Saturday, May 13, 2006

Abortion Debate Finally Resolved

It can now be proven that an unborn child is a human being. The good news comes from a rival party, but truth knows no partisan boundaries.

Giuseppe Gori, of the Family Coalition Party of Ontario puts forth a very convincing argument in his recent newsletter, "Straight Thoughts 144". I had it forwarded to me and am currently trying to get a link for you. If I receive the author's permission, I will reproduce it in its entirety.

According to Gori, he has proven that Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin supports this notion. The argument something like this:

On December 1st, 2005 Supreme Court Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin delivered a now infamous speech in Wellington, New Zealand. She quoted Professor Benjamin Berger and agreed with his statement:

"...justice is not a matter of majoritarian or popular debate, but an expression of a reasoned commitment to the dignity of all human beings.”

She continued:

“Similarly, if one agrees that the raison d’ĂȘtre of the modern state is to promote the interests of its citizens, it follows that the states should not be allowed to exterminate entire sectors of the society..."

So she is saying that respecting human life is not a matter of popular opinion, and that the state cannot allow genocide.

Gori then argues that a fetus is a being, since it exists.

It is also human, since its DNA can be recognized as such from the moment of existence.

Therefore the state should not have legislation allowing abortion since the unborn child is a "human being", and therefore falls within the boundaries of her declaration of protection.

Ergo, the Supreme Court of Canada's Chief Justice does not believe in abortion.


Another argument used by abortion rights' activists is that a fetus isn't a person until it is born. However, we have now proven that an unborn child is a human being, and that a human being is a person. Therefore, an unborn child is a person.

Case closed. Somebody should tell Jack Layton.


* * * * * * *

On that optimistic note, I would like to wish all mothers a Happy Mothers' Day. That includes ALL moms - especially those carrying our tiny unborn Canadian "persons". May God bless you and your baby and give you strength and wisdom to do all you can to protect his precious gift.

47 comments:

Mary said...

Thanks Vicki, Happy Mothers’s day to you too! Have a wonderful day!
As to this posting:
We all have to ponder what this all means to us as a country.
If I’m not mistaken that if you destroy some rare bird’s eggs you can be subject to fines, or some such restraint. Am I right?

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Interesting point. Does anyone have information on this?

kelly said...

I think that comes from the states where (I believe), it is illegal to kill eagle eggs. I'll have to see if I can find that.

kelly said...

I found this on the web site www.eagle.org and have quoted from the site:
"The Bald Eagle Protection Act prohibits the take, possession, sale, purchase, barter, offer to sell, purchase or barter, transport, export or import, of any bald eagle, alive or dead, including any part, nest, or egg, unless allowed by permit. Take includes: pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, or molest or disturb. A $5,000 fine and/or one year imprisonment is imposed for failure to obey this law."

So, in the United States, you can have an abortion and kill your child, but if you wound, capture of kill an eagle's egg you will be fined Five Grand and sent to jail for one year. Should human beings be afforded the same kind of protection as eagle's eggs?

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Wow. Kinda shows you where the priorities are. Thanks Kelly.

vicki said...

Thanks for that very enlightening and encouraging post! And I have heard the eagle story...didn't know if it was Canada or USA.
It will be interesting to see how all this shapes up. We know it is a hotbotton moral issue, and we know that laws don't change human hearts.

Zac said...

Eagle eggs are pretty tasty though...what am I going to do now?

KEvron said...

eagle apples and human oranges.

gotta love that conservative fruit salad....

KEvron

Zac said...

Ouch, I noticed that my eagle joke didn't get through...

AY said...

Although I personally agree that abortion kills, I find your arguments lacking proof (though you stated the contrary).

Abortion to this day, remains a contentious issue, because no one can agree (nor the scientists), when (independent) life does indeed begin.

One must also remember that, banning abortion (as we see from history and from current situations in numerous nations) causes more suffering - and does not indeed, dissuade abortion, per se.

Then, you must also be well-aware of the fact that, those who are pro-choice, are NOT pro-abortion. I think this is a salient point you must address - otherwise, you make yourself look as prejudiced as the very people you argue against.

I think the abortion issue basically boils down to religious/moral values - this in itself, is dependent entirely on the individual.

