But the war's over.
Don't bet the mortgage on it. Legal changes are probably far off, partly because the Boomers and Gen X are nearly mystical about it, but mainly because most folks can't rationalize what they want between the extremes. However, if you look how the issue is being treated in popular films for the young like Juno, you will see the kids know very well that when all is said and done, abortion in most circumstances is a declaration of adult freedom and priority over children, something they are understandably conflicted and even contemptuous about. And while you and I were weaned on, and may still hold tenaciously to, horror tales of shame, poverty and botched back-room operations, they see them as no more representative of the modern abortion than we saw Reefer Madness as typical of casual pot use.
Also, modern science is working staeadily against the fictions that underlie unrestricted abortion.
"Also, modern science is working staeadily against the fictions that underlie unrestricted abortion."
I'm curious just what those "fictions" are....
Mike:
That natural birth is a defensible and more or less rational point at which to draw the dividing line between a biological life-in-formation without legal status and a human being entitled to the full protection of the law.
It's not that any other dividing line would satisfy the dogmatic on either side. I'm arguing that birth won't satisfy the muddled, confused middle, unless it is kept well off their radar screen.
"That natural birth is a defensible and more or less rational point at which to draw the dividing line between a biological life-in-formation without legal status and a human being entitled to the full protection of the law."
How can it be otherwise?
Look, apart from arguments about self-ownership, the reason there can never be rights of "personhood" granted to a fetus is the "pro-life" zealots themselves. If personhood were re-defined to start at, say, 8 months gestation, do you really think they'd stop there? These are the same people who, last month, were trying to tell the rest of the world that the birth control pill "kills babies".
That's why pro-choicers won't ever give an inch on this issue. Not because we don't recognize that there's little physical difference between a 38-week fetus and a newborn, but because once allowed to start legislating what goes on in the womb, the anti-choice contingent won't stop.
That, combined with a woman's right to self-ownership, is why recognition as a "person" with full protection under the law can only start at birth.
Indeed JJ, it always has - "the Quickening" is oddly enough a Judeo-Christian idea that the soul does not enter the person until it draws its first breath after birth. Its why doctors used to slap a babies ass to make it cry - force it to draw a breath and become a person.
Odd that we would be arguing for the traditional Judeao-Christian position, but there you are.
JJ
do you really think they'd stop there?
No, I don't think they would, because they have built themselves a nice little simplistic syllogism out of an opening premise about where life starts and are deducing from it with a rigorous, pure logic oblivious to the conflicts many people feel and live. But that is also why I don't think they will ever persuade the general public, which doesn't share that premise even if it doesn't really know why all the time. As a matter of fact, it never did, even in the old Victorian criminal code days. Otherwise abortion and infanticide wouldn't have been separate crimes much less severe than murder. Even William F Buckley Jr. called out his fellow Catholics on this back in the 70's, noting how cardinals who made speeches on how abortion was muder by day and schmoozed with pro-abortion politicians by night were less than persuasive. He argued that they couldn't really believe it was murder. It's sui generis. I don't doubt for a moment the overwhelming majority of Canadians thinks early abortion is a private affair (in both senses). So I don't agree there is a slippery slope.
All I'm saying is that the position you are defending is equally absolute and dogmatic and open to the same kind of visceral reaction against some of the consequences that flow from it, especially when it is trumpeted publically as being liberating or self-affirming or whatever. Sorry, but abortion will never be seen by most as a happy occasion or a 100% private, ethically neutral lifestyle choice free from moral quandries. If there was a poll taken that asked: "Do you believe abortion should be: A) always prohibited; B) never prohibited; or C) neither of the above?", what do you think the results would be?
Mike:
I don't think you are right there. Quickening refers to the time the fetus can be felt to move and was the traditional time inheritance and property rights kicked in. Here is Blackstone:
"Life ... begins in contemplation of law as soon as an infant is able to stir in the mother's womb. For if a woman is quick with child, and by a potion, or otherwise, killeth it in her womb; or if any one beat her, whereby the child dieth in her body, and she is delivered of a dead child; this, though not murder, was by the ancient law homicide or manslaughter. But at present it is not looked upon in quite so atrocious a light, though it remains a very heinous misdemeanor.
"the position you are defending is equally absolute and dogmatic"
One big difference: my position doesn't seek to impose anything on another person. There is no pro-choice equivalent to the opposite position, which would force women to carry unwanted pregnancies. Pro-choicers don't advocate forcing women to have abortions... it's just a choice that should be available to them if they want it.
I am not sure why you'd read from my comment that I think abortion is a "happy occasion" -- it's neither a reason to celebrate nor a reason for shame. It's a private decision. People who don't agree with it are welcome not to choose that option.
That's why pro-choicers won't ever give an inch on this issue. Not because we don't recognize that there's little physical difference between a 38-week fetus and a newborn, but because once allowed to start legislating what goes on in the womb, the anti-choice contingent won't stop.
That's because the anti-choice contingent are less interested in preventing abortion than they are in punishing women.
It's about controlling women. It's *always* been about controlling women.
I love how the anti-choice crowd has attempted to turn Juno into the ultimate anti-abortion teen movie. What they fail to understand is that it is, and always will be, a movie about a teenage girl who reviews her options and chooses to go through with her pregnancy.
You know, as opposed to being forced to because that's the only choice available to her ... a state of affairs the anti-choice crowd would love to see happen.
Peter,
I stand corrected from Blackstone, and just to be nice, I'll refrain from quoting Exodus 19, since I think religion is silly superstitions.
Of course, the facts and statistic that 95% of all abortions in Canada occur before 20 weeks - about the time of the "quickening" - and that any abortion that occurs after are either to save the life of the mother or to abort a fetus that is so deformed it is not likely to survive until birth anyway. No abortion in Canada are done after "the quickening" for "birth control" or "convenience".
In short, the status quo already meets Blackstone's idea. It occurred without the need for laws and while affording women control over their bodies. In short, 20 years of evidence that we do not need an abortion law to be moral. In practice your theoretical poll is already answered through the actions of Canadian women.
