• 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Thanks for voting!

Top of page

Comments

Comments

Recent comments

  • Canadian Hero
    June 18, 2013 - 09:26

    I firmly believe that every single person has the right to bodily autonomy. It is not about whether or not the fetus is a human; everyone knows it's a human. And like all humans, it does not have a right to use another person's body without their consent. We are not allowed to use organs from a deceased person unless they previously stated they wish to be an organ donor. Pregnant women should have more rights than a corpse! Dr. Henry Morgentaler saw that women's rights were being oppressed, and bravely fought to change the laws for the betterment of all women. It is okay to have an abortion, it is also okay to raise a child or put it up for adoption. The choice should be the mother's.

  • Ed Power
    June 17, 2013 - 12:10

    Considering that everything that attributed to Jesus was written decades and centuries after he is supposed to have walked this Earth, "Womdering", it is unlikely that any of this "remarkable insight" originated with him. Since there is no historical or archaeological evidence that any man/god named Jesus actually existed, anything attributed to him is creative fiction at best. His insight didn't provide anything that hadn't been already been discussed and debated by Greek philosophers centuries earlier.

  • Colin Burke
    June 13, 2013 - 20:18

    I read somewhere recently the comment that if men could become pregnant, they could get abortions at Home Depot. To that I reply: If the law required men to fight a duel to defend their partners' right to kill their children every time their children's mothers wanted an abortion, abortions might be a lot more rare. Not that the "official" pro-life movement will campaign for such a law; it might oblige them to come out from behind their protest signs.

  • Colin Burke
    June 13, 2013 - 08:48

    So, Mr. Power, you're suggesting that "persons deserve their deeds' effects," not proven to be false when presented nine times as a rational perception worth accepting unless proven false, is necessarily invalidated on being thus presented for the tenth time? If so, then, while I admire your sound grasp of solid facts, I think you must be clueless about the intellectual faculty called reason and the logical method it ought to follow.

  • Womdering
    June 12, 2013 - 15:50

    Mr Power, I admire your knowledge of history and religion, but not your non belief in God. I read that Einstein believed in God, and surely he understood much of what you point out: that there is much fable in religious history. You say every religion favours their own view, even Christians. Yet the "love your neighbour as yourself" teaching, which goes on to explain that neighbour can be a Samaratin, and therefore a Hindu, Muslim etc, is not your normal religious teaching. It speaks to the good in all humans, regardless of religion. It challenges the human mind as to one's prejudices. And it is one thing to preach, like Burke or Morrison, and another to walk the walk, as Jesus is said to have done. What he is said to have taught and done is remarkable, God like, is it not? His teachings show remarkable insight into human nature. And this is far greater than Einsteins insight into the physical nature of the universe, do you not agree?

  • Ed Power
    June 11, 2013 - 17:16

    Ah, there you are, Colin, I was wondering when you would drop in. As I said to Mr. Morrison, I am willing to entertain any argument based on facts and reason, the things that Mr. Morrison and yourself are always unable to provide. Long on religious rambling and circular reasoning, but always short on anything factual. Or based on reality. You can start beating your little drum now and treat us to another stirring rendition of "people deserve the effects of their deeds" ....

  • Colin Burke
    June 11, 2013 - 10:53

    I saw some time ago, Mr. Morrison, the futility of arguing with Mr. Power about the existence of God, so I no longer try: first he asks for arguments founded on reason and when he gets one founded strictly on rational perception and proceeding logically from there, he dismisses it as "only philosophy" -- as if physical science alone could confirm the validity of all its own findings and methods. Chestrton was right in saying Aquinas erred in believing reason is enough to convince a materialist.

  • Ed Power
    June 11, 2013 - 10:14

    And thank you, Mr .Morrison, for proving my point so effectively. Never debate with facts or evidence, just ignore them and begin to preach your own version of "truth". Only in the world of the truly religious can belief equal truth, fancy equal fact and absence of proof equal proof by its absence. It was clear and logical thinking such as this that allowed clerics to place the Earth at the center of the Universe for much of Christian history and which, in our own day, has thousands of blissfully ignorant believers paying to visit Museum of Creation in Kentucky to see the "truth" of Adam and Eve's pet dinosaurs. And you wonder why we fear having your believers in charge of the reality based world....?

