Sunday, January 25, 2009

Dear Gordo: Whatever happened to shutting the fuck up?


Jan 17, 2009:

This will likely be my last blog entry on the topic of abortion for a long while.

Jan 23, 2009:

I recently said I wouldn't be posting anything more on abortion "in a very long while". But ...

How exactly is it that someone who makes SUZANNE look positively even-handed when it comes to fetus fetishism is a member of Canada's "Progressive" Bloggers? I'm guessing Gordie has photos of either Saskboy with a live boy or Paladiea with a dead goat. 'Cuz, really, nothing else explains it.

66 comments:

sooey said...

I think if we have an abortion law we should have a castration law to complement it.

Kelseigh said...

"One of Obama's greatest strengths in my opinion is his willingness to try and bridge significant gaps between polarized groups."

So Gordo, what's the compromise position between those who want women to have rights and those who don't? I mean, you've clearly staked out your position in the latter camp.

Gordie_Canuk said...

Kelseigh,

Up until around the 24 week mark (using Dr. Morgentaler's own ethical standards) I am in favour of 'on demand' services for abortion procedures, with the 1st trimester being ideal.

After that? Only in cases where there are severe health risks for mother and/or fetus.

I don't think it has to be an either/or proposition...total access for the entire 9 months, or a total ban. I'm taking it on the chin from the anti-choice lobby for favouring on-demand services during the early stages.

The joys of trying to stake out a moderate position that seeks middle ground...you get hit from both sides. That's okay though...free speech and all that. You don't have to agree, we're still a liberal democratic society at the moment...although sometimes I think extremists on both sides would prefer fascism.

Paladiea said...

After that? Only in cases where there are severe health risks for mother and/or fetus.

You fail to grasp the fact that in Canada, the right to bodily autonomy trumps the right to life.

To declare that the life of the fetus is more important than what the wishes of the woman are for her own body is setting up a dangerous precedent where the state has the right to control your body for the welfare of people who are not you.

Therefore it IS an all or nothing preposition. Either the woman can control her body, or she can't.

Mike has mentioned this to you before, and yet it hasn't sunk in.

Gordie_Canuk said...

Paladiea...

I happen to agree with Obama's comments in the magazine article. You and Mike don't have to.

Paladiea said...

I happen to agree with Obama's comments in the magazine article. You and Mike don't have to.

How is that even a rebuttal?

CC said...

Yo, Gordo:

"Up until around the 24 week mark (using Dr. Morgentaler's own ethical standards) I am in favour of 'on demand' services for abortion procedures, ...

I'm curious, Gordo ... what's so magical about that 24-week mark? Why not 23? Or 25? Or 169 days? Or 167? Or 168.314159?

I'm always amused by wanks who seem to think having nice round figures makes such a compelling argument.

Gordie_Canuk said...

CC...the "magic" behind that number is that it represents viability, the point at which the fetus/baby could survive without the mother...

I don't want the state dictating control over a woman's body...but as with many rights, I think there should be reasonable limits.

Thanks for the name calling btw, I love mature discourse.

fern hill said...

There are many problems with picking a point of viability. First, as the fetus fetishists love to point out, medical technology is improving the chances of very immature fetuses. But the second big problem is attached to that. Very immature fetuses have all kinds of medical problems, very severe and expensive problems, often for the rest of their lives.

So, you make an unwilling woman give birth to a handicapped baby, and what? Say 'you deal with it'?

But don't let that worry you, Gordie when you're deciding who has what rights.

KEvron said...

"the point at which the fetus/baby could survive without the mother"

it's essentially still the same entity, seperate from its host, at 24 weeks as it was a 23; the relationship between host and entity is unchanged, so why should the host's right self-determination be limited?

btw, it's my concern that that very same argument would be used by the anti-choice crowd, should lta limits eventually be imposed, which is why i always take claims such as "up until around the 24 week mark.... i am in favour" with a grain of salt, especially when coming from someone who uses only six labels on his blog, one of them being "abortion". i think this is a deeper issue for you (just as c-484 proved to be with its supporters; so obvious was its intent, your pm was forced to issue his "will not re-open the debate" statement) than you're letting on. add to that the fact that the legislation is unnecessary anyway, so could only serve the anti-choice agenda, and my bs detectors ring 4 alarm. no offense, just being honest.