And JJ is right, it is absolutely a slippery slope. As soon as a law is passed making it 24 weeks, fetus fetishists with campaign for 20. When its 20, they'll go for 12. When its 12 they'll go for 6 or 4. It will be easy to get to 0 then.
Go read dear SUZANNE's posts on premarital sex, contraception and sex ed. She make no bones about this being not just anti-abortion, but anti-sex. She has no qualms about forcing a woman to have an unwanted pregnancy as punishment for having sex in the first place. She yearns for a time when this will be common because birth control is outlawed.
Its all about control and forcing women back under subjugation. The pill and abortion rights gave women the freedom to control their bodies and given what I stated above, seen to do it rather well and quite morally.
We don;t need another law. We need people to mind their own business instead of everyone elses.
Mike - "And JJ is right, it is absolutely a slippery slope."
Thanks for picking up on that remark, I missed it.
Peter - There's no question it's a slippery slope. Read lifesite and the campaign life coalition website. Most importantly, read their blogs, because that's where you find out what they're really thinking.
They talk about achieving their goals through "incrementalism" -- their "incrementalism" is my "slippery slope". It starts with an "unborn victims of crime" law like the rancid Bill C-484. That opens the door to fetal "personhood" rights, one of which would presumably be the right to not be aborted. Etc.
The war may be over, but my vigilance is not.
I don't think there was much of a war to begin with.
Plently of people disagree with the OoC being given to Henry Morgentaler. And really, why not? They have their reasons to be upset: some I empathize with, some I don't.
But at the end of the day, the OoC is really just a trinket. It's not quite the Nobel prize, for god's sake.
If a bunch of people want to return their Order of Canada (although I think there's a certain something unsavoury about returning someone else's, especially when that person is deceased), let them do it.
What does it really matter?
But by the same token, all these varying pro-abortion extremists who want to tout Morgentaler's OoC as some kind of official endorsement of their extreme agenda can likewise put a sock in it.
Patrick - "all these varying pro-abortion extremists"
You were doing fairly well up until that point.
I don't know anyone who is "pro-abortion".
What a profoundly stupid thing to say .
"You were doing fairly well up until that point."
I'm sure you think so.
Considering that you seem to be among the leading freaks trying to read widespread public and official approval for your aforementioned extreme agenda into the Morgentaler OoC, I kind of saw that coming.
You realize what a largely meaningless bauble it is you're harping over, right?
" I don't know anyone who is "pro-abortion".
What a profoundly stupid thing to say."
Really? It also happens to be profoundly accurate. Take it up with Penn Gillette if you don't like it.
"Leading freak"... hmmm I like it.
Shoot, I went and posted this on the wrong thread. Anyone know what's going on with Haloscan, by the way?
***********************
Penn Gillette? The guy that endorsed Ron Paul? That's scraping. That's really scraping.
No one's "pro-abortion," any more than people who favour access to divorce are "pro-divorce." Choice is the issue here, and if every woman freely chose to carry a pregnancy to term, no pro-choicer would be anything but pleased.
"Leading freak"... hmmm I like it.
Sorry JJ ... while "Leading Freak" is definitely fun, it's no Perenially Crazed High Priestess of Sycophantic Groupthink. I also have preening stooges. You're jealous, aren't you?
You should be 
LuLu - I am jealous, but really, at my age that's just way too many words. "Leading Freak" is just about right for me, not too demanding.
I'm scaling everything down these days. It's like the difference between a full-scale 60-hour a week career and working part time at the corner store. While standing at a till doesn't have the gravitas of my old window office at Benton Barton & Barfbag, it's correspondingly less demanding. Just right.
Benton Barton & Barfbag
Why I do believe I've dealt with those not-so-fine gentlemen
"Penn Gillette? The guy that endorsed Ron Paul? That's scraping. That's really scraping."
Really, Doc? Because I'm under the impression that the vast majority of Progressives love Bullshit.
I'm going to level with you, doc, if you're going to promote yourself as pro-choice, then you really have to promote that choice for everyone.
So if that's supposed to be the case, why do so many "pro-choice"rs oppose legislation that would allow doctors to refuse to perform procedures they feel ethically opposed to?
Naturally, knowing that such legislation has no effect whatsoever on abortion, I know the arguments to expect: that it would limit women's access to birth control and such.
Yet nothing in such legislation could prevent women seeking birth control from seeing other doctors -- which they should.
(Frankly, any anti-abortion activists who oppose birth control are, in my view, retarded -- how the hell else do you think you'll bring abortion numbers down?)
Anyway, back to the point: if "choice" is really what you support, then I suppose you'll be supporting that particular piece of legislation from here on out?
Nice slippery slope argument, Patsy. Now tell me where exactly you draw the line.
Since you support allowing doctors the right "to refuse to perform procedures they feel ethically opposed to", do you also support the right of female Muslim doctors to refuse to scrub up before surgery? After all, they're ethically and morally opposed to revealing their skin in public.
Or how about the right of Catholic doctors to refuse to dispense birth control? That goes against everything the Catholic Church teaches and stands for. Or how about the right of Hassidic doctors to refuse to treat women because their religion states that they can't be alone with a woman who isn't family?
Didn't quite think that one through, now did you? Surprise, surprise ...
Again, there is no one sane who is saying "everyone should have an abortion, abortions are fun and great and wonderful... yay!"...
What everyone sane is saying is this: It's none of your fucking business, it's the woman's womb, not societies, not some old guy in Rome's etc etc, and it would be awfully nice if we'd just let the people who's body it is have complete and total sovereignty over controlling said body.
"pro-abortion"... god you're such a lying asshat.
"Since you support allowing doctors the right "to refuse to perform procedures they feel ethically opposed to", do you also support the right of female Muslim doctors to refuse to scrub up before surgery? After all, they're ethically and morally opposed to revealing their skin in public."
Big difference. We're talking about the right of a doctor to refuse to perform medical procedures, not the right to refuse basic sanitation.