  • Herb Morriosn
    June 11, 2013 - 09:04

    Mr. Power. thank you for proving my point. As I stated in an earlier post, you are free to choose whether or not to believe in God. My point, which you seem to miss is this: If I truly believed that there is no God, I would not waste my time trying so hard to disprove the existence of God, especially since I am not attempting to infringe on your right to choose to not believe. As I stated earlier, it is a distinct posibility, in my opinion, that you don't believe your own rhetoric. It is not my calling as a Christian to prove the existence of God to you or anyone else. It is my calling as a Christian to spread the truth of the Gospel of my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, chiefly by living my life in accordance to Christian Principles set out by the loving, merciful, and forgiving God. It's a matter of faith, a faith in a God who specifically states that anyone is free His/her existence. I am called to bring this mewssage to people and then I am called to leave them to make their own choice in the matter and move on, which is exactly what I am going to do within the context of this particular discussion. God Bless

  • Ed Power
    June 10, 2013 - 20:25

    Since there is no proof that God or gods exist, Mr. Morrison, I do not have to prove that they don't. Now if you were to offer some proof, tangible and verifiable proof, that one does, I would be willing to listen. Regurgitating the fairy tales of Hebrew goatherds - who created most of their mythology from their Sumerian, Egyptian and Babylonian neighbours - doesn't meet the standard of proof, I'm afraid. In fact, since we know, and can prove, that the Biblical story of Creation is a myth, then we can conclude that what follows is also fiction. God didn't create Adam from clay, Eve from Adam's rib, drown the world in a great flood - those many tales are likely the earliest cultural/tribal memories of the dramatic climatic changes that took place at the end of the last Ice Age some 11,000 years ago - or decide that an illiterate tribe of desert-dwelling goat herders were his "Chosen People", above all the many equally deserving peoples on the planet. Strange, isn't it, how most every religion man has ever created states that their god has identified them as his Chosen/Special/Protected/ People? The Hebrew god favours his goatherds; the Greek gods, their farmers, fishers and warriors; the Egyptian gods, their people of the Nile; the Hindu gods, the Hindu people; Christ, the Christians; Allah, the Muslims; Xenu, the Scientologists; Elohim, the Mormons, etc. To answer the person identified as "Wondering", religion isn't "the basis of much of the law" that has evolved over the centuries and millennia. The Code of Hammurabi from ancient Babylon represents one of the earliest written set of laws in human history, and was not based on religion. Neither were the law codes of Draco, contained in the first written Athenian constitution, based on religion. Or the later code of laws written by Solon. The Law Codes of Rome, from the Law of the Twelve Tables written in the mid-fifth century BCE to the laws written much later in the Classical Era, were also not based on religion or religious edicts. And, contrary to the belief of revisionist Christian "Historians", neither were the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights handed down by God to His Chosen (Christian) American people. Since the author of the letter that sparked this comment stream, Mr. Duff, chose to state how much his god loves children, I thought it proper to point out his god's past actions with respect to children didn't quite live up to Mr. Duff's claims. If one wants to debate the moral, legal and ethical issues with abortion, I have no problem with that. I have many of those same concerns. If, like Mr. Duff, you choose to use religious mythology as an arguement, then I do have a problem with it. Especially if your religion is one that considers women little better than breed cows. As one comedian recently quipped, "If men could get pregnant, they would be able to buy abortions at Home Depot".

  • Herb Morrison
    June 07, 2013 - 19:00

    Mr. Power. Now we are getting somewhere. Question? If what you say is true concerning both the past and the the contining existence of Christ, then why would an intelligent thinking person like yourself, go to such great lengths, with your equally undocumentable non-proof of the existence of either God or Christ, in either the past or present? How can you possibly believe that anyone would would attach one shred of credability to your meandering athiestic rhetoric , which you are entitled to embrace if you choose, by the way, when the fact that you seem willing to go tho great lengths to discourage people from believing in a God whose existence you so vehemently deny? Such action on your part indicates to me the distinct possibility that you have doubts about the truth of your own rhetoric. Not exactly ideal if you are attempting to convince others of the truth of your athiestic beliefs. However, to believe in the existence of God or not is your choice , which you are free to make.

