Thursday, May 10, 2007

The Right to Choose - Women vs. Doctors

It was difficult for me to select a topic today, because there really are a lot of issues that I would like to pursue. However, when I came across this article in today's Post, I decided to continue the abortion debate; especially with today being the day for the March for Life on Parliament Hill.

Then I began to realize that the other major theme I wanted to discuss, environmentalism, is closely related.

Melissa Leong of the Post reports that the National Abortion Federation has been applying pressure to the Canadian Medical Association "to change its so-called conscientious objector policy, which allows physicians to refuse to refer patients for abortions. It is the first time the federation has tried to lobby the CMA on this issue."

Apparently a recent study found that "only 15.9% of Canadian hospitals provide abortion services, a reduction from 17.8% that occurred without any change in official regulations or policies."

For shame!

Vicki Saporta, president and CEO of the National Abortion Federation, feels that physicians should put their patients' interests ahead of their "own religious and moral convictions.

Dr. Williard Johnston of the Canadian Physicians for Life strongly disagrees:

"Now is the time to be strengthening conscience protections so that people who find themselves uncomfortable with procedures should have their rights protected."


Well, what do you think? This situation is somewhat reminiscent of the gay marriage debate with marriage commissioners being forced to perform marriage ceremonies contrary to their religious beliefs. The argument in favour of not allowing them to abstain is that the commissioners are public servants.

Yet are doctors public servants? With the medical profession being so closely tied to National Health Care, I suppose you could make an argument in support of Ms. Saporta's point of view.


So now we have to weigh the "rights" of the pregnant woman against the "rights" of the doctor. Does the pre-born child have any rights?

In a world where children are increasingly undervalued, the answer is likely no.

Indeed, the sanctity of human life itself is losing status against other concerns such as environmentalism. Lorrie Goldstein points out in today's Sun that a common theme exists among environmental advocates that there are too many people in the world, to the detriment of Mother Earth:


In his bestseller The Weather Makers, scientist/conservationist Tim Flannery discusses in a chapter titled "2084: The Carbon Dictatorship?" the possibility of an Earth Commission for Thermostatic Control (ECTC) one day zeroing in on the major cause of man-made global warming -- "the total number of people on the planet."

With that, he writes, the ECTC "will have transformed itself into an Orwellian-style world government with its own currency, army and control over every person and every inch of our planet." To be clear, Flannery is not advocating such a body, merely speculating on what could happen if we don't take action against man-made global warming in time.


It would seem that human life is very expendable when weighed against the demands of our planet, which appears to have been deified in a strangely pagan manner - demanding human sacrifice as appeasement for perceived transgressions.

Then we have the real extremist view where the decision to limit the size of your family is measured in terms of "per capita carbon dioxide emissions". (More at Lifesite)


Given the current preoccupation with placating the Earth Goddess, I really don't think that the concerns of Dr. Johnston and the Canadian Physicians for Life stand a chance.

Heck, having an abortion may even one day be viewed as a virtuous, environmentally-friendly act.



* * * *

Wow!! I've somehow woven a thread about abortion, same-sex marriage and environmentalists! That should be worth a comment or two.


Update: Proud to Be Canadian - CBC Newsworld's Susan Bonner calls pro-lifers "anti-abortionists". But what did you expect from CBC?

On the other hand, Don Newman's show was quite balanced tonight. Kudos to him for discussing the rally, which numbered in the 6000+ range of participants.

Sandy has a great post on the debate. Please take the time to check it out.

24 comments:

Neo Conservative said...

*
joanne... found this in the new york times... so let me throw a little gasoline on the fire...

The last time I raised a similar hot-button topic and asked a question about the outcome of the various choices, the excrement really hit the air-conditioning.

Fool that I am, I've decided to do it again...

*

Lemon said...

Hi Jo
Here's one . . .
The abortion debate became even more muddied in the last few years:
-- the ability for doctors to incubate a child out of the womb after only months after conception
-- the recent case of a woman being released for murdering a newborn
-- The criminal case law that allows homicide charges to be laid in the case of an unborn child.
-- Late stage (right to the point of birth) abortions not being restricted in Canada
With these points as a backdrop, the right to life (in the minds of "pro-choicers) is purely as defined by the pregnant woman.
What rights exist only in the minds of one individual at one point in time?