"Or how about the right of Catholic doctors to refuse to dispense birth control? That goes against everything the Catholic Church teaches and stands for. Or how about the right of Hassidic doctors to refuse to treat women because their religion states that they can't be alone with a woman who isn't family?"
I saw this coming. It's actually rather simple:
If a woman wants birth control and a doctor won't prescribe it to her on religious grounds, she can go see another doctor. She has that choice.
If a Hassidic doctor won't treat a woman who isn't family, then she can seek treated from a different doctor. She has that choice.
And let's not forget about the hippocratic oath. In an emergency situation in which such a doctor would do harm by refusing to treat that woman, his oath would prevent him from refusing. Not that this matters much, because odds are he would have nurses, bystanders, or other doctors on hand and thus would not be alone with her.
So, then, Lulu (and I'll be honest with you -- not only do I not expect an honest answer from you, but rather I expect the most dishonest answer you can manage), the question is this:
Is this really about choice? Or is this about an extreme agenda in which the pro-abortion lobby believes it's entitled to dictate the public agenda?
See, I can tell you all about being in favour of choice. I expect a woman's right to choose (within reasonable societally-mandated constraints), and I also support a doctor's right to choose.
I'm not picking and choosing whose right to choose I support and whose I don't. If this were really about "choice" to you then you wouldn't either.
" Again, there is no one sane who is saying "everyone should have an abortion, abortions are fun and great and wonderful... yay!"... "
I've heard this before. It's a facetious argument.
This isn't that difficult to understand: you're in favour of legal abortion. Thus you're pro-abortion. Oddly enough, I'm in favour of legal abortion myself.
Oddly enough, I'm in this sense pro-abortion myself, though I reject the idea that any constraint placed upon the ability to seek an abortion on demand at any stage of pregnancy is an infringement upon "women's rights". As a matter of fact, I regard the "right" of a woman to seek an abortion on demand at any point after 20 weeks as an infringement on the rights of the unborn.
"What everyone sane is saying is this: It's none of your fucking b
"What everyone sane is saying is this: It's none of your fucking business, it's the woman's womb, not societies, not some old guy in Rome's etc etc, and it would be awfully nice if we'd just let the people who's body it is have complete and total sovereignty over controlling said body."
No, there's no sanity in that. The conditions under which human life can be lawfully terminated says a lot about the society in question.
As a citizen of this country, I have a right to my say in that particular matter.
Not to mention the fact that abortion isn't a matter of simply one human body. It's a matter of two. Ideology aside, this is a scientifically indisputable fact.
At some point, at some stage of a pregnancy, I believe that society has to step in and say "OK, you've had your chance to abort this pregnancy up until this point. Now it's come this far, and you're going to need some sort of medical reason in order to do this."
""pro-abortion"... god you're such a lying asshat."
No, I'm just speaking some truths that you're uncomfortable with. It's as simple as that.
Not to mention the fact that abortion isn't a matter of simply one human body. It's a matter of two. Ideology aside, this is a scientifically indisputable fact.
And science has indisputably stated that life begins ... when? Conception? 12 weeks gestation? 20? Birth? Strange - I must've missed that memo, Patsy.
As to all of your arguments in favour of doctors refusing to do their jobs on moral grounds, perhaps they shouldn't be doctors. Morality should never play a part in a doctor's decision on how to treat a patient - ethics yes but not morality. Contrary to the entire foundation of your argument, allowing doctors to refuse treatment based on their sense of morality is hardly acceptable, don't you agree?
"And science has indisputably stated that life begins ... when? Conception? 12 weeks gestation? 20? Birth? Strange - I must've missed that memo, Patsy.
And, evidently, the point.
When life begins is a contentious issue. I don't pretend to have that answer when the vast majority of scientists won't, either.
But I'm not talking about when life begins. I'm talking about the existence of two separate -- albeit inter-connected -- bodies, something that ultrasound photography shows becoming more and more pronounced as the pregnancy advances.
Which poses obvious logical challenges to the "my body, my choice" ideology. As that pregnancy continues toward term, it inreasingly becomes a choice made for two.
But nice attempt to try and distort the argument. Remember what I said about expecting the most dishonest response you could manage?
"As to all of your arguments in favour of doctors refusing to do their jobs on moral grounds, perhaps they shouldn't be doctors. Morality should never play a part in a doctor's decision on how to treat a patient - ethics yes but not morality. Contrary to the entire foundation of your argument, allowing doctors to refuse treatment based on their sense of morality is hardly acceptable, don't you agree?"
I could agree with that -- to a point.
First off, there are strong moral elements to ethics. To pretend otherwise is incredibly naive.
To pretend that doctors could swear off their moral beliefs upon becoming doctors is triply so.
I would also draw a distinction between allowing doctors to allow their personal morals -- relgious or otherwise -- to determine how to treat a patient and decide whether to treat a patient.
If a doctor treats a patient, we expect that he will do so properly. That isn't up for debate. To suggest that a doctor could be excused from something like malpractice, for example, on moral grounds is ludicrous.
But the simple fact of the matter is this: we have the opportunity to choose our doctors. We can choose our doctors based on any number of criteria, religious, moral, ethical or otherwise.
It seems fair that doctors should have their right to do the same protected. After all, if a doctor refuses to prescribe birth control on religious grounds, a woman has the option of seeing another doctor.
Choice. Now, why would you argue that you should have the right to choose and others not have that right?
Is this about choice? Or is this about your notion of entitlement to ideological dominance?
I'm curious, Patrick - in the midst of your unending moralizing about choice, could you direct me to a factual link of any doctor being forced to perform an abortion against his or her morals and/or ethics? Thanks bunches.
Heh. I'm not terribly shocked that you would bring that up. So much so that I mentioned earlier that "this doesn't affect abortion".
How does this not affect abortion, you ask?
Very simple: the doctors who would refuse to perform abortions under this legislation aren't performing them anyway.
So that, in particular, is precisely what I expected from you, Lulu: an attempt to evade the real meat and potatoes of this conversation.