Given that most advanced nations have freedom of religious belief, I hardly think it would be possible for a democratic nation to ban abortion outright.

But like I said, personally, I believe abortion involves killing. But I would not be presumptuous enough to impose my (religious/moral) values on others, in democratic nations. That, would be fascist of me, to be fair.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Aussie Yam, thanks for dropping by. How did you happen to arrive at this site, BTW? Just curious.

What is the current situation in Australia right now regarding abortion?

Your philosophy sounds like moral relativism. If you don't want to impose your moral values on others, then how do we arrive at the decision that murder in general should be discouraged?

AY said...

Abortion is not a 'huge' issue in Australia. Mostly because we're an irreligious nation. The situation won't change.

I do not believe I am partaking in moral relativism:

#1 there is no conclusive proof of when life begins
#2 comparing a (dependent) foetus with that of a death of an (independent) person, is unhelpful.
#3 we're talking about law-making here. Ideas on abortion (given current 'proof) available to all sides of the argument), whether we like it or not, is largely linked to religious beliefs. This in itself, is governed by democratic rights - one is free to practise religious ideas, just as one is free NOT to practise religious ideas.

So, unless there is conclusive scientific evidence, we're light-years away from imposing our own (prejudiced) religious values on others in society (i.e. in law-making).

And by the way, some religions actually do not believe life begins before birth. So it probably means that, your arguments are largely Christian in nature. Given that your society is secular, you really haven't the right to impose your Christian values on others.

Then, if we're talking about moral relativism, we can also talk about religious people's arbitrary adoption of religious values (say, from the Bible). So, unless the same pro-'lifers' follow to the nth degree of their scriptures, would they not also be practising relativism?

Anyway, this is really a contentious issue. Only "God" (if God exists to one), has the right to judge (and it says as much in the Bible). So, who is playing "God"?

By the way, I am not a Christian. I am an atheist secular humanist. I think every life is precious. But the quality of life is also important. A child's innocence is of paramount importance. If we (bystanders) cannot give this unwanted child all the love/care s/he deserves, we haven't the right to talk about whether s/he's to live or not.

Then, the abortion issue is a much bigger one than Life vs. Death.

When we as a society can help to collectively satisfy the most fundamental needs of every citizen, we can then talk gloat about our moral superiority.

Otherwise, we're just as hypocritical as the next.

Anyway, my final words on this issue.

Zac said...

"those who are pro-choice, are NOT pro-abortion"

Well said aussie yam....

This is what I've been saying. I'm not pro-abortion, I'm pro-having legal protection for those who choose abortion as an option and I'm anti-coat hanger, back alley style.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Well, thanks Aussie and Zac. Very interesting comments. Maybe this will never be settled. Is there any law at all in Australia regarding abortion? Is it illegal at a certain point of gestation? Can you legally perform an abortion as a child is being born?

You can do that in Canada.

Surecure said...

"Abortion to this day, remains a contentious issue, because no one can agree (nor the scientists), when (independent) life does indeed begin."

I have to disagree with you on this point.

I believe that the scientific argument on when "life" begins fell over to the pro-life side due to the fact that by actual scientific measurements of the definition of "life", it is in fact indisputable that a fetus from its inception is in fact an autonomous piece of living human matter. It is not an organ of the mother because it contains unique DNA sequences and has/will develop its own bodily organs. Thus, scientifically, it is "alive".

I believe this was the inspiration for the pro-choice side to stop arguing about whether a fetus was a human being and start to argue whether it was a "person". I can't remember if it was one of the former President of the National Organization of Women or Planned Parenthood or some other organization linked to the pro-choice movement, but a few years ago during a major convention, she admitted that the pro-choice community could never win a scientific argument on whether a fetus was a human being and that the argument should be redirected to whether a fetus is a "person". I believe this is what actually shifted much of the public debate in that argument's direction.

In the end, the present state of affairs is fairly well known. The non-political or legal debators on this issue will often argue whether a fetus is alive, while those who have to appear before courts and legislators will argue whether a fetus is a "person".

AY said...

Joanne - Australia hasn't a uniform abortion law. Each state/territory has its own - though they're all modelled after English law, of course.

More or less, abortion is permissible everywhere, if the physician deems the physical/mental/psychological state of the MOTHER is at risk and/or if the foetus is evaluated to be physically deformed etc.

