old straw fetus argument.

fern hill said...

Well, he says that that is probably his last post on the topic. If he does STFU, I'd let it go. If he doesn't, let's loose the feminazis on poor widdle Scott. :evulsmiley:

Kelseigh said...

That reply to JJ, isn't he as much as admitting he wants to open the door to the anti-woman crowd to attack reproductive rights any way they feel like it?

Miss Vicky said...

I don't even know where to begin with this guy, other than to simply tell him to mind his own business and STFU. But yeah, I'm perfectly happy with telling Scott to get him the hell of ProgBlog. I have no interest in sharing a blogroll with him

Gordie_Canuk said...

Hey guys, I'm done with the Abortion debate....my view is my view, and even though there may be disagreement (understatement of the year) I'm hopeful that most prefer free speech to censorship.

My next topic will be Obama's inauguration and how the far left is going to be upset. Of course when you go to the extremes of the political spectrum...left and right practically meet under different flavours of fascism.

Holly Stick said...

Hey Gord, you pompous ass, progressive people do not muse about taking away women's rights over their own bodies. It's an invasion of privacy.

Paladiea said...

WTF is the "far left"?

Wayne said...

Paladiea are you kidding?!?!?

"WTF is the "far left"?"

Far Left

Paladiea said...

So you mean "smart" and "factually correct" then?

Gordie_Canuk said...

HolyStick...nice name calling, very mature.

As for far left and far right, its helpful to view the political spectrum as a circle...move to either the extreme right or extreme left and you're at pretty much the same juncture...hardly a revelation to those who've studied anything about poly-sci.

Far right and left both view themselves as being the "correct" and smart side. And anyone who disagrees is attacked and sworn at. I'm used to getting it from both extremes, it comes from being a moderate.

Sheena said...

talk about late term rhetoric, man.

Paladiea said...

Far right and left both view themselves as being the "correct" and smart side. And anyone who disagrees is attacked and sworn at. I'm used to getting it from both extremes, it comes from being a moderate.

a) The political spectrum is not a circle.

b) Facts don't have a bias. If you're factually correct then there's nothing the other side can say except invective, which is what you seem to be engaging in now.

I would suggest you visit www.politicalcompass.org and take in some of the information there.

jj said...

Gordie - When you state unequivocally that you think for the sake of 3 or 4 abortions, it's okay to put all abortion rights at risk, you shouldn't be too surprised at the vehement opposition from those who'd actually be affected if such musings ever became reality.

I'll give you the benefit of doubt and assume you mean well. But you either lack an understanding of the anti-choice movement and how it goes about eroding abortion rights, or you sympathize with them and your goal is to convince pro-choicers that there's some common ground to be had with those who'd roll back our rights. (There obviously is none: you believe in womens' liberty and self-determination or you don't, it's that simple.)

Sorry, but from what you've said, I can't draw any other conclusions.

fern hill said...

And, unbelievably, Gordie is 42 chronological years old from his bio. If he were something under 30 in a Lib-tard mode like ScottT or SaskToy, I'd just sigh and move on, but 42???? And just heard of ARCC?

He is not worth engaging.

CC said...

Say, Gord, do you ever need an extra chair for your ego? I'm just asking.

Gordie_Canuk said...

Hey CC...nah, besides I'm guessing you're looking for all you can find for your own :-)

As far as the concept of the political spectrum being a circle, this is hardly an original idea on my part. Lots of people recognize that dictatorships can come in different forms, both extreme right and extreme left. I prefer democracy to any dictatorship...whether it's left wing or right. Okay, someone swear at me now and tell me to stfu.

Paladiea said...

Okay, someone swear at me now and tell me to stfu.

Clearly you're letting your prejudices dictate your expectations. How about you stop telling us what to do and actually listen?

LuLu said...

Poor Gordie clearly needs an extra chair for his persecution complex. And perhaps a second for his oh-so hurt feelings?

Life's tough, Gordie, best wear a helmet if you're going to play with the big kids.

Gordie_Canuk said...

I have listened...being told what to post about and what's acceptable, zig heil all :-)

LuLu said...

I call Godwin!

How painfully unimaginative of you, Gordie.

Gordie_Canuk said...

It's natural LuLu when some are telling others how to think and what they're supposed to talk about.

Paladiea said...

I have listened...being told what to post about and what's acceptable, zig heil all :-)

*yawn* That's such a bad faith argument. No one is telling you what you can and can't post about. We're saying that you're WRONG. And we're giving you reasons why.

Contrary to your opinion, you do not have the right to be wrong. Post anything you want, but we will call you out on it.

Gordie_Canuk said...