Notably that: 1) Given that this legislation would have no affect on abortion availability, 2) given that this legislation could not prevent a woman from seeking a birth control prescription from a doctor predisposed towards granting one, 3) given that this legislation is little more than simply a confirmation of the very oncept you claim to be in favour of here -- notably, choice -- how can it be that you oppose it so fervently?
It this about choice, Lulu, or not?
Enough evasions. It's time to answer the question.
Be honest now.
Patsy, invoking Penn Gillette is totally irrelevant. He's an American and has nothing to do with any issue in Canada.
Now, start naming some so-called Canadian 'pro-abortionists' who would actually be, you know, relevant, to a Canadian debate. Not that there is any 'debate' anyway. Except the one you keep imaging the voices in head tell you.
Think you can do that, Pasty? Name at least one Canadian 'pro-abortionist'?
And before you start, Patsy, yes I know... to quote Mr. Ross, "Frank, thy name is hypocrisy". So there, I've saved you the trouble. Since we have that out of the way, answer the question.
" Patsy, invoking Penn Gillette is totally irrelevant. He's an American and has nothing to do with any issue in Canada."
Frank, sometimes I think you've gotten about as stupid as the human condition will allow.
Then you outdo yourself. Wow.
"Now, start naming some so-called Canadian 'pro-abortionists' who would actually be, you know, relevant, to a Canadian debate. Not that there is any 'debate' anyway. Except the one you keep imaging the voices in head tell you."
Really, Frank? You don't consider yourself relevant (to be honest with you, I don't either). You don't consider JJ relevant (me either)? Lulu (...uh... let's not even go there...)?
How about Heather Mallick? You guys seem to positively love her. Or Joyce Arthur?
Yes, I can name numerous pro-abortion activists, Frank. Did you really think I couldn't?
You're hilarious, albeit likely unintentional.
1) Given that this legislation would have no affect on abortion availability
Once again, nice try. Since you're all about the hypotheticals, what happens when the only available doctor in a rural or remote area is one who is morally opposed to abortion or birth control? How does that not affect the availability of abortion?
Oh wait, don't tell me ... let me guess. In your world, she can just head down the road to another doctor, right?
I see, Patsy. And just what is your proof? Do you have pictures of us celebarting another abortion?
None of those Canadians - me, LuLu, JJ, Mallick or Arthur are 'pro-abortion'. None of us are celebrating any woman's abortion. None of us are hoping, wishing and praying for more abortions. What we are in favour of is a woman's individual choice to deal with matters that concern her own body.
It's no more my business to tell you what to do with your rather sweaty and corpulent body than it is for you to try and tell a woman, any woman, what to do with hers.
What's the problem here, Patsy? It's about control, something you apparently wish to have over women. You wish.
Now, try again
"Once again, nice try. Since you're all about the hypotheticals, what happens when the only available doctor in a rural or remote area is one who is morally opposed to abortion or birth control? How does that not affect the availability of abortion?"
So then you would suggest that these doctors should be forced to perform abortions. Interesting.
Not quite about "choice" anymore, is it?
"I see, Patsy. And just what is your proof? Do you have pictures of us celebarting another abortion?
None of those Canadians - me, LuLu, JJ, Mallick or Arthur are 'pro-abortion'. None of us are celebrating any woman's abortion. None of us are hoping, wishing and praying for more abortions. What we are in favour of is a woman's individual choice to deal with matters that concern her own body."
It's a cute argument, Frank, but as usual, you just don't stand up to scrutiny.
We've pretty well determined at this point that the issue isn't about choice for you people. Lulu just pretty much suggested that doctors in remote areas should be forced to perform abortions if no other doctors are available (not to mention if the proper facilities are actually available or not).
The simple fact of the matter is that you don't have to celebrate individual abortions to be in favour of it. You don't even have to support individual abortions to be in favour abortion.
Like I said before, I support legal abortion, but if asked would actually advise women in favour of other options (the ultimate choice, of course, remaining hers).
This, of course, is largely immaterial. The fact of the matter is simply thus: if you can't prove that you're really in favour of choice, then the pro-choice label is really just an obfuscation.
We have an issue of choice before us right now: in this case, the doctor's right to choose. And you oppose it. You aren't in favour of choice. The only thing we can determine here is that you're in favour of abortion.
Which would make us similar in one regard. However, we remain very different in that I can separate my support for a woman's right to choose from ideological rhetoric, and you evidently can't.
Hmmm.. oncer again, Patsy can only deal with the simple stuff so long as he can make it as convoluted and complicated as unecessary. A medical professional's personal moral convictions have no bearing on his employment. No more than they do for any secular form employment. A doctor who refuses to perform medically necessary procedures on religious-morsal grounds has no business being a doctor.
Since you're about the 'hypotheticals', here's a couple more.
Using your 'Hassidic doctor' hypothetical. Would a 'Hassidic LEO' who refused to arrest a woman who wasn't of his family be a LEO for very long?
Re: LuLu's example of the rural doctor. If this hypothetical woman does not have an abortion performed it is 99% certain both she and the fetus will perish. Doctor refuses on moral-religious objections, and both the mother and fetus perish. This is what you suppprt, because to you it isn't about the medical treatment necessary, or about the woman or the fetus, it's only about the medical practicioner.
Now, try again.
Patsy said: Like I said before, I support legal abortion, but if asked would actually advise women in favour of other options (the ultimate choice, of course, remaining hers).
The only difference between us, if this is what you actually believe, is that I would not be advising the woman one way or the other. It's none of my business to 'advise' her. I would fully make information about all the options available and let her make her choice. My, or your, 'advice' is immaterial and irrelevant. I don't believe JJ or LuLu or Mallick or Arthur woull say any different.
And this somehow, in your magical land of disembodied, deluded voices whispering in your head, makes us 'pro-abortion'?
Egads, Patrick. You're either dense, wilfully stupid or deluded. Take your pick.
PR - You're analogizing a woman's right to choose with a doctor's right to choose? Please.
A woman isn't getting paid to be a brood mare, but a doctor is getting paid to be a doctor. He makes his "choice" when he decides on his specialization. If he's anti-abortion, he should probably choose obstetrics rather than OB-GYN.