KEvron

Mike said...

"I happen to agree with Obama's comments in the magazine article. You and Mike don't have to."

And I don't. But its awfully nice of you (and Obama) to try to "bridge significant gaps between polarized groups" by giving up the rights of others (not your own) against their will.

And frankly I don;t care if the fetus IS viable. Let me say this in no uncertain terms so you really understand.

The right to bodily integrity and control trumps the right to life of any other entity. Do you hear that? The mother's right to control her body is more important that the fetus "right to life".

Just as I can refuse to donate a kidney and in doing so cause another person to die, so too can a pregnant woman decide not to go on with a pregnancy. Why? Because I control my body completely and so does a pregnant woman.

If a 24+ week old fetus is aborted, its horrible. Luckily it rarely happens (about .02% of cases and even then it happens entirely due to the health of the mother or due to severe deformation of the fetus). and as horrible as it is, it is more horrible to think that a human being could not control their body.

You may think its fine for peanut size fetuses to be aborted and disgusted that older, more mature ones are. But you cannot force women to give up absolute control of their bodies so you can feel less icky about something.

You are recommending all women - ALL WOMEN - give up the right to say what goes on inside their own bodies, for the sake of preventing an event that, even if it happened (and I contend it doesn't) happens in less that .02% of cases.

Sorry no. Nothing in that is remotely a "reasonable limit". it is patently unreasonable.

Until I see you writing posts asking the state to conduct forcible organ donations in order to save lives (a horror we usually associate with Falun Gong prisoners in Red Chinese slave camps), you are asking that someone other than yourself give up rights to make you feel better.

You are wrong. Obama is wrong. Deal with it.

Mike said...

Oh and Gordie,

Part of living in a free society is allowing people the right to hold beliefs and make decisions you would not. Part of being free is allowing people to make wrong, stupid and disgusting choices and then living with them.

If you think you can better make choices than other people, exercise your right to make them differently.

If you think that give you the right to make those choices FOR others, then you are most definitely not interested in freedom and liberty.

You are interested in slavery. It differs only in the traditional slavery as a matter of degree - when someone cannot control their body as they wish, it is slavery nonetheless.

Kelseigh said...

Gordo expectorated thusly:

"Up until around the 24 week mark (using Dr. Morgentaler's own ethical standards) I am in favour of 'on demand' services for abortion procedures, with the 1st trimester being ideal.

After that? Only in cases where there are severe health risks for mother and/or fetus."


Okay, Gordo. Now it's up to you to prove that this isn't already happening in practice and it's an ongoing problem such that declaring a new law to deal with it. Oh, and prove that a law is the right way to go while you're at it. Maybe you could start by providing us with some facts, such as what percentage of post-24-week abortions are by women who just say "eh, I don't feel like it now". I don't expect you'll be in the high 90's or anything.

Oh, and Gordo? A favour? Please quit calling people taking the moderate position, i.e. women have autonomy over their own bodies, and trying to claim it's "extremists", mm'kay? It's your new BFFs like Twatsy and SUZANNE who sit way off to one side, and it's pretty clear what side that is.

As to Obama, so what? He's not a doctor, a Canadian, or a woman. Why should I care about his opinion on Canadian women's rights?

sooey said...

Actually, Gord, you DO want the state exercising control over a woman's body. Please don't lie. It makes baby Jesus cry.

"wayfun"

Red Tory said...

Why does anyone give a shit what this "Gordie" person thinks anyway? About... anything?

p.s. Great word verification on this one: "hangs" (it's rare you get an actual word, let along one like that).

Red Tory said...

b/c: alone

deBeauxOs said...

First thing Gord, this issue is not an abstraction nor an hypothetical for me, as it is for you. I have carried one pregnancy to term, gave birth to a healthy baby and raised her.

There was an earlier pregnancy where the fetus' development stopped. It was around the halfway mark of gestation and my ob/gyn, an old-school kind of guy, suggested that we wait and let nature take its course. Which it did, with a sudden and dangerous miscarriage that resulted in an emergency D&C and a number of days in the hospital. I barely survived that event, Gord.

