# Is the Governor General obsolete in Canada?



## rambo4 (Jun 14, 2008)

I am interested in other's opinions on the tax payer funded Governor General position in Canada. In light of the controversy surrounding the awarding of Henry Morgentaler with the Order of Canada, on Canada (Dominion) Day of all times, has the "appointment" outgrown its usefulness? Should Joe Tax Payer be on the hook to bathe an _unelected_ head of state in lavish comforts, or is it time to set an old holdover from colonial days, adrift?

Perhaps you feel it is an honorable position and should be held with dignity and respect to honor our British heritage? Do you feel this is being accomplished to your satisfaction? 

In other words do you feel you are getting your money's worth from the Governor General?


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Given that Henry Morgentaler had the guts to fight outdated laws that resulted in back-street abortions killing and maiming your female antecedents, and that he represented the politics of some 80 or 90 per cent of Canadians, his award seems appropriate.

Is that all you've got?

The Governor General's position may be outdated but it still serves a purpose. Among other things, if the prime minister loses the confidence of parliament, the Governor General can be asked to dissolve the house and call an election. Did you have someone else in mind to perform this function, or did you also want to ditch our parliamentary traditions?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Absolutely, the position plays a vital role in the breaking of parliamentary ties and a safeguard in case of a hung parliament.

The position is a non-political head of state for ceremonial purposes and to represent and promote Canada around the world.

Given the dolts in parliament just now it's even more vital 

Far too many "stupid white men" and lawyers in power and totally fractious - better to have a self made immigrant as our international non political representative.

Having a ceremonial head of state as opposed to government chief executive is a common structure including in corporations where the chairman of the board is often a passive role compared to the CEO but can act to break an impasse.

I think we have been very well served, more so in many ways than the bulk of parliamentarians.

Now the Senate


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I agree with HowEver's views about Henry Morgentaler getting the Order of Canada, but I do not support the GG's position in principle. Of course, I would rather see Canada opt-out of our Constitutional Monarchy and become a true Republic. That means that the Senate would have to go, or have it elected with two or three senators from each province. I don't see this happening, but I can hope and vote my conscience.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Giving Morgenthaler an award is much and the same as giving an award to Josef Mengele - except perhaps that Mengele did his murders under the guise of legality. It is a disgrace, and Canadians should be shamed of themselves for lionizing a man who so wanted to institutionalize barbaric procedures performed by unskilled and unqualified people just to make it "easy".

But barring that - the Governor General position is a farce, and is a complete waste of money. And what is even worse is that they now dish it out to any foreigner, who makes an even bigger sham of the whole deal. And how long has it been since we had a Governor-General that could even speak English?

Just another example of why no one in the world respects this country.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

A non-political head of state for ceremonial purposes and to represent and promote Canada around the world is just what we don't need.

She represents no one Canadian in any capacity and the position should be discontinued forthwith.

The PM of the day is quite capable of dissolving parliament if the need arises.

It is an abomination and part of a left over system of British dominance.

It's time has run its course and it is far too expensive for benefits received.

Same with Lizzy and her merry band of misfits.

Off with their heads.


----------



## rambo4 (Jun 14, 2008)

HowEver said:


> Given that Henry Morgentaler had the guts to fight outdated laws that resulted in back-street abortions killing and maiming your female antecedents, and that he represented the politics of some 80 or 90 per cent of Canadians, his award seems appropriate.
> 
> Is that all you've got?
> 
> The Governor General's position may be outdated but it still serves a purpose. Among other things, if the prime minister loses the confidence of parliament, the Governor General can be asked to dissolve the house and call an election. Did you have someone else in mind to perform this function, or did you also want to ditch our parliamentary traditions?


Ditch them quick. 

Traditions do not mean squat when it lends itself to so much corruption. What I want to see is accountability. I do not want unelected branches of government deciding what citizens want and in turn us having no recourse when these public servants cease to serve.

If you are happy with status quo, good for you. 

Old Dr. Death isn't all I have, but believe me this Order of Canada is tarnished. 

Regardless of the one example cited, Morgentaler has nothing to do with the main reason of this post, which is questioning an antiquated position that serves no real purpose for the average Canadian. Just what is your value per dollar on this charade? If Canada wants to keep this going, let the Queen pay for it! It's her rep. And then announce we are still under British rule. There is no other reason I should be on the hook to keep this craziness afloat. Keep your hands out of my pockets.

If Canada wants a tax payer funded foreign representative, send the other countries a cheese plate with a maple leaf stuck in the middle of it and be done with it. Take the rest of that money and spend it on the country, or let us all keep it to spend on our OWN families.

Ridiculous. I would rather have my money go for a GG that was dressed in a beaver suit, at least that would be entertaining to watch.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Evan, while I had distant relatives die in Dachau and not Auschwitz-Birkenau, and thus not at the hands of Josef Mengele, I take offense over this comparison. I also strongly disagree with your comment that "Just another example of why no one in the world respects this country." However, since I believe in the Charter of Rights of Canada, I will respect your right to hold these views and to express them freely. There are thousands upon thousands of people who would love to come to Canada to enjoy the same rights and responsibilities and freedoms that you and I enjoy. Paix.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Plenty of countries around the world have parliamentary systems not tied to any Constitutional (or not) Monarchy and have ceremonial heads of state also not tied to any off-shore regents. Some systems have elected "ceremonial" heads of state...go figure.

In Canada, all you have to do to become such a ceremonial head of state is to work for the CBC. LOL!


----------



## rambo4 (Jun 14, 2008)

kps said:


> Plenty of countries around the world have parliamentary systems not tied to any Constitutional (or not) Monarchy and have ceremonial heads of state also not tied to any off-shore regents. Some systems have elected "ceremonial" heads of state...go figure.
> 
> In Canada, all you have to do to become such a ceremonial head of state is to work for the CBC. LOL!


Amen to that!

One taxpayer funded albatross to another. :lmao:


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

I am in favour of the GG and our Parliamentary form of Government. I am also favour the appointment of Henry Morgentaler. 

For your info the GG appoints on the recommendation of the advisory council. here is the wiki Order of Canada - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia on the Order of Canada and a quote from that article:


wikipedia said:


> Eligibility and appointment
> An investiture ceremony in the earlier years of the order.
> An investiture ceremony in the earlier years of the order.
> Governor General Michaëlle Jean, Chancellor and Principal Companion of the Order of Canada, poses with a full group of Order of Canada appointees at the 101st investiture ceremony banquet in the Tent Room of Rideau Hall, April 11, 2008.
> ...


 So who you are going to blame the Advisory Council and the GG? Or just the GG and our form of government?


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Dr.G. said:


> I agree with HowEver's views about Henry Morgentaler getting the Order of Canada, but I do not support the GG's position in principle. Of course, I would rather see Canada opt-out of our Constitutional Monarchy and become a true Republic. That means that the Senate would have to go, or have it elected with two or three senators from each province. I don't see this happening, but I can hope and vote my conscience.


Well said, Dr. G. Parallels my own views pretty well. I'd love to see the Senate abolished and the GG position along with it. But I have no problem with Morgentaler getting the Order of Canada... in fact, he strikes me as a rather courageous man, given the depth of sustained opposition to him from some quarters over many, many years now.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

Clearly the appointment of Order of Canada Member Dr. Henry Morgentaler bothers you a great deal, so much so that you would disrespect the memory of the victims of the Holocaust as well as the honour of all Canadians, in a few short paragraphs.

And it's a money thing now? How much this all costs? How much do you think it costs? I'm pretty sure where you live the federal government sends a pile of money generated by people here in Ontario, far in excess of your population. Tell you what: give back my share, and I'll help you clarify your anti-regal position.

And you want some recourse? What recourse is there in any political system? Even elected politicians where there is a recall system have to wait for recall and referenda, or the next election. Why live here if you mistrust the system so much? Then again, where would you live instead? No, I think you like it here just fine and would *never* live anywhere else, even if you could.

As for "unelected" branches of government deciding what citizens want, which makes no sense, you are clearly completely unaware of the system that decides who is awarded honours by the Governor General.

You are also completely unaware that since the repatriation of the Constitution, the Governor General doesn't represent the Queen in Canada the way you think she does. And as detailed above, she isn't appointed by the Queen, but by the duly elected politicians (and their cronies) in a fairly transparent system.







rambo4 said:


> Ditch them quick.
> 
> Traditions do not mean squat when it lends itself to so much corruption. What I want to see is accountability. I do not want unelected branches of government deciding what citizens want and in turn us having no recourse when these public servants cease to serve.
> 
> ...


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

If I had saved a child's life through some selfless heroic act and received an order of Canada for it, since they just awarded a guy thats killed thousands of helpless unborn with that same honors, I'd be selling mine on ebay or using it to scrap crud off my boots. What a disgrace when a baby killer represents the best of Canada. I know one thing, if it were put to the people of Canada to choose and not a bunch of left wing elites, this would never have happened. What a shameful day to be Canadian.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

No to Morgentaler and a big :Eh" to the GG. I like seeing police horses and they serve no real purpose, so I suppose I can live with the Governor General putting on the feedbag as well.


----------



## rambo4 (Jun 14, 2008)

HowEver said:


> Methinks the lady doth protest too much.
> 
> Clearly the appointment of Order of Canada Member Dr. Henry Morgentaler bothers you a great deal, so much so that you would disrespect the memory of the victims of the Holocaust as well as the honour of all Canadians, in a few short paragraphs.


??? Who's lady? That phrase is getting olde. What in the heck are you talking about? Holocaust? Brother you need to breathe. I don't remember calling Morgentaler a nazi. _Note: Liberals always bring up the only war they managed to get behind. _ I think he has no moral compass and doesn't represent the values of the majority of Canadians. If you are pro abortion and celebrate a lack of personal responsibility, like I said good for you. How elitely European. 



> And it's a money thing now? How much this all costs? How much do you think it costs? I'm pretty sure where you live the federal government sends a pile of money generated by people here in Ontario, far in excess of your population. Tell you what: give back my share, and I'll help you clarify your anti-regal position.


Please allow me to thank your wonderful Ontario government for giving money to us plebes in the rest of Canada. I don't want Ontario's money. That bloviating of yours just proves how the left has fractured this country.

What a wonderful state Chairman Trudeau left us, a regionally balkanized country, pitting us all against one another. _At least we aren't an evil melting pot, with many cultures having common language, morals and goals. Heaven forfend we be an actual "country"._



> As for "unelected" branches of government deciding what citizens want, which makes no sense, you are clearly completely unaware of the system that decides who is awarded honours by the Governor General.


Makes perfect sense sir. What people want is a representative republic not a soft tyranny. People elect representatives to speak on their behalf, if they do not fight for us, we fire them in the election. They are there to serve us, not the other way around. It's the nature of our system. If you are in favor of unaccountability and despotism, there are plenty of fellow travellers throughout the world that will agree with you. I do not.


As for the rest of it, I still prefer the cheese plate and the beaver suit.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

rambo4 said:


> I am interested in other's opinions on the tax payer funded Governor General position in Canada. In light of the controversy surrounding the awarding of Henry Morgentaler with the Order of Canada


Um ... the Governor General had, as far as I know, *nothing* to do (*EDIT*: _okay, she rubberstamped the committee -- my bad_) with the "controversial" Order of Canada award to Dr. Morgentaler.