  • Wondering
    June 07, 2013 - 18:49

    You make a good argument Mr Power. But I am familiar with a small Nfld town where some gospel preachers came to about 1950. They stayed about a decade. They converted very few, and those are now dead. The main church preached against them, just because they were a bit different. Over the years I have read several community histories, most by university students as part of their courses. And I have never seen a single reference to the fact that those preachers were there. And certainly no published item in a newspaper. It is now over 60 years. There are various oral stories, and soon none of the current generation who will have first hand knowledge of this. As a student of history, I know this to be factual.. I even have some photos. Their structure where they preached, little more than a shed, still stands, though for not much longer. They baptized in a pond, something like John the Baptist did, and was strange for that community, and mocked. Why did the history by these university students not mention this. Sound familiar? You think I have made this up? I Or does it say something about human nature. The Romans didn't think of Jesus as a King. He was of no importance to them, to warrant a note in their history, no more than the thousands of others put to death in a similar fashion. And very few Jews considered him a King. I am surprised you think it would be otherwise, that there should be much so called historical accounts. The Christian teachings result from very humble beginnings, and that without the power of the truth contained in the teachings, it likely would not have survived at all. All made up you think? Who so wise could have made up these teachings? And often the very core of these teachings are not preached in churches today, as they are so revealing of the human condition, and the common person may have suspicion of those in high places. Do you not see the wisdom in the teachings?

  • Ed Power
    June 07, 2013 - 14:34

    There is not a single contemparaneous account of a man-deity named Jesus. The accounts of his life were written decades after the 'fact' - as in the accounts of Josephus and the Gospels - or centuries after the 'fact', when the Church was attempting to stamp out the various pagan religions that were still practiced throughout the Roman Empire and solidifying its control as the new official state religion. The writings of Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny and others are second-hand accounts based on the writings of Christian believers. Hardly unbiased sources. The authors of the Gospels also wrote of events of which they had no first-hand knowledge. There is no historical record of Pontious Pilate executing a man/god/Jewish king named Jesus. Strange, that omission, considering that the Romans kept meticulous records of their business, military and political history. Cleopatra, and her role in a political and military uprising against Rome is recorded. As is the slave revolt led by the Greek gladiator Spartacus. Boudicca of the Iceni, Vercingetorix of Gauls, Mithridates of Pontus, and Zenobia of Palmyra are mentioned in great detail by Roman and other historians - but no Jewish "King" named Jesus. Neither did he make it into the contemporaneous records of Egyptian, Persian or Greek historians, many of whom had little love for the Roman Empire. Why, it's almost as if he didn't actually exist.....

  • Petertwo
    June 07, 2013 - 12:48

    I see abortion as a secular subject, not one that is Christian. Mostly it is about lust rather than love, and the resulting child an "inconvenience", a mistake, or perhaps rape. God gave people a mind with which to think and discover. I guess it is difficult realising that the hormones are at work and knowing that having sex can lead to having children is not enough People do not have to rut like animals. Heck the Hebrews were doing that right after they agreed not to, but then the human race was not very advanced and all children were welcome, many died in infancy back then. In some ways we have come far, in others not so far. Sex is here to stay, but there is much more to life and living than that.

  • Jerome
    June 07, 2013 - 10:56

    It's unfortunate that this debate (at least in the comments posted here) has centered around religion and religious beliefs. Religion has nothing to do with the taking of a life. The Right opposes Abortion but condone Capital Punishment; the Left are in favour of Abortion but condemn Capital Punishment. Is it too much to ask for consistency - on both sides? Personally, I'm against Abortion and Capital Punishment, simply because I don't believe one human being has the right to kill another human being. Some Pro-Choice advocates don't believe that an unborn child is a person until it exits the birth canal. However, there have been people who've been convicted of a double homicide when they took the life of a pregnant woman. I don't mind arguing my side, but please leave the religious element out of it. Too often we use religion to back our arguments.

    • Wondering
      June 07, 2013 - 12:00

      Isn't religion the basis of much of the law, like the many of the 10 commandments are part of criminal code: thou shall not kill or steal. Religion is often the basis of morality, but these differ as religions differ. UN human rights.... does it cover abortion? Perhaps it is an issue like the prostitute, who Jesus defended in a way by saying to those who would have stoned her " you have not sinned , through the first stone, and then said to her Go, and sin no more.