So take your self-righteous interference into women's reproductive health and the choices that are theirs to decide and stuff it Gord. You want to ensure that all late-term abortions come under the control of government instead of being decided by women and their health care providers? Because you've swallowed the abortion criminalizers' misogynist propaganda that a few women are deciding on the basis of frivolity, you want all women to be subjected to state control?

Fuck you Gord and your ill-disguised so-called benevolent need to control women.

sooey said...

Amen, sister.

LuLu said...

Can I get a hallelujah for deBeauxOs, brothers and sisters?

Frank Frink said...

Hallelujah is just a bit too 'religious' for me, LuLu, but I'm willing to get a standing O going.

Mike said...

Hallelujah!!

Well said deBeauxOs.

Not that Gord will listen...

Paladiea said...

Sing it sister!

Luna said...

Hallelujah!

jj said...

Right on, deBeauxOs. Right. On.

Mike said...

Also, Gord, what JJ said over at DAMMIT JANET:

"Newsflash, Gordie: Dr. Morgentaler doesn't believe late-term abortions should be regulated:

"Here in Canada, intact D&X abortions are entirely legal. The one catch is that few physicians are trained to do the complicated procedure. When Canadian women need one, they're often sent to the US. In 2003, 30 women from Quebec and 15 from Ontario made the trip.

Famous Canadian abortionist Dr Henry Morgentaler doesn't believe late-term abortions need regulation — he says ethics and health considerations already guide physicians."

This is what we've been trying to tell you."

(Sorry JJ this was so good I had to cut and paste...)

So are you still going to stick by your "Good enough for Dr. Morgantaler, good enough for me" stand, or drag the goalposts elsewhere.

Appeals to authority are fun and we really could play all day. How about you answer the ethical and moral questions I have posed about bodily integrity and ownership directly?

Kelseigh said...

Hell yeah! You rock, sister!

deBeauxOs said...

Thank you all, thank you very much.

Now Mike, about that quote from JJ ... she blogs at unrepentant old hippie.
fern hill and I are the evul feminazis who founded and blog at DAMMIT JANET!

The shrieeekkking rightwingnutz hordes are - collectively and individually - the target of our ridicule.

It's not a hard job and we do enjoy it.

Gordie_Canuk said...

feminazis...interesting term, and I do think it applies.

Personally I've always found fascism repulsive, but that's just me. I guess some find it appealing.

KEvron said...

now, now, gordie. it's fine to swap insults; they did start it, afterall. but dohave the good grace to also address some of the points made here, would you?

KEVron

Gordie_Canuk said...

I already have KEVron, ad nauseum. What we have here is a fundamental difference of opinion, which for me is fine...but then I'm a moderate centrist and a believer in antiquated notions like democracy and free speech.

I understand some of the anger and frustration directed at me. There's a very real fear among many that any limitation on women's rights could lead to much harsher restrictions...and in that context I can understand the tone somewhat.

But I'm sick of the Republican style name calling and chacterizations. I don't like it when the far right does it, and its equally distateful coming from people on the far left.

I'll leave you all to your dictatorial fascist rantings, telling people what's right to think and shouting over anyone with the temerity to disagree.

deBeauxOs said...

Gordie, you are welcome to take your "moderate centrist" views over to Blob Blogging Wingnut and join their "hate-is-a-family-value" propaganda-slinging crowd, if you cannot understand how deeply authoritarian and controlling your views are.

The "feminazi" slur is one regularly spewed at women seeking equality, something you might know if you were better informed about these issues.

Niles said...

Lordy Gordie, Don't you think that if there were 'viable term' abortions done *just because the woman decided she'd had enough of being pregnant* (arriba! on to the next individualist thrill seeking ride!) that we'd hear about individual cases? Even one? Because it's not like the pro-forced birth crowd wouldn't scream such a thing from rooftops if they could find even one.

And yet, they're still reduced to speaking in scaremongering generalities and trying to stop women from taking medical control of their own bodies, because for some reason it's *more important* for things to keep chugging away inside a woman until her body quits under the strain or rebels against the offsprog's infirmities and has a better chance of taking her with it. Because, that's like...natural, instead of interfering in God's plan.

That aside, I thought the key phrase of the abortion 'dilemma' was summed up in the decades old line about 'if men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament'. Too damn few men walk a mile in womens' moccasins, even from a 'what if' pov.