I note with interest that NOT ONE of the people on the various news shows who spoke against Dr. Morgentaler's award was, you know, female. Kind of says it all, really.



> Perhaps you feel it is an honorable position and should be held with dignity and respect to honor our British heritage? Do you feel this is being accomplished to your satisfaction?


Admittedly I set the bar low ... if she hasn't embarrassed the country, then she's doing great!

The question of whether we "need" a Governor General is a good one, don't know why you had to bring up the Dr. Morgentaler thing (unless that was your real agenda) ... I think it should become an honorary position for particularly distinguished Canadians, and it should continue. The money "wasted" on it is trivial comparatively speaking, though perhaps it should be an unpaid honour (if it isn't already?).



> In other words do you feel you are getting your money's worth from the Governor General?


It continues that "quaintly British" feeling that keeps the tourists coming, so I say, yes.


----------



## iJohnHenry (Mar 29, 2008)

chas_m said:


> I note with interest that NOT ONE of the people on the various news shows who spoke against Dr. Morgentaler's award was, you know, female. Kind of says it all, really.


Well sure, the "our sperm is sacred" crowd will be out in droves over this one.

And the OP including the GG in this thread is laughable. :lmao:


----------



## rambo4 (Jun 14, 2008)

iJohnHenry said:


> Well sure, the "our sperm is sacred" crowd will be out in droves over this one.
> 
> And the OP including the GG in this thread is laughable. :lmao:


Oh poor you. :-( 

It's _about_ the Governor General, genius.

The "never saw a baby that couldn't be destroyed" crowd focuses on the abortion while ignoring the government wasting your money. As a Catholic, that is my opinion. Deal. Apart from that keep on subject.


----------



## iJohnHenry (Mar 29, 2008)

Then why is Henry included in it??


----------



## rambo4 (Jun 14, 2008)

> The question of whether we "need" a Governor General is a good one, don't know why you had to bring up the Dr. Morgentaler thing (unless that was your real agenda)


chas, Dr.M was brought up because it was in the news today. Apart from that. I could have used the devout collectivist, Buzz Hargrove's award of the same. Whom I find almost as repugnant. Then I wouldn't be accused of being part of the Christian right, just a saboteur for big oil and the car companies, perhaps. 

In retrospect, I should have saved the Order of Canada, the CBC and unelected Senate for other threads but I tried to drive home a lot of things we pay for needlessly.

If Miss Jean wants to accept GG, then let her pay for her own trips and expenses, is all I am saying. Referring to her "service" as pennies to each of us, doesn't cut it with me. Pennies in my pocket, is better than in Ottawa to redistribute. 

Given the choice between a coffee and a Governor General, I pick the coffee. Tim Horton's is a far better rep for our country.


----------



## rambo4 (Jun 14, 2008)

iJohnHenry said:


> Then why is Henry included in it??


It was in the news. That's it. Like I said could have mentioned Hargrove.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

"The "never saw a baby that couldn't be destroyed" crowd focuses on the abortion while ignoring the government wasting your money."

I didn't know I was a member of this elite. Oh dear. I don't even get the newsletter, much less the slick identifying armband. Why, that means it's a two-tier organization! Time to start the letter-writing campaign.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

Henry Morgantaler is a true Canadian hero who put his freedom and reputation on the line for the benefit of women.

Buzz Hargrove is a collectivist leach who lives off the backs of CAW members and has helped the Canadian auto industry price itself to the verge of extinction and seems to be proud of it.

Both get the Order of Canada - go figure.

As for the Catholic position on abortion, I find it hypocritical considering that the Church of Rome in its history burned many thousands of women at the stake essentially for being women-of-knowledge, or witches in Catholic terminology. One never hear complaints from Catholics about the Vatican funding the nazi war effort, the holocaust and general European slaughter by buying art stolen from the Jews at pennies on the dollar and making a tidy profit into the bargain. Nor does one hear complaints from the Catholics about the Vatican funding the Argentinian purchase of Exocet missiles from France to be used to slaughter young British soldiers in the Fauklands. Nor do Catholics complain about the spread of AIDS in Africa due in part to Catholic refusal to endorse condom use - the Vatican even produced a paper which purported to show that condom use indeed fostered the spread of AIDS. The alleged Catholic respect for life is a bad joke.


----------



## rambo4 (Jun 14, 2008)

rgray said:


> Henry Morgantaler is a true Canadian hero who put his freedom and reputation on the line for the benefit of women.
> 
> Buzz Hargrove is a collectivist leach who has helped the Canadian auto industry price itself to the verge of extinction and seems to be proud of it.
> 
> ...


Useful idiot. Thanks for that Marxist rant. Government is god.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

rambo4 said:


> Useful idiot. Thanks for that Marxist rant. Government is god.


My, my! How rhetorically adroit!


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Clearly we have someone here torn between misogyny and life under a bridge, and who therefore chooses both.

Don't let the internet hit you on the rear on your way out.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

rgray said:


> Henry Morgantaler is a true Canadian hero who put his freedom and reputation on the line for the benefit of women.
> 
> Buzz Hargrove is a collectivist leach who lives off the backs of CAW members and has helped the Canadian auto industry price itself to the verge of extinction and seems to be proud of it.
> 
> Both get the Order of Canada - go figure.


Well stated and oh, so true. :clap:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The Order of Cannada is a club that has grown far too large and it appears you don'thave to do much to get there. You were an actor in Hollywood? Come get your medal guys!!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The Order of Canada is a club that has grown far too large and it appears you don't have to do much to get there. You were an actor in Hollywood? Come get your medal guys!!


----------



## iJohnHenry (Mar 29, 2008)

So you said. 

Men, If you have ever used a condom, or even counted days, you are an enemy of the church.

You have killed un-conceived babies, just as sure as abortion kills "un-born" ones.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

What about ill-conceived commentary... we just collectively lost some brain cells.




iJohnHenry said:


> So you said.
> 
> Men, If you have ever used a condom, or even counted days, you are an enemy of the church.
> 
> You have killed un-conceived babies, just as sure as abortion kills "un-born" ones.


----------



## iJohnHenry (Mar 29, 2008)

HowEver said:


> What about ill-conceived commentary... we just collectively lost some brain cells.


I'm so sorry.

It was not my intention to leave you short.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

iJohnHenry said:


> I'm so sorry.
> 
> It was not my intention to leave you short.


I was building on, rather than critiquing, your comments. They were quoted for reference purposes only.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

chas_m said:


> I note with interest that NOT ONE of the people on the various news shows who spoke against Dr. Morgentaler's award was, you know, female. Kind of says it all, really.


Actually the greatest supporters of abortion are likely men. Without it, there'd be no escape clause from the latest orgasmic pursuit gone bad. When things go wrong on Saturday night with (what's her name?), men are likely the first to suggest/demand an abortion so they can move along to the next sperm receptacle unscathed. For the poor women however, she won't be so lucky.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Dr.G. said:


> Evan, while I had distant relatives die in Dachau and not Auschwitz-Birkenau, and thus not at the hands of Josef Mengele, I take offense over this comparison. I also strongly disagree with your comment that "Just another example of why no one in the world respects this country." However, since I believe in the Charter of Rights of Canada, I will respect your right to hold these views and to express them freely. There are thousands upon thousands of people who would love to come to Canada to enjoy the same rights and responsibilities and freedoms that you and I enjoy. Paix.


I could write a pretty large essay on the whole Morgenthaler debacle, but I don't think it can really be squeezed into this thread because a whole debate would erupt. The comparison was not meant as an insult, but rather, as a valid comparison of two men who were entirely possessed with evil impulses, and hid behind a cloak of science and medicine to destroy life for their own gaudy thrills.

The Governor General position is just another fat partonage appointment doled out to some political crony of the Prime Minister - and like the Prime Minister, is another unelected, non democratic position. We would be the laughing stock of the world, if the world cared. I think it is silly that we have some lackey stand up and denounce the Zimbabwe election, since out elections are one in the same, minus the beatings and killings. We do not have free elections in this country, every once in a while we get to go check off one of four or five liberals names on a ballot, but it doesn't matter who we actually vote for, we will get some liberal schmuck in that antes up to the trough as quickly as possible.

The Governor General is just a side effect of this trough, a reward for whatever debt the Prime Minister happens to owe. The Electors have no say, just like we have no say on the Senate (which will never be "reformed", or the Privy Council, which is nothing more than a free steak dinner in perpetuity club.

Not only that, but we have in the current Governor General someone who was appointed who happened not to be a citizen of this nation, and not only that, someone who actively supported the destruction of this very nation, and who associated with known terrorists and hate propaganists. This is a person that has "charm", but at the same time sees fit to sign into law every act of corruption, class warfare and racial discrimination that our Parliament happens to pass.

It is a useless position, and frankly, the entire "system" is nothing more than a kleptocratic Mugabe-paradise for the politically connected influence peddler, the greedy and myopic lobbyist, and a vacation spot for the free steak dinner eating glad handlers.

And what makes it worse is not only does our resident alien steal the Governor General's job from a real Canadian, she chooses to shame this nation by awarding the highest possible honour upon a degnererate, blood thirsty murderer.

Knowing what is self evident, this nation will never mobilize against such infamies, and really ,the sooner this dumpsite falls apart and becomes part of the United States, where they have a better idea of what real freedom is, the better. At least Americans will never get stiffed by having an alien running the nation.

Really, if we didn't have a Governor General, nothing would change because the Governor General does nothing of any importance r significance. The whole "oh, we need the Governor General because they call the election" is nonsense. We need to have set term limits, with set election times, and then we do not have to suffer through all of this shenanigans. This, in essense, makes us the laughing stock of the entire world, if anyone else cared.

Oh, and people choose to come to Canada to escape torture - though they will have to adjust to a life of low paying hard labour jobs (if they can find a job at all), where they will be treated poorly and given no respect. As it is said "Canada want you - doctors and engineers alike - because we have lots of dishes to wash at some grubby restautants - oh, and if you are lucky, you can get a low paying job driving a cab around and getting stabbed by druggies and booze hounds!" Of course, if the migrant worker does the right thing and spouts the correct amount of hatred of the nation, they too can get a pork barrel political job, and dish out awards to mass murderers."


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

rambo4 said:


> I think he has no moral compass and doesn't represent the values of the majority of Canadians. If you are pro abortion and celebrate a lack of personal responsibility, like I said good for you.


I entirely agree. Dishing out abortions as a "right" rather than a medical procedure, and doing that profane act without the provision of education, information and proper facilities and medical personnel is nothing more than butchery.

I think the whole point that Morgenthaler made hit me when he said that "getting an abortion should be as easy as buying a jug of milk at a store". Then he set out and murdered a minimum of 7,000 babies for his own cheap thrills, even though it was clearly illegal. It is one thing to say that women should have a choice, and that proper facilities and doctors should be provide, and to do that via due process, first through political pressure, and if that doesn't work, then by using the media to mobilize the consensus of the people into establishing change.