In one territory (ACT), abortion has been decriminalised.

In three states (NSW/VIC/QLD), I don't believe the law stipulates when the foetus can be terminated and past which time, it cannot.

However, in general, the cut-off is at 24 weeks, I believe. Unless, again, the foetus is found to be deformed or in poor health and/or its mother's health is endangered.

In general, the health of the mother is of greater consideration, under the law.

Whatever the laws, I must say abortion is not generally frowned upon in Australia, nor is it encouraged. People simply make-peace with the fact that, it is not our right to judge others' decisions. But that is also because we're very secular.

I am not aware of Canadian law on aborting foetus at full-term. But I can't see it being a real problem because a child that can survive on its own, after birth, can be adopted out. If this child is capable of surviving independently of its mother, then it would not be considered 'abortion'. It would be either "abandonment".

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Thank you, Surecure, for that excellent clarification.

Aussie Yam,you said "I am not aware of Canadian law on aborting foetus at full-term. But I can't see it being a real problem because a child that can survive on its own, after birth, can be adopted out."

I'm having trouble imagining a baby surviving after having had his skull deliberately crushed, or a pair of scissors stuck into the back of her neck.

Lookout Mountain said...

Comparing abortion to genocide is not a good way to go down this debate.

Genocide: Deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group.

When it is not deliberate, systemic, targeted, and when it is not of a racial, political, or cultural group, how can it ever be genocide.

Your arguments rest on the crux that:
Blastocysts, zygots, embryos, and fetus are human beings

Before I move on to more developed arguments about the comparison to genocide, I will examine the fuzzy line you attempt to draw about the creation of unique genetic beings.

Your argument follows that blastocysts, zygots, embryos, and fetus are human beings:

"It is also human, since its DNA can be recognized as such from the moment of existence."

Many blastocysts do not implant in the uterine wall. These blastocysts fit all of your arguments for a unique, living human being deserving protection. After failing to implant, blastocysts are then reabsorbed and or expelled during a woman's period.

The distinction between blastocyst and embryo is very important. The question I will ask to end this section is, do you believe that the morning after pill which is known to prevent ovulation, and assumed to prevent fertilization and implantation, and is a form of abortion?
Or, to be put more directly, is the use of artificial means to prevent implantation of blastocysts abortion?
(Just so no one gets distracted, the morning after pill is not RU-486 which can be used for up to 48 days in pregnancy)

Now back to the genocide analogy. I will for the purposes of argument accept your position that all beings which have a uniquely human genetic character are in fact humans.

The first argument against the characterization of genocide is that many beings which have a uniquely human genetic character are randomly and without intent left to die in the first hours of their existence. Non - implanted blastocysts are killed randomly, and without malice. Under your broad definitions, this would be contributing to the genocide. This same argument can be extended for miscarriages.

The second argument to be used is that abortion is neither deliberate nor systematic. It is not deliberate, as it does not target particular racial, political, or cultural groups. It is also voluntary, on the part of the mother. Abortion is not systematic either. It is not required or forced. With the acceptance of your argument two paragraphs above for the purpose of refuting another of your arguments, I will acknowledge that for the sack of argument large amounts of humans are being killed. However, this killing is random, not systemic, and not deliberate in its targeting. Killing many randomly is not genocide, it is just senseless killing.

Now I am exiting the realm where I accept your position that all beings which have a uniquely human genetic character are in fact humans.

I will simply paste here arguments from the ADF and CJC against using genocide, and most usually, the holocaust in anti abortion arguments.

"Whatever one’s position on this heartrending issue, analogizing abortion to the Nazi government’s campaign to murder every Jew in the world diminishes the truth of the Holocaust and implies that ordinary women engaging in a lawful act are Nazis."