Gordie, stop talking and start walking.

Mike said...

deBeauxOs,

Yeah, I know, but she posted it in the comments over at your place. I just had to give her proper attribution.

"...but then I'm a moderate centrist and a believer in antiquated notions like democracy and free speech."

LOL Gordie. Most of us here are believers in that antiquated notion that no one controls your body but you - not the state, not public opinion and not anyone else but you. You know, that silly notion that I own my body and no one else does and therefore I can do what I want with it, even if you don't approve? The notion that underlies silly other notions like private property and freedom of conscience and association.

Again, when you are done whining about being called names perhaps you'd like to square the circle wherein you believe in freedom to speak, but not freedom to control your own body? I find that rather odd...

I'm still dumbfounded how you don't get it. Then again, maybe you don't want to.

Gordie_Canuk said...

I'll pose a very quick and simple question.

Are you in favour of the "Freedom of Choice Act" supported by Barack Obama?

KEvron said...

"But I'm sick of the Republican style name calling and chacterizations."

and then:

"I'll leave you all to your dictatorial fascist rantings"

nice!

well, i think you've left some points unaddressed, most notably those whov'e cited morgentaler's reluctance at lta legislation. think on it and get back to us.

KEvron

Gordie_Canuk said...

Kevron...

That bit about fascist dictaroial rantings was in response to someone proudly declaring herself a feminazi...

I'll ask the question of anyone willing to answer:

Are you in favour of the "Freedom of Choice Act" supported by Barack Obama?

A simple yes or no will suffice, but if you want to go long winded that's fine too.

Frank Frink said...

Who is the question directed at, Gordie? All of us, someone in particular, a selection of the people commenting here? It's unclear.

Answering for myself, no. I already like what we have here in Canada.

Not to mention that my opinion, as a Canadian, or the opinion of any Canadian, on a piece of US legislation is totally irrelevant. It's irrelevant to US legislators, it's irrelevant to Canadian legislation and it's irrelevant to this discussion.

deBeauxOs said...

Gordie_Canuk said... I'll pose a very quick and simple question. Are you in favour of the "Freedom of Choice Act" supported by Barack Obama?

No. Not for the US (although it's really not my call since I'm a Canadian citizen) and I certainly do not support equivalent regulations for Canada.

Now that I have answered your question, will this stop your campaign to control women's reproductive choices?

Gordie_Canuk said...

This entire discussion was borne of my blog entry about Obama's stance against LTAs, so it is very relevant to this discussion Frank Frink.

The question is open to any and all who wish to answer...seeing as my posting about Obama's stance generated this thread its obvious there are many who hold an opnion on the subject.

Are you in favour of the "Freedom of Choice Act" supported by Barack Obama?

KEvron said...

"proudly declaring herself a feminazi..."

the term was coined by anti-choicer lush bimbaugh. i think she was being ironically self-depricating. you know, facetious.

"Are you in favour of the "Freedom of Choice Act" supported by Barack Obama?"

well, it does undo some of the chimpco shit, and it does give women the right to recourse should they be refused treatment, but the "viabilty" clause doesn't sit well with me. should someone put forth a better bill, i'd be against the original; barring that, i'd have to go along with it. gotta take your wins where you can get them.

KEvron

KEvron said...

btw,

"A simple yes or no will suffice"

you're really in no position to demand, especially given your retiscence at many of the valid points raised here.

KEvron

Gordie_Canuk said...

Thanks Kevron for your honesty and candor. As far as the feminazi stuff, I'll just let that go....it didn't strike me as self depricating, but rather as a proud declaration...but its not really important, I'm not a fan of name calling in any case.

I do support FOCA and would have no problem supporting similar legislation in Canada with one exception. I think there would need to be something about extreme fetal abnormalities, such that could result in a fetus/baby having little or no chance at life after delivery. I've heard of such cases where access has been denied.

KEvron said...

"it didn't strike me as self depricating, but rather as a proud declaration"

you seem unfamiliar with the word. surprising, givens its ubiquity on the internets. google offers 108,000 results. there's even a wikipedia entry for the word: "feminazi is a pejorative term used to negatively characterize feminists."

KEvron

KEvron said...

think of it like the word "nigga"....

KEvron

deBeauxOs said...