It is yet another thing to set up shop in a house and start the murders, which were clearly illegal (and were only "sanitized" by our ever clueless Supreme Court). And to do so while advocating that the proper thing to do is to set up death clinics in the backs of local variety stores, where one can drop in, get the baby sucked into a vacuum and mix-mastered, while being able to conveniently pick up a pack of smokes and a bag of milk. And then this clueless country goes on to award him with some honour that, considering the fools they have dished that crummy award out to, is an insult to the real heros of this nation who have performed incredible acts of bravery.



> What a wonderful state Chairman Trudeau left us, a regionally balkanized country, pitting us all against one another. _At least we aren't an evil melting pot, with many cultures having common language, morals and goals. Heaven forfend we be an actual "country"._


Once again, I agree. Trudeau decided that since the Quebec government had treated it's own people with no dignity nor respect, that the Federal government should dish out the same treatment to everyone. Thus, we have very real government policies that discriminate, and in many ways, our nation is rife with Apartheid and official hatred beyond all belief. And one only has to look to Quebec, one of the most hate filled regions of the world, where God forbid if you hang a poster that is not in French on the wall of an Irish Pub. And we as Canadians condone these actions, and not only that, we condone a government that sees fit to shovel billions of dollars into official corruption to "pay off" their political cronies in Quebec, and we condone the cover up, and the whole reasoning of "oh, it was only a few million", when in fact, the entire deal was fraudulent because it was never approved by the people.

And the Governor General, the foreigner she is, living in the lap of the hate mongering separatists, pushing her "speak French or go home" attitudes, does nothing, nothing at all. Maybe she doesn't have the political power to make change - but she could certainly show herself as a person of integrity and make the statement in public, that she has no confidence in a government that condones act of corruption, graft, racism, hatred and class warfare - and that she shall step down not only because of those self evident facts, but because she is not a real Canadian, born of this soil, and she only became "Canadian" because becoming "Canadian" was worth the cash she'd make at this job, and nothing else.

And Trudeau was the worst because he so thoroughly hated Canadians, cramming a defective Constitution down our throats without making the real changes that would turn our little retrograde country into something much better than the Mugabe-paradise it currently is.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Evan, I think my objection stemmed from the comparison of Morgenthaler, who is performing an abortion on a woman who comes to his clinic on her own free will, with "the angel of death". Accept or reject abortions on moral grounds which is your right, but abortion is also legal in this country. Jewish people, et al, who were taken against their will to the death camps, and subjected to forced labor at best, and extermination at worst, did not have any freedom of choice.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

rgray said:


> Henry Morgantaler is a true Canadian hero who put his freedom and reputation on the line for the benefit of women.


Then we should give out the Order of Canada to every mass murderer, like Clifford Olson, who also "got rid of inconvenient children". Morgenthaler did NOTHING for women, he just got his cheap psychopathic thrills out of murdering and butchering the unborn. 



> Buzz Hargrove is a collectivist leach who lives off the backs of CAW members and has helped the Canadian auto industry price itself to the verge of extinction and seems to be proud of it.


I don't think that Mr. Hargrove had anything to do with the myopic decisions of Detroit - where GM persists in building obsolete gas guzzling V-8 engines, Ford persists in building defective vehicles where the wheels either fly off or the tires explode, and Chrysler, need I even mention the Neon? Mr. Hargrove has nothing to do with the fact that the Detroit dinosaurs are pathetic garbage, and the fact is that more and more people are discovering the inherent quality of Japanese vehicles, which by the way, are being made right here in this country in record numbers.

Mr. Hargrove at least fought for the workers, for better pay and better working conditions, and it is only the malaise of Corporate America that is seeing the slow death of the Big Three.


But then again, I don't know what he did to deserve the Order of Canada - since it seems to be an award given to basically any panty waste as well as to a handful of true heroes of this nation.



> I find it hypocritical considering that the Church of Rome in its history burned many thousands of women at the stake essentially for being women-of-knowledge, or witches in Catholic terminology.


You are displaying a real lack of knowledge. The Church, as an institution, never "burned thousands of women at the stake". In fact, the Church never had any method of putting anyone to death, the only "capital punishment" that existed was Excommunication from the Church. If the local prince or duke wanted to mete out such punishments, that was their balliwick, and not the Church. Nor did the Church put to death "women of knowledge" or "witches", again, that was up to the government of a given area, and is not treated under Canon law.



> One never hear complaints from Catholics about the Vatican funding the nazi war effort


What flim-flam is this? The Vatican never gave a dime to the Nazi regime, and it was only for the political reasons that Hitler wanted to keep the Catholics of Germany (and to keep the French, Hungarians, Austrians and Poles from mounting a widespread rebellion against Nazi authority) from mounting a putsch against his regime that he chose not overrun the Vatican and liquidate the Holy See. The Vatican City was under siege for the duration of the war.



> ... the holocaust and general European slaughter... Nor does one hear complaints from the Catholics about the Vatican funding the Argentinian purchase of Exocet missiles from France to be used to slaughter young British soldiers in the Fauklands


Another entirely silly set of notions, of which you have neither any proof, nor does it make any plausible sense. The Vatican was entirely on the record of condemning the Junta in Argentina; and they were very careful to not attack Hitler too directly because it would have taken the SS ten minutes to attack and destroy the Vatican City.

The Church has an official position on any number of issues. They do not support abortion, or for that matter, birth control, because it is the view of the Church that sexual intercourse is only to be performed by a married couple for the reason of procreation. Nor are they inclined to ever change this stance, seeing that it was Canon policy put into place by St. Paul, and has endured through two thousand years of Catholic teaching.

Just because the Church takes such a position does not mean that it is incompatible with modern life. For instance, not one Catholic has ever been excommunicated for using birth control, or by obtaining an abortion because that is not what the faith is about. Now, if a Priest or Bishop were to advocate Abortion publicly, and push other followers in that same direction by teaching that which is not of the Catechism, then the process of excommunication would ensue.

As for these "papers", the Vatican is absolutely correct. If people could keep their members inside their pants, and stop visiting every filthy prostitute, or philandering with everyone else's wives, AIDS (and HIV) would disappear, or at least become much less wide spread. And it is absolutely correct, because if a couple does not engage in extramarital affairs, and neither person has previously acquired HIV or AIDS, then they will have no chance (outside of blood transfusions or using dirty syringes, which is a proven vector) of either getting or spreading AIDS.

But then again, the Vatican has nothing to do with our Governor General, nor does the Vatican have anything to do with our dysfunctional political system.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

I'm not sure what's worse, the pretense that the writer had never heard of the nickname he used in the context he used it; the use of the name by both anti-abortionists and anti-Semites seeking to inflame or insult; or the continued ignorance or pretense to ignorance once the connection and use of the term had been spelled out.

Sadder still is that so many similar anti-abortionists happily burned down clinics and shot abortion doctors based on the same (absence of) reasoning and hatred of others--all in the name of 'respect for life.' Pathetic.




Dr.G. said:


> Evan, I think my objection stemmed from the comparison of Morgenthaler, who is performing an abortion on a woman who comes to his clinic on her own free will, with "the angel of death". Accept or reject abortions on moral grounds which is your right, but abortion is also legal in this country. Jewish people, et al, who were taken against their will to the death camps, and subjected to forced labor at best, and extermination at worst, did not have any freedom of choice.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"Evan, I think my objection stemmed from the comparison of Morgenthaler, who is performing an abortion on a woman who comes to his clinic on her own free will, with "the angel of death"." HowEver, I got my subject and objects turned about in that sentence. I was objecting to Evan comparing Morgenthaler with Josef Mengele, who was called "the angel of death". I have personally met Henry Morgenthaler when he came to St.John's over 20 years ago, and respect the man.

Thus, please accept my apology for my poor grammar. Paix.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

That's exactly how I saw your post. It wasn't you I was referring to.



Dr.G. said:


> "Evan, I think my objection stemmed from the comparison of Morgenthaler, who is performing an abortion on a woman who comes to his clinic on her own free will, with "the angel of death"." HowEver, I got my subject and objects turned about in that sentence. I was objecting to Evan comparing Morgenthaler with Josef Mengele, who was called "the angel of death". I have personally met Henry Morgenthaler when he came to St.John's over 20 years ago, and respect the man.
> 
> Thus, please accept my apology for my poor grammar. Paix.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Dr.G. said:


> Evan, I think my objection stemmed from the comparison of Morgenthaler, who is performing an abortion on a woman who comes to his clinic on her own free will, with "the angel of death". Accept or reject abortions on moral grounds which is your right, but abortion is also legal in this country. Jewish people, et al, who were taken against their will to the death camps, and subjected to forced labor at best, and extermination at worst, did not have any freedom of choice.


Sure the woman went by her own choice but she's not the comparable victim. Its the one being cut to pieces in her womb with no voice, no protection, no rights until the day it sees light from its mothers womb. For that individual, "the angel of death" analogy is appropriate.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I see. Mea culpa, once again. Merci, HowEver. Paix.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

EvanPitts said:


> You are displaying a real lack of knowledge. The Church, as an institution, never "burned thousands of women at the stake". In fact, the Church never had any method of putting anyone to death, the only "capital punishment" that existed was Excommunication from the Church. If the local prince or duke wanted to mete out such punishments, that was their balliwick, and not the Church. Nor did the Church put to death "women of knowledge" or "witches", again, that was up to the government of a given area, and is not treated under Canon law.


Now that's convenient... _Church don't kill people, government does_. 

I'm sure the Church did their fair share to ensure those outed would be put to death.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Your familiarity with the witch hunt and trials is incomplete. In many jurisdictions, the church was completely responsible for burning women (and men) to death.

Find a copy of "The Burning Times" and watch it.



EvanPitts said:


> You are displaying a real lack of knowledge. The Church, as an institution, never "burned thousands of women at the stake". In fact, the Church never had any method of putting anyone to death, the only "capital punishment" that existed was Excommunication from the Church. If the local prince or duke wanted to mete out such punishments, that was their balliwick, and not the Church. Nor did the Church put to death "women of knowledge" or "witches", again, that was up to the government of a given area, and is not treated under Canon law.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Dr.G. said:


> Evan, I think my objection stemmed from the comparison of Morgenthaler, who is performing an abortion on a woman who comes to his clinic on her own free will, with "the angel of death".


I certainly accept that, since I would object on those grounds as well. My comparison was more about the accolades, that on one hand we have a man who has been decorated for murdering, while on the other hand, we have another man who is notorious for his murders.

It comes down to ways and means, and Morgenthaler did nothing except to flaunt the laws of this nation in the pursuit to fulfill his evil impulses - and then gets rewarded for those very acts of murder. i am not opposed to abortions or birth control, but I am abhorred by the policies that Morgenthaler holds as his mantra. Perhaps years ago I would have even sympathized with him, knowing the political blockheads that populate the government. But then he opened his yap, and uttered those words "...as easy to get an abortion as it is to buy a jug of milk at the corner store." In that fateful interview, he also talked about the fact that he would dole out the training, as it is a procedure that does not require medical attention, and it should be "low cost".