  • Wondering
    June 07, 2013 - 08:43

    Mr Power , did not the Jewish historian Joespheus mention the Christ? And yes, the main gospels were written 60 years or later after the death of Jesus. But should this be surprising? And is not His message the Truth, with insight into the human heart? And does not Jesus's teaching support your view that much of the character of God, portrayed in the Old testament was man made and wrong. Rather than a hateful and revengeful son, Jesus made God to be loving and caring. Herb Morrison makes this to seem as a plan by God. Instead it is plan by Jesus,to redeem the character of God, by his own sacrifice, and which put him at odds with what others of his day was taught. Seems to me Mr Power you are in the camp of Jesus more so than Mr Morrison. Now this is strange-- the first word that just came up for validation to submit is "son", not that I used that word, but Power and Morrison did. Then by adding this note the word changed to "existence". In each case the second word was a bunch of letters and not a word as such, the last being isomerz. Some suggest, in jest,that Google is a creation of God. I wonder

    • Wondering
      June 07, 2013 - 09:33

      As a further comment, Mr Power and Morrison refer to Jesus, in their quotes from the bible as the Son of God. But did not Jesus refer to himself as the Son of Man?

  • Ed Power
    June 07, 2013 - 07:49

    Mr. Morrison, you and I both know that there is no proof that a man-god named Jesus walked the Earth two thousand years ago, just as there is no proof that any god/gods/devils/demons/faeries/leprechans/ghosts/ghouls or other mystical and magical creatures exist. I didn't "omit the fact that this same God gave his only begotten Son to die for the sins of the the world..." because, Mr. Morrison, this is NOT a fact, it is a religious belief. One belief, from one religion, out of the thousands of religions - and many thousands of gods - that men have created over the millennia. Your statement "The God I choose to worship..." illustrates this quite clearly. A Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, Satanist, Baha'i, Zoroastrianist, pagan or follower of any religion would say much the same thing. As would the people who believed in the gods of ancient Sumeria, Babylon, Assyria, Greece, Rome, Carthage, Meso-America, China, India or elsewhere. The one thing that all these religions had in common is that their gods were just as 'real' as the Hebrew and Muslim one, or the Christian three-in-one,and the one thing that the Abrahamic religions have in common with their extinct ancient brethern is that one day, they too will be found only in the mythology section of the local library.

  • Adam
    June 06, 2013 - 15:35

    @ Mr. Duff - drunk driving is a necessary evil? Either you don't have any grasp of what a necessary evil is, or your view on this is extermely jaded and therefore diminishes the rest of what you have to say.

  • atheist
    June 06, 2013 - 11:40

    Killing babies! wow, who did morgentaler think he was? God? What the hell is wrong with some people? Everyone knows only god is permitted to kill babies....

  • Herb Morrison
    June 06, 2013 - 11:28

    Mr. Power. How conveniently you omit the fact that this same God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, to die for the sins of the people of the world, that whosoever believeth in Him should have everlasting life. While it is true that the God of the Old Testament was an unforgiving vengeful God who destroyed anyone who offended Him/Her, God, because He/She could not change (I am the Lord thy God, I change not ) sent Christ , His only child, to die on a cross, and descend into Hell to atone for the sins of the world, thereby providing all His Children with a means to avoid Divine retribution either in this world or the next. The God I choose to worship, and everyone has a choice to believe in God or not (Behold I stand at the door and knock), is a merciful and loving God who found a way, in the person of Jesus Christ, whereby God wouldn't need to either wreak Divine retribution on everyone who disobeyed His/Her will in this world or relegate to Hell and eternal damnation, in the next world, all who sinned against Him/Her. Your Old Testament, before Christ view of God, as a vengeful, merciless, unforgiving God, ignores the reality of the existence both on earth and in Heaven of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ. Obviously you choose to ignore the reality that Christ conducted an earthly Ministry preaching Salvation, God's love and forgiveness of sin, for all who make the choice to believe in God, and in Christ as Saviour, on having the truth of the Gospel revealed to them and Lord. Mr. Power It is unfortunate that you have not spent as much, if any time, studying the New testament as you have chosen becoming in the Old testament.