Gordie, if you had a funny bone in your body or the twinge of a sense of humour, you might understand why the use of a term spewed by the leading rightwing pompous hate-mongerer might be ironic.

It's obvious that your desire to legislate government control of women's reproductive health is founded on a lack of understanding, empathy and compassion for a process that can be life-affirming or life-destroying for women.

Gordie_Canuk said...

Gotcha KEv...I can't recall having come across the word before, and it seemed to me it was being embraced as opposed to being found repulsive. My bad.

Gordie_Canuk said...

debeauxos...

I can't stand Limbaugh, hence the reason why I probably never heard the term.

I like Obama's endorsement of FOCA. I think its a positive step, and one I would welcome in Canada...with the one exception I noted earlier regarding severe abnormalities for the fetus/child.

I realize that makes me some kind of troglodite from your perspective...and that's fine, I can handle it.

Frank Frink said...

Gordie, when I said it was irrelevant to the discussion I meant it, regardless of the contents of your post.

Hint: It's not about you or what you want. Not that I expect you to get that.

capice?

KEvron said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mike said...

Are you in favour of the "Freedom of Choice Act" supported by Barack Obama?

Again, no Gordie. No legislation of any kind that takes away a woman's right to control her own body. It doesn't matter who supports it. I would not support it if Obama favoured it, Bush favoured it, Ghandi favoured it or jack Layton favoured it.

Its wrong.

I would similarly fight any barbaric legislation that made it ok for the state for forcibly remove your organs to donate in order to save another person's life.

In either case no one other than the person who is the owner of that body has a right to decide what is done to it or with it. No one.

I like Obama's endorsement of FOCA. I think its a positive step, and one I would welcome in Canada...with the one exception I noted earlier regarding severe abnormalities for the fetus/child.

And I would fight it tooth and nail every step of the way because it is tantamount to legislative slavery for women. If it ever passed, I would actively ignore it and work and support any underground movements that conducted them anyway.

I will not let you or anyone else tell my daughter or my wife or my sister or my mother they cannot control their own bodies at any time. I will fight it by any means necessary. I will not let you enslave my daughter.

Do you get it yet? Do you understand? Those rights aren't yours to compromise on, they aren't yours to restrict.

We don't need an abortion law. Doctors and women have been doing fine without one for 21 years.

KEvron said...

"I think its a positive step"

see?

KEvron

jj said...

" I think its a positive step, and one I would welcome in Canada."

FOCA is a good first step for the US, but we don't need it. We don't have umpteen million anti-choice ballot initiatives and court challenges to fend off. We don't have any laws that can be challenged. :)

See, that's the thing about having laws governing personal rights -- it's a never ending cycle. You put a law in place, then you need more laws just to protect the first law, because people who don't like the law or the rights it imparts will always try to change it.

The necessity of FOCA actually makes the point that no law is the optimum situation.

KEvron said...

"FOCA is a good first step for the US"

and, just like chimpco's federal ban act, it can later be undone by better legislation.

in the states, lasting change tends to come in frictional incriments, and not without its occasional regressions.

KEvron

jj said...

KEvron - Well exactly, a first step, hopefully to be followed by blanket protection of abortion rights without the dumb "fetal viability" clause. I basically support FOCA, given the ongoing attacks on choice in the US, but that is a major failing. As Mike pointed out, it is still wrong because it still dictates term limits, which is unnecessary and intrusive. These decisions shouldn't be made by the state.

Pale said...

Late term abortions? Gordo would love to put women in these situations through more?

Go in mercy, with all my love.

Pissant.

KEvron said...

jj, know precisely where you stand on the matter. no explanation necessary.

you don't mind that i throw your quotes in twatrisk's lumpy face, do you? so far, i've kept it to the passive tense with him.

KEvron

jj said...

KEvron - Oh, I know you get it -- it's just handy to have a clarification on the record in case someone reading is tempted to pretzel my words into something I didn't mean.

"you don't mind that i throw your quotes in twatrisk's lumpy face, do you?

LOL, throw to your heart's content.

Kelseigh said...

As Gordo valiantly stakes out the middle ground between the right and far right, it would be nice if he stopped pretending that this here thread was about Obama's bill (which, as others have said here, is totally irrelevant to women's rights in Canada) rather than the fact that he won't shut the hell up about trying to restrict women's rights.