It is my belief that he derailed his own points with that fateful interview on the CBC all those years ago. Barbara Frum was one hard core interviewer, and this nation is worse off without her! Now, if Morgenthaler has first attempted to make a change via the political route (and perhaps railroaded), he could have worked to build a consensus via public awareness and the media. But he just went out, bought his own mix-master and shop-vac, and set up his grungy clinic of horrors when it was clearly illegal.

We have not broached the issue of the rights of the unborn, nor have we broached the rights of the father or other family members, nor have we really thought about this issue in any depth, next to jumping into one or the other polarized camps that both expouse their peculiar policies of stupidity and hatred.



> but abortion is also legal in this country.


Actually, Canada has no "abortion law". Twenty years ago the Supreme Court saw fit to toss out the provisions of the Criminal Code that made abortions "illegal", but nothing has been done in the intervening years to make them "legal", or to outline the terms by which an abortion can be procured. Canada is the only western nation to not have an actual law concerning abortion, and theoretically, it would be possible to demand an abortion up to and during labour! This is yet another true sham on the part of Canada.



> Jewish people, et al, who were taken against their will to the death camps, and subjected to forced labor at best, and extermination at worst, did not have any freedom of choice.


\

By the same token, the unborn are also slaughtered without having any freedom of choice. It is one and the same, especially in the light that one does not even have to mention the Holocaust, but can just look at the barbarism of the Nazi Eugenics program that proceeded it, in which abortion was crucial! This is a critical unanswered set of questions that needs to be looked at in this nation.

Every other progressive minded nation has already made decisions, or at least some decisions, but this nation has waited for twenty years, with a piecemeal system where some people can get abortions and some can not, without regulation or inspection or licensing, with clinics that range from actual medical facilities to grubby old rooms in the worst slums in town.

That is the real problem, that we awarded the highest honour that this nation can dole out, while that which he represents is nothing more than a system of barbarity and murder that has claimed perhaps 2 million lives; and that we still do not have universal sex education, universal access to information, to birth control, to knowledge, let alone access to clean facilities staffed by caring and genuine medical personel. And this is not by any ethical or moral standard conceivable even one iota better or different from the murderers of the Nazi regime. To say that we do not condone our own version of a "holocaust" is preposterous.


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

Wow. I don't know what to say with all this hatred spewed towards one of Canada's greatest Canadians in my lifetime.

I might also add it's been a very long time since I've been so proud of my country. I cannot imagine such an honour happening in the USA with that bunch of religious freaks down there.

I'm a woman. I put this great man on the highest pedestal. Pro choice is equal to when women got the vote in importance. 

When men can conceive, carry to term and raise a child alone from day one, THEN and ONLY then, do they have an equal say in what a woman voluntarily does with her body.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

:clap:


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

Now you want to throw away our British heritage? Next will be the French heritage, or our mixture of cultures that make Canada, Canada. I'd rather we remain a part of the Commonwealth which affords us various benefits then become a republic(?).

As for Henry Morgentaler, haven't we moved past where abortion is contraversial? While I'm not pro-abortion, I think every woman has the right to a choice.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

iJohnHenry said:


> Well sure, the "our sperm is sacred" crowd will be out in droves over this one.
> 
> And the OP including the GG in this thread is laughable. :lmao:


What's even more amusing -- all of the anti-abortion crowd here appear to be men as well. Surprise, surprise. The abortion "controversy" isn't about life, or even babies -- it's about _control_. Plain and simple.

If it were about life, this same crowd would be the ones protesting the death penalty (instead of calling for it) and demanding an end to wars (which kill thousands of innocents, sometimes in a single day).

If it were about babies, adoption agencies would be unable to handle the crush of sudden popularity. So much for that idea.

It's all about control, which is why men are almost exclusively the people against the choice.

When a majority of _women_ in this country are against abortion, _then_ I'll listen. Until then, it's a manufactured "outrage."


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

adagio said:


> I might also add it's been a very long time since I've been so proud of my country. I cannot imagine such an honour happening in the USA with that bunch of religious freaks down there.


You got THAT right, sister!!



> When men can conceive, carry to term and raise a child alone from day one, THEN and ONLY then, do they have an equal say in what a woman voluntarily does with her body.


WHAT SHE SAID.
:clap:


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Thankfully we live in a society where people are free to express their opinion, regardless of the type of reproductive organs they carry.

Oops. Maybe I spoke too soon.


----------



## iJohnHenry (Mar 29, 2008)

Yes, you are free to speak your opinion, but if you don't carry the reproductive organs under discussion, we will not let you force your will on those that do.


----------



## eggman (Jun 24, 2006)

MacGuiver said:


> Actually the greatest supporters of abortion are likely men. Without it, there'd be no escape clause from the latest orgasmic pursuit gone bad. When things go wrong on Saturday night with (what's her name?), men are likely the first to suggest/demand an abortion so they can move along to the next sperm receptacle unscathed. For the poor women however, she won't be so lucky.


Before you use the phrase "the poor women" go and watch:

Leona's Sister Gerri (1995) (TV)

But be warned - it will make you think, no matter which side of the debate you're on.

And I would remind you McG, that according to the sites that you yourself provided the last time you felt like participating in a thread around the abortion issue - *in countries where it is illegal, it is used more frequently, not less.*


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Marg: you go, girl. As you well know, we rarely see eye to eye on political matters... but very well said.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

eggman said:


> Before you use the phrase "the poor women" go and watch:
> 
> Leona's Sister Gerri (1995) (TV)
> 
> ...


Eggman, you have a link to some stats to back that up? I don't recall reading that abortions happen more where its illegal.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## rambo4 (Jun 14, 2008)

It's cute to see socialists and the Catholic bigot all band together and congratulate one another for the same perverse viewpoints. Sort of like watching the Academy Awards. :clap: 

EvanPitts, great posts. I tip my hat to you. Well written and concise. 

What I enjoy most now is that Canada is getting a wave from the grassroots, through the internet and other communications we are getting energized. As Talk Radio did for the American base in the late 1980's, in lieu of the CRTC, it is happening here through the internet, all the way down to kitchen tables all over this nation. All these companies and media outlets that had a captive audience for so long, are now fighting to keep crazy ideas like freedom and liberty out of the minds of us peons. We ARE shifting to the right. It took a while for the left to try to tear this country apart, it will take a while for to set this ship aright, but I see light on the horizon. 

Liberty and Justice for all! Even you liberals! 

The more of this type of controversy happens, the happier I get. It is mobilizing the base. It's a great day to be a Canadian, the Trudeaupian Stalinist stranglehold of this country has seen its apex. 

_It does seem so last century, don't you think?_ 

Let freedom ring.


----------



## eggman (Jun 24, 2006)

MacGuiver said:


> Eggman, you have a link to some stats to back that up? I don't recall reading that abortions happen more where its illegal.
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


Well you did originally provide the link in another thread. (you were providing information on the total number of abortions worldwide). I can understand why you may have forgotten - you're not going to like the numbers, and the Vatican would not like them or the mention of contraception either. (nor would many other belief systems - but the Roman Catholic church has been the most vocal in Western society regarding these topics)



> It may not be news that liberalizing abortion laws and enabling abortion services to be provided openly by skilled practitioners—even as the society promotes greater contraceptive use—is the most effective way for a country to ensure that abortion is safe for women while simultaneously reducing its incidence. It is nonetheless significant that recent evidence further reinforces the logic of this dual approach. Opponents of abortion in the United States and around the world may be expected to continue to insist that the best way to reduce abortion is to restrict it. With the passage of time, however, more and more countries can now demonstrate the facts to be otherwise.


From here:
New Data on Abortion Incidence, Safety Illuminate Key Aspects of Worldwide Abortion Debate

Which was an organization you cited to provide us with the total number.

There is also this:

Facts on Induced Abortion Worldwide

Which provides this quote (*emphasis* added):



> ABORTION LAW
> 
> •	*Legal restrictions on abortion do not affect its incidence.* For example, the abortion rate is 29 in Africa, where abortion is illegal in many circumstances in most countries, and it is 28 in Europe, where abortion is generally permitted on broad grounds. *The lowest rates in the world are in Western and Northern Europe, where abortion is accessible with few restrictions.*


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

> ABORTION LAW
> 
> •	Legal restrictions on abortion do not affect its incidence. For example, the abortion rate is 29 in Africa, where abortion is illegal in many circumstances in most countries, and it is 28 in Europe, where abortion is generally permitted on broad grounds. The lowest rates in the world are in Western and Northern Europe, where abortion is accessible with few restrictions.


Oh, please. You with your statistics and facts and all that. Don't you know that those things don't matter? The people who oppose things like abortion don't base their decision on facts or statistics. They base their opinions on emotion and ignorance.

This is why we need to honour people like Morgentaler. He stood up to the bigots.

And on the subject of "Does Canada need a Governor General"?

I vote yes. The Governor General gives our government, and country a little bit of integrity. The monarchy gives us a little bit of class. We want to unite the people of this world. So why do people want to break us apart?

Yes, the monarchy is really just a show piece, but it's what binds the Commonwealth together. I've met so many people who don't really even understand what it means. I ask them who Queen Elizabeth is and they often reply "The Queen of England". No! She's the Queen of Canada!


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

eggman said:


> Well you did originally provide the link in another thread. (you were providing information on the total number of abortions worldwide). I can understand why you may have forgotten - you're not going to like the numbers, and the Vatican would not like them or the mention of contraception either. (nor would many other belief systems - but the Roman Catholic church has been the most vocal in Western society regarding these topics)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I have a question about the stats. How on earth does one gather the numbers of illegal abortions? Do the back ally abortionists submit numbers of customers served to the world health organization or did someone pull that number out of thin air?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacGuiver said:


> I have a question about the stats. How on earth does one gather the numbers of illegal abortions? Do the back ally abortionists submit numbers of customers served to the world health organization or did someone pull that number out of thin air?


MacGuiver, you'll have to forgive eggman for posting inaccurate information.

He doesn't mean to, or he wouldn't rag on others who use similar type sources.

*Or does he do so when it suits the need?* 

(emphasis added)


----------



## eggman (Jun 24, 2006)

MacGuiver said:


> I have a question about the stats. How on earth does one gather the numbers of illegal abortions? Do the back ally abortionists submit numbers of customers served to the world health organization or did someone pull that number out of thin air?


An interesting question - which they answer on their site, which you initially directed me to (as I think you remember) check around there.

It is interesting that that question didn't arise when you were initially presenting this site as a source for the total number worldwide.


----------



## eggman (Jun 24, 2006)

SINC said:


> MacGuiver, you'll have to forgive eggman for posting inaccurate information.
> 
> He doesn't mean to, or he wouldn't rag on others who use similar type sources.
> 
> ...


SINC - don't you remember? - I'm the guy who has enough integrity to correct himself  (and decades of practice too!)

Such a short time ago too...


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

SINC said:


> MacGuiver, you'll have to forgive eggman for posting inaccurate information.
> 
> He doesn't mean to, or he wouldn't rag on others who use similar type sources.
> 
> ...


Sinc I'm not saying Eggman's numbers are wrong. He could be right. I'm just being logical here. I see no possible way an organization could claim to have numbers (yet alone accurate ones) for something illegal that happens in hiding. Sorta like claiming to have the number of drug transactions taken place in Canada last year. That number can be nothing more than a guess and can be cooked to serve whatever agenda one may have.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

eggman said:


> An interesting question - which they answer on their site, which you initially directed me to (as I think you remember) check around there.