Interesting...I've never been one to consider someone "wrong" for holding an opinion contrary to my own. So the "shut the fuck up already" is because I hold the wrong opinion. Do you guys work with Fox News?

Paladiea said...

Interesting...I've never been one to consider someone "wrong" for holding an opinion contrary to my own. So the "shut the fuck up already" is because I hold the wrong opinion. Do you guys work with Fox News?

Really? So when someone tells you the sky is green, you're all about the dialogue. Or when someone spouts off against evolution you don't get a little annoyed at their ignorance? Please.

Gordie_Canuk said...

Paladiea...it's pointless discussing something with individuals unable to distinguish between fact and opinion.

Mike said...

And yet Gordie, it is you who are standing with known liars - Suzanne still spouts the oft debunked "Abortion breast cancer" link and the oft debunked "abortion minutes before birth" hysteria.

No, please explain to me again who in this particular conversation is unable to distinguish between facts and opinions? Or lies.

Its really simple. There are somethings that are never up for debate, no matter how reasonable. Allowing the state or anyone else to dictate what happens inside one's own body is one of them.

I must point out that it really is mighty big of you to be so open to discuss the taking away of someone's rights, especially when those rights will never affect you.

Bravo. How brave.

Paladiea said...

Paladiea...it's pointless discussing something with individuals unable to distinguish between fact and opinion.

Opinions should be based on fact. So, pray tell, what are your facts?

wv = "mingies"

Gordie_Canuk said...

Mike, I'm not "standing" with anyone. If I have misrepresented any factual point please point it out.

I am opposed to abortion being legal around the 24 week mark (or later)for the same reasons Henry Morgentaler has ethical problems with it...I regard the fetus at that point as a human being.

I would never support removing 'abortion on demand' services for any woman in the first trimester of pregnancy...even for those rare individuals who use it as a form of BC.

I agree women deserve the right to have security and decision making powers over their bodies...but as with many rights I also believe there should be reasonable limitations.

You don't have to agree.

jj said...

"I agree women deserve the right to have security and decision making powers over their bodies...but as with many rights I also believe there should be reasonable limitations.

And of course those limitations must always be imposed by the state, because individual citizens are obviously far too stupid to figure out what's right and wrong for themselves... and never mind over 20 years of evidence to the contrary.

What makes you think that some career bureaucrat knows more about abortion than a doctor?

Gordie_Canuk said...

The state imposes all kinds of laws on citizens. So are you advocating anarchy all around? Let everyone make their own judgements?

What about the Latimer case? We can't have laws about killing the disabled, I mean after all I'm sure it was a gut wrenching decision.

jj said...

"The state imposes all kinds of laws on citizens."

Yes, and half of them are stupid. But so what? Why not a few more, eh? What's another stupid useless law, give or take? Especially one that can be constantly challenged to make it more restrictive -- party time!

"What about the Latimer case? We can't have laws about killing the disabled, I mean after all I'm sure it was a gut wrenching decision."

Uh... newsflash, Gord: Tracy Latimer was already living and breathing on her own and not connected to anyone else's body in a blood-to-blood transmission of nutrients. Her case is in no way analogous to abortion.

Gordie_Canuk said...

The Latimer case does have some bearing in my opinion, she was totally dependent on other's for her survival...if her father was unable or unwilling to provide it he could have sought help. Not a physical umbilical (sp?) cord per se...but a figurative cord none the less.

If a woman decides late-term that she doesn't want the baby living in her belly (assuming no medical complications), at that point she has the option of giving the child up for adoption...or killing it as our laws currently stand.

Mike said...

"she was totally dependent on other's for her survival"

All true, but she was not part of somebody elses body. THAT is the point.

"So are you advocating anarchy all around? Let everyone make their own judgements? "

Well lets look at the evidence - in the 20+ years Canada has been without any abortion law, Canada's abortions statistics match the oft polled result of Canadian's attitudes toward abortion. That is, 92% occur before 12 weeks, when there is no brain, no human morphology and most Canadians have no problem with abortions. 98% occur before 20 weeks, when it is less popular and morphologically the fetus is more human. Almost none occur after 20 weeks, when the fetus has brainwaves (and not before 20 weeks). And Even Morgnataler will not perform an abortion after 24 weeks, when usually a baby can be delivered alive and survive with interventions. Post 24 week abortions account for less than half of one percent of abortions and occur due to health of the mother or severe damage to the fetus (because that is the only way doctors in Canada will perform the procedure). In 20+ years of having no law, not a single incident of a late-term "minutes before birth" abortion has ever occurred. Not a single incident of a late term abortion because a woman 6 months along suddenly decided she did not want to be pregnant.