Swift said...

Notice it's the west that has to reduce the population, even though we are already in a population decline. Nothing is mentioned about the so far universal response to an improving standard of living; reduced family size.

Another interesting study about climate change has been published. this one claims that the temperature has climbed at the end of every interglacial period. This is very interesting, in that it gives us a real explanation for the seed with which the ice seems to cover the land. The current ercipitation in thre of the four main centers of continental glaciation would take the whole eighty thousand years to build up to the thickness we think that was obtained. Getting colder would only decrease the percipitation. A warming period at the end of the interglail period could melt the Arctic ice cap, which would result in a dramatic increase in the amount of snow in the Arctic. Naw, can't be, global warming is manmade.

Swift said...

Lemon, in philosophy, it's called relativism: he denial of any absolute values. It's just an extreme case of the "all cultures are equal" point of view. Funny the left thinks all cultures are equal except Nazi and Jewish cultures. They just can't get their own philosophy straight. Iguess we better add Anglo-Saxon to that list.

Mary said...

I think that is where Hitler started.

He started with a race of people he did not want namely the Jews, which fueled his holocaust ovens

Now they are starting again with the unwanted who are the least able to defend themselves the unwanted babies.

Then next on the agenda will be the very old people to be unwanted as they are breathing valuable air, just consumers, not contributing members of society.

Next to be unwanted are the halt, lame and blind or perhaps the doctors who don’t fall in line with official policy because of conscience.

So here we are on the brink of a brave new world in which only the wanted can exist.

Who will be the deciders of who lives and who is valuable enough to breathe air or take up space on this planet,or don't agree with their agenda?

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Mary, I agree. It isn't a big stretch to imagine environmentalists being strong advocates for euthanasia.

But how to dispose of those pesky remains? Take up valuable ground space or pollute the air with cremation? What a quandary.

Barbara in Wpg. said...

Every time I hear the phrase "a woman's right to choose" it makes my blood boil. Women DO have a right to choose - that choice is to have sex or not. That is her choice. That is where choice should begin and end. If the result is pregnancy, it is a consequence brought about by the woman's choice. Why are there so many unwanted pregnanices? It's not due to lack of education or birth control. Personal responsibility is just another thing to be thrown away along with the unborn.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Barbara, excellent point. Rape and personal health risks aside, it is definitely the woman's choice whether or not she engages in sex.

Red Tory said...

Do we get a decoder ring? That's quite the cryptic muddle of ideas you've got here.

BTW, are you going to invoke Godwin's Law vis-à-vis Mary's comment? ;)

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Red, lol! I thought that would get you going!!

Anonymous said...

"Wow!! I've somehow woven a thread about abortion, same-sex marriage and environmentalists! That should be worth a comment or two."

...I'm in the camp of people that believes that everything is connected somehow...

Yesterday, I made a joke about how the planet could be saved if there weren't any people left...but as with most jokes, there was an element of truth in it. When you actually try to think like an environmentalist (it hurts terribly, ouch...)....their main problem "is" people. Without people doing people things, the planet would stay pristine.

But was that the original intention for this planet? To stay pristine, not go through change (which is a constant...the only constancy in life is change)....and not be lived on by anything, humans or animals, because we are messy beings?

And, for the record, I'm not a huge consumer of anything....I use public transit, recycle, live quite simply and happily....and yet I scored huge on some silly environmental test I found on a website as to my carbon foot print because I eat meat.

Yes, I eat meat, fish too, lots of vegetables, salads, chocolate....I live!!! Therefore I am....and perhaps if the environmentalists (fundamental environmental kooks) weren't so anti-life, they might start living too, and stop worrying about things they can't control....such as climate change (miniscule as it is), and learn to adapt to it, like generations of people before.

raz

Mary said...

I like the way you say it Raz!

It makes so much sense, but the rabid environmental crowd will be at your throat because you are an
unrepentant meat eater.

Roy Eappen said...

As a physician , the idea that someone would force this upon me is pretty awful. Many of my colleagues knwo tha abortion is wrong morally and even more so biologically. In one my posts yesterday I spoke of the lecture I went to. Babies have a fully functional auditory system and are able to respond to music at 20 weeks of gestation.
We are always pushing back the limits of viability. It is so clear this isn't a blob of cells. It's just more convenient for some to think of a baby that way.