Since you have the link, could you be so kind as to post it to refresh my memory. That thread was aborted so to speak and I haven't got the link or know which one you are referring to. 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

MacGuiver said:


> Sinc I'm not saying Eggman's numbers are wrong. He could be right. I'm just being logical here. I see no possible way an organization could claim to have numbers (yet alone accurate ones) for something illegal that happens in hiding. Sorta like claiming to have the number of drug transactions taken place in Canada last year. That number can be nothing more than a guess and can be cooked to serve whatever agenda one may have.


Spoken like someone who has never taken a University level statistics course. Don't worry. I'm sure you grade-school level education will help solve the world's problems.

Ignorance doesn't change facts.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

eggman said:


> It is interesting that that question didn't arise when you were initially presenting this site as a source for the total number worldwide.


Yeah I'm sure if you cut the illegal abortion figure out of their numbers it would have made the number of abortions insignificant. 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

guytoronto said:


> Spoken like someone who has never taken a University level statistics course. Don't worry. I'm sure you grade-school level education will help solve the world's problems.
> 
> Ignorance doesn't change facts.


Since statistics gathering is your area of expertise, how do they collect numbers from underworld abortionists? Should be easy for a bright light like yourself to answer and set a high school kid like me straight.

Oh and by the way, I'm pretty sure they taught us in high school English 101 "you grade-school level education" should read "your grade-school education". Maybe thats some kinda fancy university shorthand.


----------



## eggman (Jun 24, 2006)

MacGuiver said:


> Since you have the link, could you be so kind as to post it to refresh my memory. That thread was aborted so to speak and I haven't got the link or know which one you are referring to.
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


The old thread does indeed seem to be gone.

Oh well.

WHO data (World Health Organization - Guttmacher sites them in many of their reports) which, if you do a bit of searching, will bring you to this .pdf report:

http://www.who.int/reproductive-health/publications/unsafeabortion_2000/estimates.pdf

Which, in section "5.3 Methods and assumptions for estimating incidence of unsafe abortion and associated mortality" - tells where they (and for some of their reports Guttmacher) get their data.

The Guttmacher site's methodology for their 1999 report is described here:

The Incidence of Abortion Worldwide

In the section "Methods and Data Sources"


----------



## iJohnHenry (Mar 29, 2008)

MacGuiver said:


> I don't recall reading that abortions happen more where its illegal.


Would you at least agree that more women die from botched abortions, in countries where it is illegal, than in countries where it is legal??


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

The Globe's Margaret Wente weighs in on the issue today.


----------



## cap10subtext (Oct 13, 2005)

Just wanted to point out that with our country being very much out of step with the rest of the world (tie that one back to the lack of an abortion law) it's not such a bad idea to have a public figure out there doing the kind of PR work that money doesn't buy. On a side note, seeing Harper dressed up like a cowboy on the front page of the paper makes me want to puke.

I'm not thrilled about how much the GG is making but it upsets me no more so than how much other government officials make to work some 1/3 of the year. Until being an elected official in this country becomes a 9 to 5 job we are kidding ourselves that cutting a position like the GG is going to make any difference in the amount of money we flush down the bureaucratic toilet.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

The Governor General tours troops (in war zones), visits schools, helps award prizes, serves Parliament and the Senate, swears in Cabinet ministers and others, hosts foreign dignitaries, travels to promote Canada in Canada and overseas... She does not have the light schedule of an MP, and has to take far more crap than is dished up in threads like this one. Imagine choosing Canada as your country, Canada choosing you as its chief door greeter and dissolver of Parliament, and having people question your loyalty because, without breaking any laws and as encouraged by our legal system, you hold foreign citizenship as well.

It's the same as the abortion debate in a way: replicate your own political agenda of misogyny and hatred by attacking a person in a position of authority--who many admire and trust.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

HowEver said:


> Your familiarity with the witch hunt and trials is incomplete. In many jurisdictions, the church was completely responsible for burning women (and men) to death.
> 
> Find a copy of "The Burning Times" and watch it.


There were many places in which Bishops (and Abbots, etc...) were enfeudated, and thus were in control of all matters Civil and Church. And of course even in Rome, as the capital of the Papal States, the Pope was also a Prince of the Realm, and held dual powers. And there were those among the hundreds of such figures who did issue orders to do such things in many juristictions. That was not my point at all, and I should have been more clear.

My point is that the Church (capitalized), as an institution, never promulgated a sentence of death as a matter of Church policy, nor was a death sentence ever issued by a Church Council, nor was it ever proscribed within Canon Law. If there were persons who issued such death sentences, they did it derived from their use (or abuse) of their civil powers, and not by any standing regulation issued by the Church.

It is all to convenient in this day and age, where there is a distinct difference between the Church and the State to misunderstand that to the Roman mind, these things were both entirely entertwined and entirely different. The Imperator and Princip of Rome was generally also the Pontifex Maximus - in the same way that the His Majesty the Queen of Canada is both the head of state and the titular head of the Church of England.

Plus, half the movies that are made are simply a vehicle for some peculiar set of political thoughts, just like the revisionist books of David Irving should be taken with a pound of salt.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

EvanPitts said:


> Plus, half the movies that are made are simply a vehicle for some peculiar set of political thoughts, just like the revisionist books of David Irving should be taken with a pound of salt.


So why bother watching any movies at all? They all have agendas.

And you can take these remarks with a pillar of salt...


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

adagio said:


> Wow. I don't know what to say with all this hatred spewed towards one of Canada's greatest Canadians in my lifetime.


I never saw anything written in this thread about Conrad Black?!


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Rather than wade into the interminable debate with the bronze-age mythology crowd, I'll just say that the awarding of the OoC to Dr. Morgentaler makes me proud to be a Canadian.

The GG is such a trivial issue to me that I haven't put much thought into it. In principle, I suppose it would be better not to need such ceremonial positions, but the truth is that most people like pomp & circumstance, traditions, and the stuff that goes with it like GGs. Strangely, these are also the things most people like about church. None of it appeals to me in any way, but the relative cost is so insignificant that I can't be bothered to worry about it. If enough people find it entertaining/comforting to have a Governor General, or Priest, to preside over ceremonies, that's fine with me.

Cheers.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

cap10subtext said:


> I'm not thrilled about how much the GG is making but it upsets me no more so than how much other government officials make to work some 1/3 of the year. Until being an elected official in this country becomes a 9 to 5 job we are kidding ourselves that cutting a position like the GG is going to make any difference in the amount of money we flush down the bureaucratic toilet.


Who are talking about here as you are mixing your references. On the one hand you say elected officials and on the other you refer to the "bureaucratic toilet." They are two completely different things. Elected officials aren't bureaucrats. In any case you are wrong on both fronts.

I have worked for two different MPs and have dealt with many high level bureaucrats. I can tell you from personal experience these people work hours that very few people are capable of working let alone willing to work, especially MPs. Many MPs start their days at 7:00 am and don't finish their days until 8:00 or 9:00 pm or later.

If you think that MPs are only working when the House of Commons is sitting (as unfortunately many people do) you couldn't be more wrong. The reason why Parliament recesses is to allow MPs to go back to their ridings and concentrate on the work that needs to be done there.

If our elected officials only worked 9:00 - 5:00, you would be getting WAY less (in terms of time spent on the job) than you already are.

It actually amazes me how many people think they can speak with authority about the work ethic of individuals or what is required of a job with which they have no experience what-so-ever.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

EvanPitts said:


> I never saw anything written in this thread about Conrad Black?!


  XX) XX)


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

guytoronto said:


> This is why we need to honour people like Morgentaler. He stood up to the bigots.


He never stood up for anything - he simply conducted his murders illegally, and contributed nothing. If anything, he is just another name from a self made fake-martyr that emerged during the years of hope and anger. He did nothing - nothing was accomplished because Canada still does not have regulations or laws on the books that guarantee access to abortion, nor are there any regulations or laws on the books that guarantee access to information and sex education.

Nor did Morgenthaler wish for these things - he did not want to have qualified medical doctors performing these tasks (for him, anyone with two days of "training" who would work for minimum wage was good enough) - he did not want to have clean medical facilities (he wanted to use the back rooms of variety stores, and dingy, dirty slum housing in order to make as much money as possible) - nor did he have any concern for education and learning.

What he did do was break the law, and he was never punished for his murders. Instead we lionize him as some kind of "hero", given a fake award of little merit by our head of state that is not even a Canadian. Yeah, Government at it's best!



> The Governor General gives our government, and country a little bit of integrity. The monarchy gives us a little bit of class.


For the money we waste on that glad handler - we could give this country even more "class" by filling in the potholes on the road, so that visitors do not think we just made it through some recent Civil War. If the position does not entail doing anything of use - then why have it, especially since it costs us a great deal of money?



> We want to unite the people of this world. So why do people want to break us apart?[/QUOTE
> 
> Perhaps you could ask our Governor General that very question - since she is a foreigner who consorts with separatists.
> 
> ...


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

cap10subtext said:


> ...seeing Harper dressed up like a cowboy on the front page of the paper makes me want to puke.


Must be Stampede time again in Calgary! And if you think you want to puke, imagine his poor wife when he is in bed with that get-up...



> I'm not thrilled about how much the GG is making but it upsets me no more so than how much other government officials make to work some 1/3 of the year.


Many government officials do not "work". They hang out, drink booze, eat steaks, harangue their staff, and have meetings where they sell influence to the highest bidder.

The Governor General and her office staff have a budget of something like $50 Million - which is mighty expensive when you figure the only task required in that job is to be a glad handling rubber stamper who spends their days engaged in endorsing profane acts of class warfare and hatred.



> Until being an elected official in this country becomes a 9 to 5 job we are kidding ourselves that cutting a position like the GG is going to make any difference in the amount of money we flush down the bureaucratic toilet.


I was watching a typical waste of taxpayer money the other day on CPAC, where some Parliamentarian was haranguing a representative of the Egyptian Copts over refugees. The Egyptian kept trying to explain that in a police state like Egypt - death threats are not accompanied by "documentation". They mob shows up at your door, and if you do not immediately convert to Islam, they kill you and burn down your house. The Parliamentarian couldn't understand that point at all, and the explanation went on for a half hour. It's good to see that we include the mentally deficient in Parliament.

I think the issue of the Governor General is less of one of money, since we did spend more money on Chretien's golf club and associated corruption than on the GG's office - but more of a "if the Governor General has no real work to do and spends all of the time glad handling, why do we bother to have it?" kind of problem.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

EvanPitts said:


> He never stood up for anything - he simply conducted his murders illegally, and contributed nothing. If anything, he is just another name from a self made fake-martyr that emerged during the years of hope and anger. He did nothing - nothing was accomplished because Canada still does not have regulations or laws on the books that guarantee access to abortion, nor are there any regulations or laws on the books that guarantee access to information and sex education.


EP, I have stayed out this debate because it is futile to attempt to change anyones mind regarding the issue of abortion. Either you believe it is a fundamental right of the individual to control their own bodies or you believe in the "sanctity" of the unborn. Period.