It's ridiculous to suggest that anyone's being forced to perform procedures they don't agree with. The issue in this situation is referrals.
"Hmmm.. oncer again, Patsy can only deal with the simple stuff so long as he can make it as convoluted and complicated as unecessary."
And only Frank Frink would try so desperately to skate around all the little details that undermine his entire argument.
"A medical professional's personal moral convictions have no bearing on his employment. No more than they do for any secular form employment. A doctor who refuses to perform medically necessary procedures on religious-morsal grounds has no business being a doctor."
You may think so.
But anyone who can qualify for the training and pass the training in this country can be a doctor. Their moral or religious beliefs have nothing to do with it.
Unless you're going to try and suggest that med schools start discriminating against people based on religion.
We're learning all kinds of interesting things about you, Frank.
"Re: LuLu's example of the rural doctor. If this hypothetical woman does not have an abortion performed it is 99% certain both she and the fetus will perish. Doctor refuses on moral-religious objections, and both the mother and fetus perish. This is what you suppprt, because to you it isn't about the medical treatment necessary, or about the woman or the fetus, it's only about the medical practicioner."
Do you not realize precisely where you're advancing a ridiculous argument here?
We're apparently talking here about there is only one doctor in a specific geographic area. If there's only one doctor, evidently there's no hospital.
Doctors in such remote areas aren't performing major surgeries, elective or otherwise. Patients would have to be flown to a town or city with a hospital for something like that.
Once again, you have no argument here, Frank. And once again, you're proving for all to see that this issue isn't about "choice" for you.
"The only difference between us, if this is what you actually believe, is that I would not be advising the woman one way or the other. It's none of my business to 'advise' her. I would fully make information about all the options available and let her make her choice. My, or your, 'advice' is immaterial and irrelevant. I don't believe JJ or LuLu or Mallick or Arthur woull say any different."
So, in other words, you would "advise" her, but aren't honest enough to admit it.
"And this somehow, in your magical land of disembodied, deluded voices whispering in your head, makes us 'pro-abortion'?"
It's either about abortion, or it's about choice.
You've already proven at this point that it isn't about choice. You also need to understand that I don't need you to admit it, so your denial is absolutely immaterial.
Unless you'd like to start being honest:
Which is it, Frank? Abortion or choice? Time for you and Lulu to start being honest here.
"You're analogizing a woman's right to choose with a doctor'
"You're analogizing a woman's right to choose with a doctor's right to choose? Please."
If you were really in favour of choice, JJ, you'd recognize that one person's right to choose has to be as good as the next person's.
"A woman isn't getting paid to be a brood mare, but a doctor is getting paid to be a doctor. He makes his "choice" when he decides on his specialization. If he's anti-abortion, he should probably choose obstetrics rather than OB-GYN."
I wouldn't say so. Abortion isn't the only procedure carried out under OB-GYN.
Furthermore, doctors get paid according to the procedures they perform, not by the hour. As such, a doctor who chooses not to perform an abortion isn't getting paid for it.
I trust I don't need to explain this any further.
"It's ridiculous to suggest that anyone's being forced to perform procedures they don't agree with. The issue in this situation is referrals."
Once again, if a woman can't get the referral she wants from one particular doctor, she can choose to see another doctor.
Is there something about this you aren't getting?
See, kids? This is why Canadian Cynic is too chicken shit to take me on. Because he knows I'll whup his sorry ass just like I'm whupping yours, and I think he realizes that the obtuse retardedness of individuals like lil' Frankie is cold comfort at best.
Thanks for the laughs, Patsy.
Whipping my ass, or anyone else's ass? Nah,don't think so.
Making yourself sound and look more ridiculous with each comment? Absolutely.
Patrick-
Abortion is not the only procedure performed by OB-GYNs but it is one of them. If someone doesn't want to do the procedure, but still wants to work with women in a reproductive capacity, he can CHOOSE to be an obstetrician. Same ballpark, slightly different game, doctor's choice.
As I said, the issue is referrals.
"Abortion is not the only procedure performed by OB-GYNs but it is one of them. If someone doesn't want to do the procedure, but still wants to work with women in a reproductive capacity, he can CHOOSE to be an obstetrician. Same ballpark, slightly different game, doctor's choice."
I concur. And while Lulu is apparently operating under the delusion that all doctors practicing in remote regions practice OB-GYN (yet another strike against this "distant regions" hypothetical), those doctors who feel morally or ethically opposed to performing abortions simply aren't doing so, because they're engaged in other areas of medicine.
But here's an interesting case -- one that Frank will obtusely insist is irrelevant because it's cited from Califoria -- in which a Catholic hospital was forced to implant breast implants into a man who had had a sex change. The man sued the hospital, effectively forcing them to start offering the procedure.
When such a hospital -- and a Catholic hospital should be far from the first place where a person goes for post sex-change cosmetic surgery, and for what I think are rather obvious reasons -- could be forced to offer procedures to which it is obviously morally opposed, that interferes with the freedom of choice of those doctors.
Once again, either you support the right to choose, or you don't.
Now, in California they do have legislation that protects doctors who refuse to perform abortions for religious or moral reasons. But even then, as you can see, the protection can be ineffective in other cases.
Which is why the legislative protection is necessary in the first place.
Certainly, we don't have to like whether or not a doctor will refuse to grant an abortion referral, or refuse to give a transgendered man breast implants. We don't have to like that.
But when we want our right to choose -- whether it's a woman wanting her right to choose an abortion or a man wanting his right to choose to marry another man -- we expect it to be protected.
So like I said, JJ, we either support the right to choose, or we don't.
"As I said, the issue is referrals."
Which are available from numerous doctors. If a woman suspects that some sort of religious dogma may be preventing her doctor from treating her properly, she should seek a second opinion.
She has that choice.
This is why Canadian Cynic is too chicken shit to take me on.
Poor, poor Patsy ... constantly seeking CC's approval. I had no idea you placed such stock in CC's opinion that you'd reference him in an argument that you're having with JJ, Frank and me.