Abortion and the Holocaust
Many groups and activists within the anti-abortion movement draw analogies between abortion and the Holocaust. This practice ranges from invoking a comparison to reproducing photographs of Jewish corpses alongside those of aborted fetuses to naming an anti-abortion web site "The American Holocaust Memorial." Examples include:
*"The American Holocaust Memorial" web site is dedicated to "uncovering" the "frightening correlation between the American holocaust of abortion and the NAZI holocaust of World War II." Gruesome photographs of slaughtered Jews and dismembered fetuses are compared in order to demonstrate that "the ‘Pro-Choice’ campaign [is] a thinly veiled ‘Final Solution’ for the unwanted unborn child."
*"The Nuremberg Files," also a web site, calls itself "a coalition of concerned citizens throughout the USA…cooperating in collecting dossiers on abortionists in anticipation that one day we may be able to hold them on trial for crimes against humanity." It states that many Nazi war criminals avoided punishment for their crimes due to lack of evidence, and "we do not want the same thing to happen when the day comes to charge abortionists with their crimes."
The site provides a mailing address and asks viewers to collect and submit "evidence" – including any personal information, videotapes or photos, criminal records, and affidavits by former employees or spouses – about doctors who perform abortions and others involved in safeguarding abortion for women who choose it.
Stating that its goal is "to record the name of every person working in the baby slaughter business across the United States of America," the site includes a list, under a graphic of dripping blood, of the names of abortion doctors, clinic owners and workers, allegedly sympathetic judges, politicians, and law enforcement authorities, and "miscellaneous spouses & other blood flunkies." A line is drawn through the names of the doctors and other personnel who have been murdered.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Kelly - What happens if the mother eagle doesn't want the baby? Will she get fined if she kicks the egg out of the nest?

AY said...

Joanne: again, I can't comment on Canadian law, because I am not well-informed enough in this matter.

I do however, believe that Candian law is also modelled after English law. As such, there should be a clause where committing bodily harm to anothe person, is a criminal act. The main problem in this case would be, when a being is deemed a 'person'. Second, the mother's health is always deemed more important, under English-based law.

I can only imagine that, the scenario you're talking about involves a foetus that suffers health abnormalities and/or risks endangering its mother's life. In such a case, I can only mourn the misfortune for the foetus but must agree that the mother's health comes first.

But alas, that's for your High Court (if applicable/or its equivalent) to rule upon.

Again, abortion is a contentious issue. We cannot impose our religious/moral values on others - this is fundamental in any democracy.

I wish to suggest that, the focus not be placed upon banning abortion. Instead, the energy/time/resources be devoted to #1 counselling/support for women who may be seeking abortion #2 post-natal/child-rearing support #3 improving the standards of orphanages #4 widely educate the masses on contraception.

Solving the root of the problem, as it were. Otherwise, we're as good as wasting time.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Aussie Yam, you have a very good perspective on this - try to get to the root cause.

However, don't you think of us as barbarians in Canada, since we have absolutely no law at all regarding abortion, so that abortion at any stage for any reason is not a criminal act? We even allow partial birth abortion, where the baby is born feet first, and as long as the head is still inside, the baby can be killed, and it is not considered murder. Also, if there is a botched abortion, there are cases of the baby being allowed to die on the table without assistance.

You have no idea what a cruel, barbaric country Canada is.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Ko - Interesting arguments, but I can pick them apart one by one. But later; 24 is coming on soon.

Zac said...

"You have no idea what a cruel, barbaric country Canada is."

Hmmmm....I can see our new tourism slogan now.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Zsc - I think Sir Paul already started that campaign.

AY said...

Joanne, I just quickly browsed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Canada

Very interesting. Canada does not consider the foetus a person - because it cannot exist independently. This is legal jargon but quite salient.

But, I wish to draw attention to the fact that over 90% of Canada's abortions are performed before the foetus is 16 weeks. And very few are performed after 16 weeks (2-3% and usually because of health risks to mother). This mirrors the experience of most advanced nations.

In short, although Canadian law does not criminalise abortions at any stage (i.e. before the actual birth of a 'person'), most Canadian residents are not exercising the law to that extent.

Therefore, all the more reason to focus on the root causes (aforementioned).

The thing is - the more you tell someone not to do something, the more antagonistic they tend to become. =D But you can certainly help to change their mind, by being conciliatory and understanding - and perhaps, helpful. All of which can be done via services like counselling, post-natal care etc.

Actually, for a country with one of the most liberal abortion laws in the world (according to the article), Canadians seem to be doing pretty well policing their own actions.

I am more impressed with this than I am saddened by the uber-liberal nature of the law.