However, the statement you made above is incorrect. Dr. Morgentaler clearly did stand up for the legal right of women to procure an abortion. The lack of success in obtaining that legislatively enshrined right does not mean that he stood up for nothing or that nothing was accomplished. Clearly the legal limbo that we continue to be in regarding abortion in this country is testament to his efforts.

Whether or not we have legislation regarding the legality of abortion is at this point in time somewhat moot. The defacto reality is that abortion is practiced legally in this country i.e. the practitioners nor their patients are arrested for their acts. This is undoubtedly in large measure due the efforts of Dr. Morgentaler. 

You keep saying that his abortions were done illegally, which is true. However, legality is not necessarily a measure of ethics or morality or what is right. There are countless examples in history where individuals and groups have acted "illegally" in betrayal of their government's laws out of necessity in order to bring about change and promote human rights and freedom.

Clearly in Dr. Morgentaler's mind this is what he was doing all the while pursuing bringing about change through legal means as well. 

(Brief legal synopsis: On June 1, 1970, Morgentaler was arrested in Montreal for performing illegal abortions. In 1972 he ran in the Federal Election in the riding of Saint-Denis as an independent, finishing fourth with 1,509 votes. Later in 1973 he claimed to have performed 5,000 illegal abortions. He was acquitted by a jury in the court case, but the acquittal was overturned by five judges on the Quebec Court of Appeal in 1974. He went to prison, appealed, and was again acquitted. In total, he served 10 months, suffering a heart attack while in solitary confinement. Morgentaler first went to the Supreme Court of Canada in an attempt to overturn the country's abortion law in Morgentaler v. The Queen but was unsuccessful.

In 1982, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was enacted as part of the Canadian Constitution. Morgentaler was charged again in 1983 in Ontario for procuring illegal miscarriages. He was acquitted by a jury, but the verdict was reversed by the Ontario Court of Appeal. The case was then sent to the Supreme Court of Canada. He was acquitted once again, and the Canadian Supreme Court declared the law he was convicted under to be in violation of the Charter and thus unconstitutional in the case of Morgentaler et al. v. Her Majesty The Queen 1988 (1 S.C.R. 30). This ruling essentially ended all statutory restrictions on abortion in Canada.)

So you can have your opinion about abortion to which you are of course entitled and you can have your opinions about the motivations of Dr. Morgantaler, but the historical fact remains that he clearly did stand up for something and that his efforts did have a profound impact on the practice of abortion in Canada and the defacto rights of women to obtain an abortion. To indicate otherwise does nothing more than to reveal your own personal biases. The history and our current reality speaks for itself.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

HowEver said:


> The Governor General tours troops (in war zones), visits schools,


Does she do Yo-yo tricks?



> serves Parliament and the Senate,


Didn't know she moonlighted as a bar wench at the Parliamentary Pub.



> swears in Cabinet ministers and others,


They could use a Judge for that, and save a wad of cash.



> hosts foreign dignitaries,


Holiday Inn Express may be cheaper and more refreshing.



> Imagine choosing Canada as your country, Canada choosing you as its chief door greeter and dissolver of Parliament,


Imagine any other country selecting a foreigner as their head of state? She didn't "choose" Canada, they fled Haiti and went where ever they could find refugee status. Then she consorted with separatists, and used her public position within the CBC to promote the aims and goals of the separatist movement. Then she refused to become a real Canadian citizen, and now serves as out resident alien head of state, who got her position because she was in close with Mr. Martin, who is yet another bit of shame for Canada.

The Governor General should be an elected Canadian - born of the soil of this nation, without any foreign influence and devoid of the impulses of treason and sedition, and it may be a good idea if the person elected could actually speak the language of this nation. And they should actually do real work. For once, I'd like to see a GG actually stand up for the people, and refuse to sign some act of racism or class warfare into law out of their own scruples, and the belief that our society and nation deserves something better.



> and having people question your loyalty because, without breaking any laws and as encouraged by our legal system, you hold foreign citizenship as well.


No one that is Canadian should be a foreigner as well. Canada For Canadians. Someone wants to come here and become Canadians, then they should be Canadian and Canadian only. We have a very poor self image of ourselves, with no pride and no dignity when we let a crust of our nation remain firmly in the yoke of foreign powers. This is the reason why, if anyone else in the world cared, Canada would be a laughing stock.



> replicate your own political agenda of misogyny and hatred by attacking a person in a position of authority--who many admire and trust.


I never seen a "person of authority" attacked over the abortion issue. What Morgenthaler did was commit thousands of atrocities, clearly illegal, and did so in order to bring attention to his peculiar hatred of humanity and his parochial view of women. He was no "person of authority" - he was a butcher filled to the brim with his ego and his hatred, and once he made up his mind, he went on a rampage of destruction beyond all beliefs. And what is sad is that this nation did not stand up to his hatred of mankind and his lack of any morality - but instead, rewarded him for his profane butchery and his publications that spouted hatred at each and every turn.

It can be said that "who many admire and trust" is not a reliable indicator of any sense of morality, because it can be said that Herr Hitler still has many who "admire and trust" his perverse visions, and even those like David Irving who act as the apologist for that filthy regime of hatred and crime.

Pope Benedict does warn us of the endemic problems behind moral relativism, and our nation is entirely in the grip of those problems. Our nation lives it's daily live as an anachronism. We will continue to shelter war criminals of all stripes - but we must send back Christian converts back to their home countries so they can be killed for their beliefs. We will continue to lionize Morgenthaler and his cronies who butcher the unborn with the Braun Multipractic in the dirty backrooms of their slum landlard buildings - while at the same time we will not provide proper regulation, proper facilities, properly trained medical people and universal access to birth control, education and resources.

People will continue to point at the Church and say that they are evil because they do not condone birth control or abortion. It is not the position of the Church to take such stands, as it is the view of the Church that sexual intercourse is solely for the purpose of procreation and is only sanctified under the union of marriage. However, I know of no instance where the Church excommunicated someone for using a condom, or having an abortion - those things are sins but not heresy.

I think we set a bad precedent in that we had a law prohibiting abortion, and it was replaced by nothing. So we have Morgenthaler who disagreed with the law, so he intentionally broke the law, without even attempting to use the ways and means of a democratic society to make changes to the law. So eventually the law was scrapped, perhaps on reasonable grounds, but then nothing was done about it. Abortions remain completely unsafe - buyer beware situation, with no regulation and without universal access to the procedure or to education, resources, and without access to universal birth control. It is an ad hoc mish-mash. Moral and ethical questions go unanswered, and really, it is entirely possible to procure an abortion in this nation up to the time of labour - since there are no regulations at all. Buyer beware.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

eggman said:


> And I would remind you McG, that according to the sites that you yourself provided the last time you felt like participating in a thread around the abortion issue - *in countries where it is illegal, it is used more frequently, not less.*


These stats from the site you sent me beg to differ.

abortions per 1000 women, top 10 countries
(countries in bold have strict limits or a total ban)

Vietnam 83.3 (any reason, anytime)
Romania 78.0 (any reason, anytime with restrictions to first trimester for reasons other than mother life and health)
Cuba 77.7 (any reason, anytime)
Russia 68.4 (any reason, limit to second trimester)
Belarus 67.5 (any reason, anytime)
Ukraine 57.2 (any reason, limit to second trimester)
*Peru 56.1 estimated figure (Legal for Life, Health and mental reasons)*
Yugoslavia 54.6 (any reason, anytime)
Estonia 53.8 (any reason, anytime)
*Chile 50.0 estimated figure (total ban)*

Sources:

The Incidence of Abortion Worldwide

Summary of Abortion Laws Around the World


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

EvanPitts said:


> He never stood up for anything - he simply conducted his murders illegally, and contributed nothing. If anything, he is just another name from a self made fake-martyr that emerged during the years of hope and anger. He did nothing - nothing was accomplished because Canada still does not have regulations or laws on the books that guarantee access to abortion, nor are there any regulations or laws on the books that guarantee access to information and sex education.


Your level of ignorance on this issue (and others in other threads) is truly amazing.


----------



## iJohnHenry (Mar 29, 2008)

People with an agenda usually fit that description.


----------



## eggman (Jun 24, 2006)

MacGuiver said:


> These stats from the site you sent me beg to differ.
> 
> abortions per 1000 women, top 10 countries
> (countries in bold have strict limits or a total ban)
> ...


Really? I've looked and your links don't match your table at all.

And for accuracies sake I should mention that I did not provide you with the second link either. (which can be easily verified by looking earlier in the thread)

Could you provide a more precise link?

Thanks in advance.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

guytoronto said:


> Your level of ignorance on this issue (and others in other threads) is truly amazing.


Then show me, oh holy one, where there is a complete and concise law on the books that guarantees these very things!

You seem to have the attitude that, if someone doesn't entirely agree with you, they are wrong. Without reading even one word of what I stated, you state that I am somehow ignorant, and that you, oh holy one, have supeerior knowledge to all that there is.

As I stated, Abortion was completely illegal - but Morgenthaler decided to get his jollies by his gratutitous acts of butchery anyways. And a law struck down by our corrupted Supreme Court perhaps makes something not illegal - but it doesn't make it legal either. Our "Charter" is a sham, something to protect special interest groups and certain elitists, while imperiling the rest of our society, and singlehandedly, the Charter institutes any number of acts of hatred, racism, and class warfare.

Not only do we not punish murderers any more, we are now dishing out awards. I think Paul Bernardo will be the next Order of Canada recipient because of the great things he did for our society, and Robert Pickton, he should win multiple awards...


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

EvanPitts said:


> Then show me, oh holy one, where there is a complete and concise law on the books that guarantees these very things!


There is no law on the books that guarantees your right to masturbate. Does that mean it's illegal to do so? No. Are we in jeopardy of having that "right" stripped away? No. Do people do it everyday without fear of persecution? Yes. (well, except kids who fear t he wrath of ignorant parents).



> You seem to have the attitude that, if someone doesn't entirely agree with you, they are wrong. Without reading even one word of what I stated, you state that I am somehow ignorant, and that you, oh holy one, have supeerior knowledge to all that there is.


I did read everything you said, and I stand by my original assessment. Your level of ignorance is amazing.



> As I stated, Abortion was completely illegal - but Morgenthaler decided to get his jollies by his gratutitous acts of butchery anyways


A very ignorant statement. Got his "jollies"?



> And a law struck down by our corrupted Supreme Court perhaps makes something not illegal - but it doesn't make it legal either


Actually it does. Again, an ignorant statement. The criminal code defines what is illegal. It defines "criminal offenses". If there is no criminal offense, it is legal.



> Our "Charter" is a sham, something to protect special interest groups and certain elitists, while imperiling the rest of our society, and singlehandedly, the Charter institutes any number of acts of hatred, racism, and class warfare.


Chalk another one up for ignorance. Our Charter of Right and Freedoms gives each and every individual numerous rights, all spelled out in black and white. Read about it here: Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Just because you may disagree with a few of the sections of the Charter, doesn't make it a "sham". If you truly believe it's a sham, are willing to give up your right to vote, freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, freedom of thought, freedom of belief, freedom of expression, freedom of peaceful assembly, and freedom of association?