That's just sad. Seriously.
Ha. If you think so.
I'll put it to you this way, you fucking lunatic: the day Canadian Cynic approves of me, I'll quit blogging and go put a bullet in my temple.
I don't think I could live with that.
the day Canadian Cynic approves of me, I'll quit blogging and go put a bullet in my temple.
You're such a tease, Twatsy, but na-uhn. Not taking you up on that because you'll only move the goalposts. Or lie. Or make some other shit up.
But we do have you on record now as saying...the day Canadian Cynic approves of me, I'll quit blogging and go put a bullet in my temple.
What a nudnik!
Tsk, tsk, Patrick ... there's no need for such unfortunate language on your part. After all, you're the one who brought CC into the conversation.
How terribly Freudian of you.
"Once again, if a woman can't get the referral she wants from one particular doctor, she can choose to see another doctor."
Tried to get a doctor lately Patsy? Evidently not. Easy to say, nearly impossible to do.
When a doctor decides to become a doctor, they take an oath to do no harm and treat their patients. If they have moral qualms against abortion, or blood transfusions, or hair implants, they ought to become a doctor in an area that ensures they will not perform these procedures. That is their choice. By going into OB-GYN, the doctor is making an explicit choice to do all of the procedures that fall under that rubric.
Of course, this is nothing more than Patsy moving the goal posts, as usual. Just like late term abortions the DON'T HAPPEN, Patsy is wringing his hands and demanding legislation for doctor's choice for SOMETHING THAT NEVER HAPPENS.
Am I wrong? Provide a case where a doctor was forced to do an abortion against their will.
The current Private Member's bill about doctor's choice is a trojan horse trying to smuggle fetal rights into the criminal code. The same bill has been introduced a number of times by Maurice Vellacott in the past. He doesn't give a damn about protecting a doctor's right to refuse treatment - a right they already have.
I have no problem with doctors having a choice and indeed they do. I also expect doctors to live up to their contractual and ethical obligations to treat their patients in the way the patient want to be treated. They have the choice to provide or refer a patient for a safe abortion or they can treat them for self-induced poison or toxic chock form a dirty coat hanger. That is their choice as a doctor.
Otherwise they can choose to be a vet.
Mike:
I agree with you. I had a serious problem with Islamic female med students who didn't want to scrub because it would reveal their arms, for example.
If you don't want to provide the full range of medical services, choose another profession. Ditto for pharmacists, and civil-marriage officials. Otherwise you open the floodgates for all sorts of moral objections to anything under the sun from individuals who are supposedly serving the public. The latter have a right to expect that such people will provide the services expected of them.
"Tried to get a doctor lately Patsy? Evidently not. Easy to say, nearly impossible to do."
Hardly.
"When a doctor decides to become a doctor, they take an oath to do no harm and treat their patients."
Precisely. And if they personally feel that performing and abortion or granting an abortion referral would do harm, they're oath-bound to refuse to do that.
And there are plenty of doctors who don't feel the same way, and a woman can go see one of them. She has that choice.
"If they have moral qualms against abortion, or blood transfusions, or hair implants, they ought to become a doctor in an area that ensures they will not perform these procedures. That is their choice. By going into OB-GYN, the doctor is making an explicit choice to do all of the procedures that fall under that rubric."
Hardly, as a matter of fact abortion is essentially a specialty field within OB-GYN. Not all med students who study OB-GYN study how to perform an abortion.
One would expect that they would know how it's done by the time their training is over, But that isn't the same as having specialized training in how to perform one.
"Of course, this is nothing more than Patsy moving the goal posts, as usual."
ROTFL. If you say so, Mike.
Threaten anyone with a gun today?
"Just like late term abortions the DON'T HAPPEN, Patsy is wringing his hands and demanding legislation for doctor's choice for SOMETHING THAT NEVER HAPPENS.
Am I wrong?"
In a word? Yes.
For example, let's take your assertion that late term abortions "never happen" and take a look at what's been going on in Britain, where late-term abortions have skyrocketed, the vast majority for "lifestyle" reasons.
And Britain has more restrictive laws governing abortion than Canada -- a woman cannot seek an abortion on demand after 24 weeks (that's six months for anyone paying attention, or isn't terminally retarded like Mike).
"Provide a case where a doctor was forced to do an abortion against their will."
You haven't been paying attention, Mike. I've acknowledged that this, in particular, isn't happening from the get-go -- although we did catch Lulu red-handed insisting that doctors without proper training or without proper facilities should be forced to perform them.
That was fun. And a good reason why we need a law protecting a doctor's right to choose.
"The current Private Member's bill about doctor's choice is a trojan horse trying to smuggle fetal rights into the criminal code. The same bill has been introduced a number of times by Maurice Vellacott in the past. He doesn't give a damn about protecting a doctor's right to refuse treatment - a right they already have."
And yet in jurisdictions where legislative protection already exists, hospital
And yet in jurisdictions where legislative protection already exists, hospitals can be sued to perform services they would otherwise be religiously or morally opposed to.
It would seem freedom of choice isn't protected as stringently as you'd theorize.
"I have no problem with doctors having a choice and indeed they do."
Then why oppose legislation that would protect that choice? Protecting a doctor's right to choose does nothing to change whether or not the unborn have rights. Unless you somehow want to suggest that we have vast cases of unborn doctors who apparently don't need their right to choose protected.
"I also expect doctors to live up to their contractual and ethical obligations to treat their patients in the way the patient want to be treated. They have the choice to provide or refer a patient for a safe abortion or they can treat them for self-induced poison or toxic chock form a dirty coat hanger. That is their choice as a doctor."
Pff. Please.
Or the woman can go see another doctor. Once again, she has that choice.
"Otherwise they can choose to be a vet."
Once again, not terribly likely to happen, and you're astoundingly naive if you honestly believe that every doctor who doesn't agree with your ideological world view will simply choose a different profession -- or even should.
I've acknowledged that this, in particular, isn't happening from the get-go -- although we did catch Lulu red-handed insisting that doctors without proper training or without proper facilities should be forced to perform them.