Not one. None. Zero. Nada.

So it seems that Canadian women (as well as Australian women according to a study from last year with nearly identical numbers) are doing just fine exercising their own judgment. Seems the doctors who perform abortions are doing an equally good job.

So, yes, in this case, anarchy is the best. It is working just fine.

Mike said...

"If a woman decides late-term that she doesn't want the baby living in her belly (assuming no medical complications), at that point she has the option of giving the child up for adoption...or killing it as our laws currently stand."

And yet, despite this being "legal" it has never happened. Never.

So we much like we don;t need a law to prevent you from sticking a knitting needle in your eye, we don't need a law to stop something that isn't happening.


"I am opposed to abortion being legal around the 24 week mark (or later)for the same reasons Henry Morgentaler has ethical problems with it...I regard the fetus at that point as a human being."

But since it isn't happening, allowing women and their doctor's to continue to police themselves without interference from the state is the best.

I am the father of 3 and my wife has lost 2 to miscarriages. Let me assure you that no woman who reaches 24 weeks will suddenly change her mind. And if it ever happened, the child can be delivered and survive - no need for an abortion.

Let me be clear who you are standing with in this - Suzanne doesn't want people to know the facts I have just quoted you. She doesn't want abortion at any point. She doesn't want birth control. She doesn't even want premarital sex. Do you see the problem? Her goal isn't 24 weeks, it zero - its less than zero. If she could figure a way to pass a law to stop people from having sex before marriage she would. She is who you are standing with and she is using you. She will pat your back and massage your ego until she has 24 weeks as the limit. Then she'll go for 18 weeks and try to convince you. Then she'll go lower. Her goal is to tell people how they can use their bodies, because she believes her religion gives her that right.

Mike said...

Let me be absolutely clear on one other thing, Gordie.

Bodily integrity and security are rights that can never, ever be limited. No outside entity should have even a minute amount of non-consensual control over the inner workings of my body, or your body or anyone's body. And until that fetus is born alive and separate from the mother, it is part of her body.

Full stop. End of story.

To do otherwise is to say that it is ok for the doctors at Auschwitz to experiment on prisoners. To do otherwise is to say it is just fine for the Chinese government to harvest the organs Falun Gong prisoners against their will. Tod do otherwise it to say it would be ok for our government to require YOU to give up your kidney, without consent, if it meant someone else could be saved.

Is that really what you want?

I am making the assumption you are at least well meaning in this.

Others are not. For them preventing abortion is not really about "saving babies" but about punishing women who have sex or try to control their bodies. It has racist undertones, trying to ensure that we have more "Christian" or more "white" babies born. Ever notice how the same people who rally against abortion are the same ones that look down their noses at "welfare mothers" and don't give a crap about the kid once its born?

If they really wanted to stop abortions, they'd encourage birth control. They'd fight for better parental leave, money for single parents, childcare etc. But they don't. They do just the opposite.

If you are against abortion after 24 weeks, then work hard to ensure that abortion is not the option chosen. Work hard and donate to technologies that will keep fetus viable outside the womb.

But don't tell someone else what they can and cannot do with their body. You would not want the same done to you.

jj said...

"Not a physical umbilical (sp?) cord per se...but a figurative cord none the less."

"Figurative" is the key word. The "residing inside someone else's body" aspect of things changes the dynamic somewhat.

"If a woman decides late-term that she doesn't want the baby living in her belly (assuming no medical complications), at that point she has the option of giving the child up for adoption...or killing it as our laws currently stand."

You don't get it. Women don't suddenly decide late-term that they don't want to be pregnant because they're just not that into it. It would be nuts to go through 7 or 8 months of pregnancy and suddenly have a change of heart. And even if someone was that crazy, there's no doctor that would do the procedure: the woman would be advised to carry the pregnancy to term and adopt it out.

Ya know, Gord, just because something is legal, it doesn't always follow that it's actually happening. A lot of *bad* things are legal for that reason. Cutting off an index finger is legal (although no doctor would do that procedure either unless health problems indicated it) -- should we have a law against it in the unlikely event that someone decides to do it?

Legislating against something that isn't even happening is law for law's sake, serving no purpose other than to comfort those who for some reason can't believe that individuals could conduct personal matters without state intervention. And to establish a starting point for more restrictive law.

You might recall a few years ago when Bush passed the "partial birth" abortion ban -- there was a huge uproar among anti-choicers when they found out that the law didn't prevent a single abortion from happening. But that law, useless as it was in practice, did one thing: it opened the door to challenges against Roe v. Wade.