> Not only do we not punish murderers any more, we are now dishing out awards.


Ignorant statement. Murders are tried and convicted all the time in Canada. Morgentaler was NEVER accused of murder. He was tried for performing illegal abortions. His cases went all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. There, it was ruled that the abortion laws were unconstitutional. Morgentaler's actions helped right a wrong in our legal system.



> I think Paul Bernardo will be the next Order of Canada recipient because of the great things he did for our society, and Robert Pickton, he should win multiple awards...


Now you are just being a troll. An ignorant troll.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

screature said:


> EP, I have stayed out this debate because it is futile to attempt to change anyones mind regarding the issue of abortion.


I only wandered in because I wanted to do some practice typing. This is perhaps the stupidest issue in the entire scheme of things. You have the feminazis on the one side who feel it is their right to degrade their bodies by sleeping around with whatever scumbag they pick up at a bar - and the zealots on the other side that want ignorance and stupidity to reign. And that is the whole crux of the debate, both sides populated with losers that have no respect for anything. But it does make for good practice typing.



> Either you believe it is a fundamental right of the individual to control their own bodies or you believe in the "sanctity" of the unborn. Period.


I suppose that I am one of the rare ones that sees both sides of the fence, and can see that the vast majority of people would entirely accept accomodation for a proper method and scheme of handling these procedures.



> The lack of success in obtaining that legislatively enshrined right does not mean that he stood up for nothing or that nothing was accomplished.


He never put one iota of effort into doing it legislatively, next to his "run" at politics, in which he was a one issue dark horse. Doing what he did is like if I took a gun and robbed a bank because it was "my right" to carry and operate a gun, as well as to "make a living". Of course it is wrong, and what he did was also wrong. It did se the precident that it is entirely acceptable to overturn the body of law that is supported by the vast majority of people in a society by committing crimes against humanity, then getting some corrupted Supreme Court political appointees / hacks to overthrow the law.

It is not that Morgenthaler was "for abortion" or "for women's rights" that is the problem I have - it is that he did not follow any kind of acceptable ways and means in his pursuit; and while he was committing his murders, the "law" did nothing to stop him, nothing to punish him.



> The defacto reality is that abortion is practiced legally in this country i.e. the practitioners nor their patients are arrested for their acts.


But it is also not available to the majority of Canadians, nor is birth control. We ended up with a hodge podge that clearly does not empower people to make informed decisions, or to foster a sense of responsibility.



> However, legality is not necessarily a measure of ethics or morality or what is right.


And the morality and ethics of such actions have never been examined in any official manner. It's all about placating some special interest groups to score some votes for the next election, and nothing about doing what is right, correct, acceptable, and fair to our society at large.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

EvanPitts said:


> And that is the whole crux of the debate, both sides populated with losers that have no respect for anything.


Well, I think you are correct there (about your side anyway).



> I suppose that I am one of the rare ones that sees both sides of the fence, and can see that the vast majority of people would entirely accept accomodation for a proper method and scheme of handling these procedures.


:lmao: 



> He never put one iota of effort into doing it legislatively, next to his "run" at politics, in which he was a one issue dark horse.


This was not something that could be fought through the legislative system. It had to go through the criminal court system to get to the Supreme Court.



> Doing what he did is like if I took a gun and robbed a bank because it was "my right" to carry and operate a gun, as well as to "make a living".


No it's not. He never forced his "crime" on others. All his patients were willing (and while you may argue the fetuses weren't willing, fetuses are NOT legal persons with rights and freedoms).



> Of course it is wrong, and what he did was also wrong.


It WAS legally wrong, and that is why he fought the battle.



> It did set the precident that it is entirely acceptable to overturn the body of law that is supported by the vast majority of people in a society by committing crimes against humanity, then getting some corrupted Supreme Court political appointees / hacks to overthrow the law.


Good ol' "blame the hacks" for righting a wrong. The VAST majority of Americans supported slavery at one point in time. The VAST majority of Americans supported segregation. Sure, looking back, those things were obviously unjust. Hopefully, one day, you'll wake up to the fact that denying a woman's right to an abortion was also unjust.



> It is not that Morgenthaler was "for abortion" or "for women's rights" that is the problem I have - it is that he did not follow any kind of acceptable ways and means in his pursuit; and while he was committing his murders, the "law" did nothing to stop him, nothing to punish him.


You ignorance doesn't stop, does it. Morgentaler WAS arrested for performing illegal abortions, and stood trial. He even did time in prison. He never committed murder under the criminal code at the time. Just because you want to define your own laws, doesn't mean he broke them.



> But it is also not available to the majority of Canadians, nor is birth control. We ended up with a hodge podge that clearly does not empower people to make informed decisions, or to foster a sense of responsibility.


Informed decision? You go on ignorant rants, with the Internet right at your finger tips, but you can't get basic facts correct. How can we expect the general public to make informed decisions if you can't?



> And the morality and ethics of such actions have never been examined in any official manner.


The moral and ethical issues have been debated ad nauseum for decades.



> It's all about placating some special interest groups to score some votes for the next election, and nothing about doing what is right, correct, acceptable, and fair to our society at large.


I guess by "special interest groups" you mean women? 50% of our society? Ya, I guess they have a special interest in protecting their rights. Everything would be better though if you could only impose your will on others, right?


----------



## Makr (Jul 21, 2005)

Pro-Choice, because as a guy, that's not my choice. End of discussion. I don't care about the pictures or videos you'll want me to watch or the religious rhetoric that is in favor of pro-life, You are not the person making the end decision. The woman in question is. Suck it up princess, deal with the fact that you don't have the right to make that decision for her. 

Pro-Monarchy, the system has worked so far and even if we were to have a republic , that's not going to work too much better. so why spend the billions in changing a system that connects us to many other countries and give up part of our collective heritage which seems to be eroding as we speak.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

eggman said:


> Really? I've looked and your links don't match your table at all.
> 
> And for accuracies sake I should mention that I did not provide you with the second link either. (which can be easily verified by looking earlier in the thread)
> 
> ...


Hi Eggman

You are correct, only the abortion numbers were from the link you provided, not the legal status of it. That was from the second link in my sources that I found. Sorry for the confusion.
The chart I posted doesn't exist on the page you sent but the raw data does. Chart 2 on that page has the rate of abortion/1000 women for countries where its widely available and legal while Chart 3 has estimates for countries where its illegal or very restricted.
I simply took the 10 countries with the highest numbers from those two charts to show that abortion are not more common in countries where its illegal as you stated earlier.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

adagio said:


> When men can conceive, carry to term and raise a child alone from day one, THEN and ONLY then, do they have an equal say in what a woman voluntarily does with her body.


Behold, that day has arrived!

ABC News: EXCLUSIVE: 'Pregnant Man' Has Baby Girl


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

MacGuiver said:


> Behold, that day has arrived!
> 
> ABC News: EXCLUSIVE: 'Pregnant Man' Has Baby Girl


Man in appearance only, he/she/it is still genetically a woman.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

screature said:


> Man in appearance only, he/she/it is still genetically a woman.


I realize that, its just another example of how twisted we've become.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

MacGuiver said:


> I realize that, its just another example of how twisted we've become.


On that point I will certainly agree. XX)


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

MacGuiver said:


> I realize that, its just another example of how twisted we've become.


Sure, since forcing women to be baby machines is completely normal...


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

No wonder why there is not Government in their right mind that would want to touch this issue with a hundred foot pole.

From GuyToronto who peddles his Stalinist viewpoints without any kind of fact or defense of his position - who probably got his "ideas" from the Toronto Star, who in today's paper basically kissed Morgenthalers hind, while at the same time putting down the Church for crazy things. Like for some reason, they seem to think that the Vatican needs to "apologize" for residential schools - even though it was a Government project that has been apologized for by the Government - and had nothing whatsoever to do with Abortion or the Holy See.

Then you have these strange viewpoints that without Abortion, women are nothing but baby making machines? What nonsense is that? I just don't see how these points connect. I do not see how someone can say that procuring an abortion in the basement of a dirty house by unqualified people should be a "right" simply because "it should be as easy as buying a jug of milk" - while arguing that treating an abortion as a medical proceedure that should be performed in a proper medical facility by actual medical personel is somehow "bad".

At the same time, the people who are "pro-abortion" and who claim to be "pro-women" are also the ones who wish to keep women entirely in the dark by saying that their "rights" are much more important than the following: ensuring that facilities are proper and regulated, that procedures are performed by qualified medical personel in proper facilities, that there be universal access to such care, as well as universal access to birth control of various forms, as well as adequate education.

It seems to me that the people that somehow take the stance that Abortion is a "right", are the very ones that want to keep such things as I mentioned away from women. They make the very statement that abortion is a women'r right, but that education, proper medical care, and birth control must be kept away from them at all costs.

I understand the "fundamentalist" or "pro-life" position much better, though I obviously do not agree with their position at all. To them, it is a clear cut case, that it is immoral, unethical, an act of murder, and against all religious tenets and taboos. They may make some variance, in the case of a threat to the mother's life or in cases of rape, but at least they can present a clear case for their side.

The "Pro-choice" people, on the other hand, make the statement that because it is a right, then any joe-schmoe can set up their basement of death to administer abortion to whoever wants it. Without regulations, without healthy conditions, without birth control, without education. How can someone actually stand up and say that abortion gives a woman a right to choose, when at the same time they practice the Morgenthaler falacies that women do not have rights to: have this procedure performed by qualified medical personel in clean and inspected medical facilities; to have universal access to birth control (for men as well as women); and to have universal access to education and information.

It is a fact that in most places in Canada: one can not get an abortion without extensive travel to perhaps another province; education is doled out on an ad hoc basis based on the whim of local school officials; pharmacists do not have to dole out birth control, or in some cases, they are always "out of stock and we will have to order it"; men are not educated enough to just go out and get a vasectomy if they want to whore around; in many places, one has to go to some dirty old clinic, quite often located beside a needle exchange...

Really, if this is what women want, unfettered abortions without any safety net or universality of care, then I pity them.

It doesn't matter if abortions are "legal", "illegal", "decriminalized" or whatever - the only correct solution is to forget the Morgenthaler scheme which simply leads women back to the cave - and get on with the real business, and treat this not as a cause celebre but as a very real procedure that is but a part of the whole big picture. If abortions are not accompanied by proper medical facilities staffed by proper medical personel, and if education, information, and access to birth control in a universal manner - then the debate has no merit for we have made no progress as a society.

But I think I end up just yelling into the wind, because this whole issue is populated by zealots who can not see over the fence at all: it is either "pro-choice" where women get to be subjected to the most barbaric of procedures by cranks and crackpots in filthy "clinics" of death - or "pro-life" where women are treated as stupid and incapable of being educated or of being worthy of actual birth control. Both ways, women are treated as chattel and nothing more.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

EvanPitts said:


> But I think I end up just yelling into the wind, because this whole issue is populated by zealots who can not see over the fence at all: it is either "pro-choice" where women get to be subjected to the most barbaric of procedures by cranks and crackpots in filthy "clinics" of death - or "pro-life" where women are treated as stupid and incapable of being educated or of being worthy of actual birth control. Both ways, women are treated as chattel and nothing more.