Patrick, you corpulent, goalpost-shifting, baldfaced liar - wherever did I say that? And no, inside your mullet-sporting head does not count.
It's implicit in your "distant locales" thesis. Right about the time you asked "well, what about if the only doctor in a distant region is opposed to abortion or birth control?"
I even asked you if that's what you meant. You didn't respond, so I'm going to go ahead and run with it.
Uh, Patrick? No, it's not even remotely implicit.
Then perhaps you'd care to explain for her, because she apparently can't manage it on her own.
You didn't respond, so I'm going to go ahead and run with it.
That's some astonishingly pathetic reaching, Patrick ... even for you.
So by your rather fluid standards of debate, if I ask you when you stopped beating your wife and you don't respond then I can just "run with" the concept that you beat your wife. Cool.
Pardon me, kids, I've got some comment threads with unanswered questions to peruse.
Unmarried, Lulu.
So you can just go ahead and start saying such things, but I'd advise you get a good lawyer.
So you can just go ahead and start saying such things, but I'd advise you get a good lawyer.
Patsy, you've just jumped the shark. If anyone held any doubt that you are anything but a complete and utter dumbass that comment just dispelled it.
To which I'll simply add after the fashion of Marx. Groucho Marx, that is... so, unmarried then. Ok, so if I ask when did you stop beating your 'partner' and you don't reply, then I can just run with that? Or is 'partner' another donut hole in your squalid little existence?
And no, I'm not going to 'lawyer up'. Dumbass.
If you're unmarried, you've just kicked the struts out from your case.
If the only doctor in one's area is anti-choice, a woman living there is being denied access to abortion. Even a GP can perform abortion. And if perchance the aspiration equipment isn't available, he or she can make a referral.
All that seems ridiculously obvious, at least to me. How you extrapolate from that to forcing untrained people to perform abortion is beyond me.
Let me put it to you people this way:
I've learned from some recent experience that you people just can't keep yourself on the legal side of that legitimate discourse/libel divide.
So I'm going to tell you right now: keep pushing that. I absolutely will use any and all legal means to make sure that kind of nonsense comes to a stop.
Don't believe me? Keep pushing.
As for you, doc, this whole thing is really rather simple: if a man is unmarried, he doesn't have a wife to beat. This isn't precisely rocket surgery we're talking about here.
And, no, a GP cannot necessarily perform an abortion, because they don't necessarily have the proper training.
Even in the case of referral, I recall hearing a pro-abortion activist (whose name actually doesn't come immediately to mind) insisting that "oh, no, a referral isn't necessary, you can look it up in the phone book".
So which is it? Is a referral necessary or is it not necessary? Which is it?
And I'd be real careful about that "anti-choice" label if I were you, doc. It seems that the vast majority of commenters on this thread are anti-choice. Pro-abortion, but anti-choice.
Sue me, Patrick. You managed to demolish your own non-case. You can't be defamed by being accused of beating your wife if you don't have a wife. Good grief, what a ding-dong.
A GP can get the training readily enough. But we were talking remote areas. If the doctor doesn't have the required training, a referral is probably necessary.
In any case, none of this comes close to your ludicrous claim that one of the pro-choice folks here (and almost everyone here is pro-choice, despite your claim, not pro-abortion, whatever the latter term means) supports abortion being done by someone untrained to do it.
I can't figure out if you're serious, and hence beyond help, or simply trolling. Perhaps you can assist us here.
Patrick Ross = "So I'm going to tell you right now: keep pushing that. I absolutely will use any and all legal means to make sure that kind of nonsense comes to a stop.
Don't believe me? Keep pushing."
- - -
You are obviously very distant from an understanding of libel and slander lawsuits. So am I. But obviously, lulu's reply was meant to use such a statement in order to illuminate the egregiousnous of your assumption of agreement and then 'running with it' if someone doesn't respond in the negative to your original query. It was not an assertation of your character, it was only meant to illuminate the stupidity of your original assumption. That you construe her conjecture as libellious or slanderous further illustrates your misunderstanding of the principle involved.
It is obvious to a 5 year old that not saying 'no' does not therefore mean 'yes'. It is even more obtuse to expect someone to respond immediately on the internet because they might not even be aware or your original question. They may be busy elsewhere, etc.
Furthermore, just because you ask someone something does not automatically entail you to a responce. Do you think you are worthy of such respect and/or defference in other's eyes? Talk about haughty and childish narcisism.
Nevertheless, the argument that if you don't respond to an untrue statement/question about yourself means that you can 'run with it with the assumption of agreement' is what could set YOU up for slander if you want to insist on couching things in that light because it is YOU that is stunned enough to do such a thing as misconstrue an obvious situation, or act like you do.
If it is an act, that act then illuminates your malicious and childish nature to purposely misunterstand the other persons position in order to further your agenda.
Me, I just think you are childish and stupid - obviously so.
Normally, Dawg, you're alright.
But today I think you dropped a chromosome or something.
The "such-and-such beats their wife" comment is, by its vert nature, defamatory. The fact that they are unmarried is proof that the comment is libelous.
A GP would have to get a background in OB-GYN before they could perform an abortion. But OB-GYN is a specialized field, and a GP would actually make more money working as an obstetrician.
Thus, an individual sufficiently trained in OB-GYN to perform abortions working as a GP, and earning less money, defies credulity.
It's all rather simple, Dawg: you either support choice, or you don't.
So if you're supporting a certain individual's right to choose, rejecting another's, and the tipping point seems to be whether or not that individual supports abortion, then what the entire thing is really about becomes pretty evident to anyone stopping for more than two seconds to think critically.
In short, what it's really about is abortion. It isn't about choice -- that's obfuscatory rhetoric. If you were merely defending someone's right to choose -- defending their freedom, in the language of the populist rhetoric this favours -- then you should be defending the next person's freedom, too.
So why aren't you? Why won't you?
Is this about choice, or is it about abortion? Are you in favour of choice, or are you in favour of legal abortion?
Which is it?
Arguing with Patsy really is like arguing with a 5-year old.