Sara said...

especially those carrying our tiny unborn Canadian "persons".

I thought it said Canadian "prisons" boy I research too much lol

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Ha! Sara. Too funny. That would be quite a load.

Aussie Yam - Thanks for your well thought out comments, and your reflective research.

You said - "Actually, for a country with one of the most liberal abortion laws in the world" - Actually, we have no laws regarding abortion, as I understand it.


But hey, live and let live right? What isn't right for me may be right for you, so who am I to say what you should be doing right? We'll all just live out our own little lives, and not worry about what other people are doing and who they may be hurting, as long as it doesn't bother me, right?

I believe that is called moral relativism.

Great chatting with you though. You still didn't say how you happened upon this blog.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

KO - "It is also voluntary, on the part of the mother." What about the baby?

"Non - implanted blastocysts are killed randomly, and without malice. Under your broad definitions, this would be contributing to the genocide. This same argument can be extended for miscarriages." How?

A genocide is the large, deliberate extermination of unwanted human life. It targets a particular group of people - unwanted preborn human babies.

AY said...

Joanne - I've already explained my reasons for thinking that it is not moral relativism. Enough said.

I stumbled upon this site via Blogger surfing - very randomly when I clicked on 'NEXT BLOG' in the upper right-hand corner.

I think your frustration with the law is understandable. But unless there is a specific law that defines a foetus as a person in Canada (or elsewhere), you're not going to get anywhere very far. Enough said, also.

So, I still suggest that the energy be spent on educating people about contraception etc.

Seriously though, everybody takes science quite seriously. So, here's hoping that scientists will agree one day that a foetus is a person or that >Time X renders a foetus a person. That would work too.

But short of having any concrete evidence and/or definition of when life begins, we'll always go nowhere in this debate. I.e. it's a waste of energy/anger etc.

I mean, let's focus on what really works.

AY said...

Oops. I really should proof-read my posts. Sorry... typos etc.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Aussie Yam, you are very wise. Thanks for your contributions. Just one last question - How has Australia been able to allow each State to have its own law regarding this issue? Does each State have a different idea about what a "person" is?

This is the thrust of my frustration. If Canada is almost the only country in the Western world or anywhere else for that matter without any abortion laws at all, how is it that other countries have been able to resolve the issue about what a "person" is? Thanks.

I'm really glad you stumbled across my blog, BTW!

Joanne (True Blue) said...

A.Y. - One more last question - Do you have public health care in Australia, and does it cover all abortions; on demand? Thanks.

Zac said...

"So, I still suggest that the energy be spent on educating people about contraception etc."

Good luck Aussie Yam, I've been barking up that tree for a week now. It ain't gettin' through.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Zac, to a certain degree I see your point (and Aussie Yam's). I'm just not going to give up. But I won't make it a one-topic blog. I promise.

AY said...

Joanne - Australia was only federated about 100 years ago. As a condition of unification, the states/territories retain the right to be rather autonomous.

However, as far as I know, a foetus is not considered a person in Australia. Merely, the law criminalises abortion on any grounds other than if #1 the foetus has health defects #2 the mother's health is at risk.

Yes, we have universal medicare. It is as good as Canada's - and almost the same system. Yes, our Medicare pays for abortions on demand - but, bear in mind that, #1 doctors are free to refuse to perform abortions #2 we only allow abortions if full-term pregnancy endangers the health of the mother in any way (mental/physical).

Given also that, we do not specificially agree on when life begins and that, the mother's health is of paramount concern to our society, under our laws, I think it is fair to let Medicare pay for abortions.

As for Canada - I understand that in the 1800s, abortion was in fact illegal. However, this caused much suffering in your nation. I believe that's why you do not have laws against abortion thenceforth.

But I really don't think Canadians need to worry too much about the absence of such a law. Like I said, most of Canadian abortions occur under 16 weeks of gestation and only a tiny 2-3% take place after 16 weeks. That's really something spectacular, given your lack of abortion laws.

By all means don't give up. But at the same time, I think (I am an economist, so), it is a waste of resources to focus energy on changing the law (when it doesn't seem to be taken advantage of, overwhelmingly).

Education + post-natal assistance are the key. And, I believe, not prejudging others' choices, is also salient.

