Gordie and his new best friend, Suzy ALLCAPS, are having a wank à deux over abortion restrictions (or something -- I zoomed over it). Again.
I suggest the rest of us ignore him too. Or at least refuse to play.
After all, this is his fifth or so kick at this particular cat.
15 comments:
Quite so, since Gord-0 is parroting the fabulations of Margaret "I should be the one getting an Order of Canada" Somerville.
Totally agree.
We are all "progressives" now. Sigh.
He's already said that he thinks the rights of the fetus trump the rights of the woman carrying it. That's where it ended for me.
jj...Taking quotes out of context, I was ridiculing the pro life lobby when I said that. Take exception to my views, no problem...but at least present them accurately.
I am Pro-Choice, however as with many of the rights we enjoy...I think there should be reasonable limitations.
Those who view life as sacred from the point of conception onward say the rights of the fetus trump a woman's rights all the time...not me.
Whatever happened to shaving your head for the christmas party and climbing up on the bar with your pants round your ankles to sing O Canada and other less annoying attempts to get people to pay attention to you?
Gord - As I said in my email reply, the quote I refer to is from an earlier comment you made a few weeks ago, as indicated by the "already said...".
pro-choice, except for you, and you , and you. Thanks for that. I feel so much better now. I am so glad we have you around to let us know what is reasonable, Gord.
JJ, you must have me confused with someone else. You can search in vain for a comment by me saying something like that but you won't find it. My views basically mirror those of Barack Obama...I'm pro-choice but opposed to LTAs unless there is a serious health issue.
Alison...LoL and well said. There's nothing like a contentious topic and opinion to drive traffic. With that being said it is a genuinely held view.
Gord, no confusion on my part, though I think you might be misinterpreting me. I didn't say that you said anything about "from conception onward". I realize you aren't an anti-abortion absolutist.
FWIW, here's the comment I was referring to in my first comment above.
Gordie, when did you become an expert on viability?
Perhaps you should have a chat with couples who have watched their prematurely arrived, hoped-for bundles of joy hooked up onto respirators and other various apparatus and who have dreaded each daily physiological crisis. Eventually many if not most sadly give consent to disconnecting the life support systems that artificially maintained these tiny fragile bodies in a state of experimental, medical limbo, unable to develop outside the womb.
Thanks JJ...I did say that I think the rights of the fetus should "trump" the rights of the woman carrying it "once the fetus is viable" and excepting cases where the mother's health is at issue. The way you posted it here it made me sound like an "absolutionist" which is what I objected to. Here's the quote, thanks for linking it:
"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. (added the bolding for clarity)
deBeauxOs...I have friends who were in exactly that situation. Their daughter was born just over 20 weeks, and was so incredibly small I couldn't believe it. She had lots of health issues, but is now a healthy happy 7 or 8 year old.
Gordie seems to have lost interest. That's cool.
Gordie, my point still stands. When 2 entities share the same body, the rights of one always trump (supercede, or however you want to put it) the rights of the other. If you think that should be the fetus, you're basically saying that after a certain point in pregnancy, women are no more than incubators.
Fortunately, conflicts of interest between mother and fetus after 20 weeks or so are infinitesimally rare, and almost always caused by health issues.
Post a Comment