"A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch me a child of five."
I'm in favour of choice on abortion, not choice on everything under the sun. Choice on rape? No. Choice on child abuse? No.
People who are interested in a career can choose to be, or not to be, doctors. There are certain requirements if one decides the former. One is that you don't get to impose your religious--or racial, or gender preferential--views when help is being being sought by a patient. If you can't live with that, choose accounting.
Dr. Morgentaler was (before retirement) a GP.
As for libel, I'd seek legal advice. You're so ludicrously off-base on this that I can't believe you're serious.
Believe it, Doc - Patsy does love to make threats. It's the following through part he seems to be confused about.
" I'm in favour of choice on abortion, not choice on everything under the sun. Choice on rape? No. Choice on child abuse? No."
You have to be kidding me. Comparing a doctor refusing to perform a specific medical procedure due to religious reasons to rape and child abuse?
You've gone waaaaay overboard on that one, doc. Frank and Lulu I expect that from. They have neither an honest nor logical bone in their bodies.
But from you? Let me put it to this way: I suspect you're going to feel a little silly for that one.
"People who are interested in a career can choose to be, or not to be, doctors. There are certain requirements if one decides the former. One is that you don't get to impose your religious--or racial, or gender preferential--views when help is being being sought by a patient. If you can't live with that, choose accounting."
By telling doctors they can't decline to perform certain medical procedures for moral, religious or ethical reasons, you're doing precisely that, doc -- trying to impose your own beliefs on them.
If it's wrong for them, it's wrong for you.
Like I said before: we don't have to like that a doctor may refuse to perform an abortion, or may refuse to grant a referral for one. We don't have to like that. But if we really respect choice, then we have to respect that.
Otherwise, one can't claim they're in favour of "choice". They're evidently in favour of something else.
In this case, evidently, abortion.
As for legal advice, I don't need it. I know precisely what libel is. Apparently, you don't. But the odd thing is that you aren't the one who has anything to worry about.
After all, you yourself haven't said -- or even threatened to say -- anything libelous. You yourself are pretty safe right now, doc.
I hope that you don't find yourself needing a blood transfusion in a clinic full of Jehovah's Witnesses, then. Not that JWs would seek such work, of course: their beliefs wouldn't permit it. They have made their choice.
Seriously, if you think a job might make unconscionable demands on you, find yourself another job. If you don't want to treat Black patients, try astronomy. Treating all patients and providing the full range of treatment options is a basic job requirement for the practice of medicine, not a damned frill.
You yourself are pretty safe right now, doc.
That's a relief. I'll sleep better tonight knowing that.
Does Patrick really not know that the whole "when did you stop beating your wife?" thing is used sarcastically to point out that the person who it's directed at has been using loaded questions, (usually as a bad faith way of debating)?
Further, does Patrick have any idea how much a libel/slander lawsuit would cost him to pursue?
He's an undergrad right? So he's not rolling in cash one would assume.
I guess he could start another "legal defense fund" thing.. all the other half-wits have them.. why not him?
"Treating all patients and providing the full range of treatment options is a basic job requirement for the practice of medicine, not a damned frill."
You know, doc, there are any number of ways a person could interpret that.
For example, right now the Simon Wiesenthal Centre is investigating new tips in search of a guy who treated ethics and morals as a "damned frill".
The things Aribert Heim did were horrific. He did many of those things under the guise of research.
Somebody thinking in the particular vein of thought you're promoting here might think that maybe it's okay to pursue the "full range of options" in the name of such research -- inluding inhuman experiments on his patients.
Ethics and morals are more than a "damned frill". When we start treating them as such -- as something that doctors can or should be forced to discard -- we'll all be the poorer for it.
Patrick wrote:
"A GP would have to get a background in OB-GYN before they could perform an abortion. But OB-GYN is a specialized field, and a GP would actually make more money working as an obstetrician.
Thus, an individual sufficiently trained in OB-GYN to perform abortions working as a GP, and earning less money, defies credulity."
I can't wait to tell my doctor that she doesn't exist in Patrick's world. What colour is the sky in your world Patrick?
"That's a relief. I'll sleep better tonight knowing that."
Patrick - "Otherwise, one can't claim they're in favour of "choice". They're evidently in favour of something else.
In this case, evidently, abortion."
What are you talking about? The issue is reproductive choice, not everyone's choice to do everything.
You're trying to set up some lame-ass hypothesis that if one doesn't agree that a doctor should have "choice" then one isn't pro-choice, but pro-abortion. It doesn't work -- doctors' choices aren't within the parameters of reproductive choices. To wit:
One of these is not like the rest:
-contraception
-abortion
-pregnancy
-rhythm method
-abstinence
-doctor's choice of procedures to do and/or referrals to make
Get it?
For example, right now the Simon Wiesenthal Centre is investigating new tips in search of a guy who treated ethics and morals as a "damned frill".
Whaddya know? Goalposts can travel at the speed of light.
Patrick Ross, “aka The Diamond Kid aka Kid Cash aka Thunderbolt Ross aka Tha Flamethrower aka The Mindbender aka...” threatening to sue for libel.
Now that is comedy gold.
For example, right now the Simon Wiesenthal Centre is investigating new tips in search of a guy who treated ethics and morals as a "damned frill".
Now why am I not surprised that Patsy would invoke Godwin in his neverending quest to shift the goalposts? Assclown.
"What are you talking about? The issue is reproductive choice, not everyone's choice to do everything.
You're trying to set up some lame-ass hypothesis that if one doesn't agree that a doctor should have "choice" then one isn't pro-choice, but pro-abortion. It doesn't work -- doctors' choices aren't within the parameters of reproductive choices."
So then the "reproductive choice", as you insist, is the only choice you're in favour of?
Maybe you should amend the "pro-choice" label to be a little more honest: perhaps "pro-reproductive-choice" or "selectively pro-choice".
Take it up with those who invent the slogans. PRoss, "More Precise Sloganeering Warrior". It's a worthy crusade.
*eyeroll*
Commenting by HaloScan