So how 'bout we get back to what we were discussing in the first place, hm? Exactly how many women would this law cover? How many women per year are just tossing off a term pregnancy like an old shoe? What percentage of late terms? Anything, Gordo, any sort of facts at all would be nice. Remember, in Canada we try to avoid passing laws just to keep you from feeling icky, we actually need some reason first, and you have yet to provide one.

As the Yanks say, all hat and no cattle.

Mike said...

Kelseigh,

Its merely an illogical appeal to authority. He brings up Obama's bill because he thinks that we as progressive's will suddenly change our stance just because Obama supports something.

Its a sign that he is not willing to really debate the issue: Obama supports term limits and since I'm a good progressive (really I am) I support it too - did I mention Obama?

Still not a word on numbers or a philisophic basis for his assertions. Just quote mining and "good enough for Obama (or a misquoted Morgantaler) good enough for me" - uncritical, unthinking, authoritarian.

fern hill said...

First, Gordie's post about Obama and FOCA is his FOURTH on this topic. He seems a tad obsessed. . .

Next, invoking Morgentaler's name to a pro-choice crowd is NOT the same as invoking Jeebus' to the forced-pregnancy gang.

Ditto on invoking Obama's name to a crowd of Canadian lefties. Obama is bound to be better than his predecessor. Beyond that, who knows?

Finally, FOCA would be a huge improvement in the USA. But, as others have said, we don't need no steenking law here in Canada.

jj said...

Mike - Absolutely correct, Gordie didn't look at all the evidence and reach a conclusion, he reached a conclusion and then tried to find evidence to back it up.

His question about FOCA - "Are you in favour of the "Freedom of Choice Act" supported by Barack Obama?" -- was obviously intended to be some kind of "gotcha". ("So you support LTA legislation in the US but not here?")

However, there's no hypocrisy in supporting FOCA in the US while supporting the situation in Canada. Obviously no law is the optimum. But knowing that the US isn't likely to evolve to that point anytime soon, FOCA at least has some protective value for abortion rights (and as KEvron pointed out, it can be tweaked/replaced later.) In other words, you work with the laws you have, not the laws (or lack thereof) you want ;)

Obama is wrong when he says LTA should be restricted, but he's a politician -- he knows that saying this will help get the contentious FOCA passed.

Gordie_Canuk said...

Alrightee, we have a fundamental difference of opinion...Many here think a woman's right over her body trumps the rights of a viable child living in her body, and I think the rights of the child supercede the rights of the mother once the fetus is viable...with the exceptions of maternal-fetal health noted.

No need for name calling...people are allowed to have differing opinions, at least they are in my world.

Mike said...

Gordie,

Glad to see you've come out and said it.

So then, do you think the right to life of a person on the organ donation list supersedes your right to keep your kidney? Because if you are a match and you refuse, that person will die?

Do you think it is a reasonable limit on your right to bodily integrity for the state, such as say China, to take your organs in order to save the lives of a child who may need them? I mean, there isn't any ambiguity there - we would both agree they are separate humans with rights. Except the right to life of one, does not supersede the right to security of the person and bodily control of the other.

Shall I expect you to support forcible organ harvesting now? And no that's not being facetious, I am serious. You have stated that the right to life of one being trumps the right to bodily integrity and control of another. If you apply that principle to a pregnant woman, it seems only fair to apply it in all similar circumstances where one person's life would be saved if you could ignore the right to bodily integrity and control of another.

How does it feel to be on the side of the Chinese Communists?

Mike said...

BTW, our differences are far more than merely a difference of "opinion".

jj said...

"I think the rights of the child supercede the rights of the mother once the fetus is viable."

Seriously? So in your view, a pregnant woman is basically a fetal support system. And you can't see the disastrous potential in codifying that belief in law? Especially when the definition of "viability" changes depending on who's talking about it?

The fetus has no rights other than those the mother chooses to give it. The mother owns her body, not the fetus. Fortunately, conflicts of interest between the mother and the healthy "viable" fetus are so rare as to be infinitesimal.

Gordie_Canuk said...

Have a new poll question for the month of Feb if you're interested. Betcha can't guess what the topic is?

http://gordiecanuk.blogspot.com