This is total bovine fesces. Perhaps you should actually talk to a woman about this subject. The procedure is a standard, well researched practice, very much akin to a "D&C". If you don't know what that is, raise the subject with a woman. As a male, I am constantly embarassed by men who blather their opinions about abortion. I am pro-choice because, frankly, as a male, it isn't my issue. Whenever I hear men going on about this subject, I feel humiliated.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

guytoronto said:


> Well, I think you are correct there (about your side anyway).


Guytoronto - hub of HIS universe!  

Do you even know what my side is?



> This was not something that could be fought through the legislative system. It had to go through the criminal court system to get to the Supreme Court.


Now if that isn't a cart load of nonsense. Anything can be legislated, and in fact, it was Morgenthaler's agitation that lead to the derailment of the legislation promulgated by the Trudeau ministry. If the same thing had happened when Trudeau brought forth the Family Law Reform Act, we wouldn't have access to divorce, outside of applying for an Order in Council.



> All his patients were willing (and while you may argue the fetuses weren't willing, fetuses are NOT legal persons with rights and freedoms).


Why not? At what point of time does issue turn into "legal persons", and hence, be allowed "rights and freedoms"? This is a very important point, because the principle behind it must apply universally, to all laws. And is their proof that at least a majority of his patients willingly seeked an illicit abortion from him, rather than being coerced into it?

And what is wrong with having the provisions that there be clean medical facilities staffed by actual medical people, that birth control and education are universally available for all citizens of this nation? I do not understand how the Morgenthaler version of a "woman's right" can be reconciled with actually empowering a woman, and in fact, empowering men to do what is right in the first place.

[QUOTE[Good ol' "blame the hacks" for righting a wrong. The VAST majority of Americans supported slavery at one point in time. The VAST majority of Americans supported segregation.[/QUOTE]

Roman society was a slave society, and they would think it was absurd to think of slavery as being a bad thing. Our society grows up and makes changes, and as Lord Kames showed, we become "civilized". Slavery fell apart because it became unworkable, and the VAST majority of Americans knew little about it, as they were just labourers or dirt farmers scratching out a living. Segregation, that is, separate but equal, never did work out because it was destined never to be equal. But society adapted to a new reality, and became even more civilized.

And the great leader of that Enlightenment, the Reverend Martin Luther King, never once resorted to acts of murder or crimes against humanity to mobilize the forces of change that brought forth a greater civilization.

Morgenthaler never did that - he never made any case for change or civilization, or to accommodate those of differing belief systems. He only set out to promote his own perverted views in order to satisfy his pathological cravings and to make a quick buck. Never once did he wish to even look at the creation of a civilized system, where people are empowered by knowledge and universal access, as something worthy to fight for.

We are left with that legacy - the fact stands that there are no laws or regulations, and it is buyer beware for the uninformed woman who may have to travel great distances to get an abortion, performed in the basement of a filthy house in some slum neighbourhood, and without access to proper birth control or to the ersatz provision of education. Quite a legacy, Canada should be proud that we treat our women with no respect, and that we see fit to select a butcher and hate monger as the recipient of a lofty award.



> Sure, looking back, those things were obviously unjust. Hopefully, one day, you'll wake up to the fact that denying a woman's right to an abortion was also unjust.


I never once said that I promoted the denial of a woman's right to an abortion - never. I just do not support the crackerjack ideals of Morgenthaler who wishes to make a quick buck for his pocket, while not providing actual medical care to those who undergo the procedure.



> Morgentaler WAS arrested for performing illegal abortions, and stood trial. He even did time in prison. He never committed murder under the criminal code at the time.


Actually he did, and that is why he was in jail, and it was his weak hearted and dim witted lackeys in the Supreme Court that let him off. He was never punished for his crimes against humanity; just like he never placed any effort into providing real care for his patients.



> Everything would be better though if you could only impose your will on others, right?


Did I ever say I wanted to "impose my will"? Your viewpoint is entirely silly, because sure, you'd dish out all of the abortions like crazy, but not one of them would be performed by qualified medical people in clean and safe facilities, nor would women be allowed access to birth control or education of any kind.

I, on the other hand, think that women (and men) should be empowered with those very things that you abhor, simply because I believe that education is the most powerful tool of all in bringing us to a greater state of civilization, and that people of any ilk should have the right to fair access to birth control (both men and women).

I do not see how a woman would want to trade in the right to have medical procedures administered by medically trained people in clean and safe facilities - just so filth like Morgenthaler can "do it cheaper" in his dirt hole basement by some ex-variety store worker and a shop-vac. I do not see it at all because for the right to have a filthy and cheap abortion - she would trade in all of her rights to all of those things, including the right to have a safe abortion.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

rgray said:


> Perhaps you should actually talk to a woman about this subject.


Every woman that I have ever spoken to about this issue in in complete agreement with me, that the procedure needs to be administered by qualified medical personel in a clean facility, and that providing abortions is pretty much useless if a woman can not get birth control, or worse, knows nothing about their body at all. And don't kid yourself, there are millions of people in this nation that not only do not have access to safe abortions, but millions that also do not have access to birth control. And if you think that is bovine feces - try to find a family doctor in the province of Ontario, because without a GP, you can't get birth control because you can't get a prescription.



> As a male, I am constantly embarassed by men who blather their opinions about abortion. I am pro-choice because, frankly, as a male, it isn't my issue.


It's good to see that you feel that men have no choice or say - when in essence, the potential baby is composed of the DNA donation of the male. And men do have a choice - as a man, if you do not wish to subject your lover to the degradation of an Abortion - get a vasectomy. Or at least follow the principle of "no glove - no love", because though it isn't perfect, it's something that is easy to do, inexpensive, and has no side effects (unless you have an allergy to latex).

It's not just a "oh, it's the woman's thing" because men have to be pro active as well. And as men compose one half of our society, we have to play our role in the advancement of civilization. We can't just abdicate our own responsibility just because we are not going to carry the baby to full term.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

EvanPitts said:


> ..... by sleeping around with whatever scumbag they pick up at a bar -


You, sir, are a misogynist of the worst kind. You have made that very clear to everyone. You are visiting all the negative consequences of an ill-considered act to only one of the two participants. You let the "scumbag" off completely. Your view of women who require an abortion is so skewed as to be laughable if it weren't so morally indefensible. As long as my wife and daughter, both strong, monogamous, highly intelligent women, are pro-choice I will support them. I suspect you would see vasectomy, tubal ligation, counting days, the pill outlawed too? You probably are against abortion in the case of rape, too. If not, why not? because if not you are in a position of gross inconsistency by the parameters you yourself state. I hope your pope is proud of you because your attitude is an embarrassment most men.
EDIT:


EvanPitts said:


> we have to play our role in the advancement of civilization. .


I have to assume that this statement in your context is some sort of a grotesque joke. Anyone with a neuron and who can read is beginning to come to the realisation that the "advancement of civilisation" in our current world requires that population be curbed as soon and as dramatically as possible. This mentality that every sperm that hits the mark must be allowed to come to term is ridiculous in the extreme.


----------



## eggman (Jun 24, 2006)

MacGuiver said:


> Hi Eggman
> 
> You are correct, only the abortion numbers were from the link you provided, not the legal status of it. That was from the second link in my sources that I found. Sorry for the confusion.
> The chart I posted doesn't exist on the page you sent but the raw data does. Chart 2 on that page has the rate of abortion/1000 women for countries where its widely available and legal while Chart 3 has estimates for countries where its illegal or very restricted.
> ...


I would suggest that you do the same thing with *all* of the country data. One could make a selected subset of the data say whatever one wanted, especially when pulling it from two different data sets. You should also ensure that all of your data is of the same vintage, gathered in the same timeframe with the same methods - the second site you listed was rather old and does not describe their methodology or definitions - which are likely to differ. Also many of the sites it links to are even older (and some links are no longer working). 



> ABORTION LAW
> 
> •	Legal restrictions on abortion do not affect its incidence. For example, the abortion rate is 29 in Africa, where abortion is illegal in many circumstances in most countries, and it is 28 in Europe, where abortion is generally permitted on broad grounds. The lowest rates in the world are in Western and Northern Europe, where abortion is accessible with few restrictions.


You can bet that the Guttmacher Institute's data and calculations are being vetted by people from both sides of the issue who have far more analytical and statistical ability than you or I. 

But you'll notice that the difference is not huge - but less is less, and returning it to illegality won't decrease the use of it, and it will increase the total number of deaths and the total amount of human misery (whenever you believe that life begins).



> CONSEQUENCES OF UNSAFE ABORTION
> 
> •	Worldwide, an estimated five million women are hospitalized each year for treatment of abortion-related complications, such as hemorrhage and sepsis.[6]
> • Complications due to unsafe abortion procedures account for an estimated 13% of maternal deaths worldwide, or 67,000 per year.[7]
> ...


All quotes from here:

Facts on Induced Abortion Worldwide

If you have any more questions about methodology, context, data gathering techniques or other info there are studies, reports and summaries here.

Guttmacher Institute: Publications


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

> I would suggest that you do the same thing with *all* of the country data.


I guess you could but the rate of abortion per 1000 women was the only stat the two charts shared that would also give a fairly accurate assessment of the prevalence of abortion. Total abortions is irrelevant to determine prevalence because total populations vary. Surely if abortion happen more in countries where its illegal as you claim then such a country should be at the top of the list. Eastern Europe is the abortion capital and its pretty much unrestricted.
Had you claimed abortion is more common in some countries where it is illegal than in Canada, I'd have to agree with that.



> One could make a selected subset of the data say whatever one wanted, especially when pulling it from two different data sets.


Alright then you should be able to take the same statistics I worked with and make them say abortion is more common in countries where its illegal as you claim. Try it.



> You should also ensure that all of your data is of the same vintage, gathered in the same timeframe with the same methods


Even the Guttmacher Institute, the source for my numbers can't do that. They arrive at the numbers from a hodgepodge of sources ranging from actual medical records to best guesses and estimates for illegal ones.



> ABORTION LAW
> 
> •	Legal restrictions on abortion do not affect its incidence. For example, the abortion rate is 29 in Africa, where abortion is illegal in many circumstances in most countries, and it is 28 in Europe, where abortion is generally permitted on broad grounds. The lowest rates in the world are in Western and Northern Europe, where abortion is accessible with few restrictions.


I take issue with this quote as somehow proving your statement that abortion is more common where its illegal. 
First off, not all the African abortions were illegal. Many countries allow it though they may have varied restrictions.
Second. The margin of error estimating illegal abortions would be huge compared to actual gathered statistics in Europe. Comparing the two figures is apples and oranges. One is a combination of actual stats and guess work while the other is likely all actual statistics.

Eggman, I'm hanging up the gloves on this one. Thanks for the debate though. Your civility is refreshing on what often becomes a vicious debate.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacGuiver said:


> Eggman, I'm hanging up the gloves on this one. Thanks for the debate though. Your civility is refreshing on what often becomes a vicious debate.
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


Well, I for one applaud this decision. :clap: :clap: :clap: 

It seemed to me that this abortion issue had damn little to do with the thread topic of the GG anyway.

I guess it took some of you longer to realize that.


----------