Zac - I've advocated contraception etc. rather than whatever it is the pro-'life' camp waste their time on (because, as we see, their efforts go to waste), for a long long time now. :-( I hear what you're saying.

Zac/Joanne - we'll go farther if we all keep an open-mind. And, let scientific facts be the bridging point.

:-)

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Aussie Yam - Thank you for that very valuable lesson from Down Under. I need to think about this for a while.

Your input is extremely appreciated. I may be repeating myself here, but yours is the most non-partisan view I have ever heard on this issue.

Lookout Mountain said...

Joanne, can I ask what ultimately your end goal would be for a 'abortion law' in Canada?
Would the morning after pill and/or the 'pill' be outlawed?

AY said...

Joanne - wow, thanks! What a generous compliment. I don't know about other places, but at least in Australia (and Taiwan, where I was born), my views are quite run-of-the-mill. Given that both are highly secular, it is somewhat telling. (?!) [i.e. fewer extremists either side of the equation = more room for negotiations.]

Joanne (True Blue) said...

A.Y. - Yes, sometimes we all need to just take a breath and calm down.

On the other hand, I still haven't found any argument from the "Right to Choose" side that even comes close to making me change my mind on the issue. However, I respect the fact that they are entitled to their viewpoint.

AY said...

Joanne - I think the important point is that, others aren't trying to change your views.

They're just asking for the same right to exercise their views, in a democracy.

It's great to see that you are respectful of others' right to their views.

It's easier to come to a peaceful equilibrium, if all of us are gentle with one another.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

A.Y. - There have been some people on this blog that have tried to get me to change my thinking. That is not going to happen. I do agree though that respectful debate is very important.

You are the voice of tranquility in all of this. Do Australians get as passionate about politics as we Canadians?

AY said...

Joanne - Well, it is never nice to >>impose<< one's values on others. We can 'suggest', but we can't/musn't force people to believe. Just as your beliefs come from your heart, others are entitled the same. Sourcing motivation from anywhere else, I am not sure that's very useful to society.

I don't believe in the 'We vs. Them' type of constraint. I think we're all on the same side and therefore, we must do our utmost to maintain that civility + basic respect.

I also don't tend to think I am 'correct', regardless of my own convictions. I don't have all the information/knowledge - this is why it is so important to keep an open-mind. We can't learn/evolve otherwise.

Oh right... Australians are in general, secular and apolitical. =D It's not always to our benefit, but there it is.

What I do like about Australians, is that most are very open-minded (when it really matters), rather caring and understanding.

I would say, there are fewer extremists in this country of ours. I like that.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Aussie - Maybe we can learn something from your country. Emotions do tend to cloud rational thought.

BTW, I had some lovely Australian wine at a restaurant last night. "Little Penguin" or something. I hope we can find more. They served it with a cute squishy little toy penguin (on the side). ;)

AY said...

Haha, I think we can all learn from one another. Aussies have a lot to learn from others - although I hope that we always retain our innocence/naivete (sorry, my keyboard can't do those 'accents').

I am glad you enjoyed the wine! Near Melbourne, we have a famous wine-producing region called "Yarra Valley". But most of our best wines are from Western Australia (check out Margaret River) and South Australia (Barossa Valley).

However, Aussie wine really is the bane of wineries around the world! Admittedly, it is mass-production at its best and, worst! I hope we're not (in)directly responsible for the rampant bankruptcy cases in France!

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Thanks, Aussie Yam for the wine tips. I'll have to pass them onto my INWE (In-House Wine Expert). ;)

Funny about France. We rarely bother with French wines now - too expensive, and frankly the quality just isn't what it used to be. Our locally produced Niagara wines are just as good if not better. Ever heard of ice wine?

AY said...

Yeah! Ice wine comes from Germany! But Canadians have been mass-producing it. :-) Even my octogenarian grandmother drinks it, in Taiwan! Well... I am a teetotal vegetarian. My Mother's a hypochondriac you see, I was raised to be super-health-conscious. =D

But do try Aussie products! They're mass produced... with love! Haha.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

A teetotal vegetarian! Wow, you ARE virtueous! If you ever come to Canada, I would recommend B.C. They are very into that stuff there.

Actually, I like veggie burgers once in a while.