Mary said...

Thank you Roy, for that good bit of information.
"Babies have a fully functioning auditory system at 20 weeks", Amazing!
I can only say that I wish that the auditory systems of the pro-abortion crowd was as fully functioning.

Anonymous said...

"CBC Newsworld's Susan Bonner calls pro-lifers "anti-abortionists". "

...so it's only fair that pro-abortionists should be called anti-lifers, isn't it???

Maybe the issue isn't abortion, meaning pro or anti, but rather life, meaning pro or anti. Puts a different twist on things, but if the MSM is going to twist names around, then by all fairness, they should twist the names of both sides, shouldn't they?

raz

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Raz, I like your logic.

liberal supporter said...

Maybe the issue isn't abortion, meaning pro or anti, but rather life, meaning pro or anti. Puts a different twist on things,

Indeed it does. Joanne, I thought you would use that to segue into another topic that you could combine with the others you have wrapped around each other so far:

War. We define the enemy as unworthy of living, because we kill them.

Yes, we kill them to make life easier for ourselves. It's just a convenience. After all, we could just let the enemy live, and there won't be too many adverse effects, right? A few backstreet butcherings or soccer stadium butcherings would not be too high a price for us being completely pro-life and not killing anyone, right?

We rationalize away the rights of our enemies to live. Who is to judge that one rationalization is ok, while the other is not?

I expect this line of thought to be attacked as moral relativism. Somehow soldiers killing each other will be shown fit some moral absolute. A least some of the killing in war will.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

L.S. - Somehow you're now putting innocent pre-born infants on the same level as terrorists bent on destroying us?

liberal supporter said...

"putting on the same level" is good rhetoric, but it does not change the claim that we rationalize that some people deserve to die, while claiming to be pro-life.

liberal supporter said...

You already know I am pro-war and pro-abortion. But I consider these last resorts, too often hastily taken.

Anonymous said...

'We define the enemy as unworthy of living, because we kill them.'

....strange conclusions of what an enemy is....we define the enemy as someone who wants to destroy us, not as unworthy of living. I'd like to know where you got this from, or if you made it up all by yourself???

Self-preservation is a characteristic of a sane person.

If you were threatened tonight in an alleyway, you would probably fight back to save yourself, if you are sane, that is.

Or would you say...."I'm not going to hurt you back, because I think you're worthy of living....ouch...oh damn...blood...it's mine...call 911...someone....somon......(gurgle)

raz

Anonymous said...

"You already know I am pro-war and pro-abortion....but it does not change the claim that we rationalize that some people deserve to die, while claiming to be pro-life."

To answer you from another angle, you are proving my point. Thank you.

Do fetuses deserve to die? If they do, then you must consider them to be "not life"....thus anyone who is pro-abortion is an anti-lifer, because the issue isn't really about abortion, it's about life, and when life "is" life.

Those who are pro-life think that the fetus "is" life, and those who are anti-life think that the fetus "isn't" life.

raz

Sandy said...

If you read the post I put up tonight (crux-of-the-matter)about my adopted daughter -- who proved she was a human life in her biological mother's womb once she was born -- I am so thankful, she was not "terminated." Like Joanne, I am pro-life, except under exceptional circumstances, such as in the case of rape or if the mother's life is in danger.

Although, I even hesitate on the issue of rape now. A number of years ago I heard a lovely young woman speak at a woman's event. She started off: Do you think abortion is okay in the case of rape? Everyone nodded quietly in the affirmative. Then, she said, that is too bad, because I am the child of a rape. Do I look evil? Do you think I should have been destroyed?

Therefore, I have hesitated to say "except in the case of rape" ever since I heard that young woman speak.

In any event, abortion versus no-abortion is always a very awkward discussion. It has become "the" social taboo subject. Strange. That and capital punishment.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Therefore, I have hesitated to say "except in the case of rape" ever since I heard that young woman speak.

Sandy, good point. Personally, I agree that that young woman has a right to life as well.

I'm just saying that we are never going to have any success in the issue of trying to ban late-term abortions if we aren't open to compromise.