    • Abdul Saieed
      June 06, 2013 - 15:08

      Who or whatever you god is, he/she/it needs some serious help.

  • Ed Power
    June 06, 2013 - 08:35

    "Morgentaler now answers to God, who regarded every child conceived as a blessing to redeem us and give us another chance to redeem ourselves". Strange, how oblivious Mr Duff appears to be to the irony contained in his criticism of the editorial. Would this God "who regarded every child conceived to be a blessing" be the same one who told Abraham to burn his son Issac as an offering?(Genesis 22:2). Or who killed the firstborn child of every family in an entire nation? (Exodus 12:29-30) Could it be the same God who ordered his followers to slaughter all the people in Jerhico, "men and women, young and old, cattle sheep and donkeys - everything". (Joshua 6:20, 21) The God who ordered the slaughter of the people of Leshem, Amlalek, Samaria, Pekod and many other cities and nations? (Various) The same God who ordered the slaughter of the Benjaminites, so that the Israelites proceeded, "putting to the sword the inhabitants of the city, the livestock and all they chanced upon. Moreover, they destroyed by fire all the cities that they came upon"?(Judges 20:48) Certainly this isn't the same God who destroyed every living thing - including all the children - upon the surface of the Earth in a great flood? (Genesis 6 - 9) It couldn't possibly be Mr. Duff's God, could it? Perhaps, after all this death, destruction and genocide, I should finish on a more upbeat - in Biblical sense - note. "Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones."(Psalm 137:9) Charming character, this Hebrew god, who loves children in such a way.....

    • Chantal
      June 06, 2013 - 09:43

      Bazinga!

    • Linda
      June 06, 2013 - 10:00

      Rot in Hell Morgentaler

    • Lane
      June 06, 2013 - 10:19

      I have read the entire Bible more than once, and I have never seen any scripture that clearly opposes abortion. However, there are more than enough scientific and legal reasons to restrict abortion without resorting to religious arguments. The Supreme Court ruled in the Morgentaler case that protecting the unborn is a valid exercise of Parliament's legislative authority, and that the importance of protecting the unborn increases as the pregnancy advances. Medical science very clearly tells us that unborn infants feel pain, become aware of their surroundings, and are viable outside the womb before the 20th week of pregnancy.

  • Political Watcher
    June 06, 2013 - 08:21

    Correct me if I am wrong here but didn't a Catholic Hospital in Denver send it's lawyers into court recently with the mesage that a fetus is not a human life? In defence to a wrongful death suit this is their arguement.

    • Lane
      June 06, 2013 - 10:23

      @Political watcher: A foetus does not have to be a legal person or a "human life" in order to merit protection under the law. After all, we protect animals from cruelty and needless death just because they are capable of suffering. Medical science tells us that unborn babies are likewise capable of suffering.

  • Peter Austin
    June 06, 2013 - 08:01

    The abortion debates never seem to end, and that's likely a healthy thing, as human lives are at issue. As with many issues there is no absolute wrong or right. In the minds of some, abortion may well be (somewhat) too easy to access in todays society, but it is neccessary and it is regulated. Backroom unsafe and unprofessional abortions have been provided, Sometimes just for the cash, and many real-life horror stories have/had stemmed from said "services". Dr. Morgentaler's purpose was to provide a more safe and more humane manner in which to provide this medical procedure. There are always extreme examples on both sides of most debates that justify the existence of the debate: - Nobody wants to allow the "material girl princess" types to choose abortion so as not to bother with with the burden of a young life (obviously), or for her parent/s to choose abortion to avoid societal (more often religious based) "shame" of an unwed pregnancy. But few agree with condemning the life of a young teenage rape victim impregmated by a Hells Angels type heroin/crack addict, or by a diseased psychopath either. Moreover there are often valid medical issues that do, (and should) strongly influence the decison also. Hence the need for "choice". If the Right to Life supporters want to gain ground in this debate, perhaps thay should seek to lessen abortions through more stringent regualtion, rather than eliminate choice altogether. Providing financial and family support, through a nationally established (non-bias) charity for rape victims who choose to give birth and life, would help their cause also. (perhaps they do already, but I've not heard of one). More importantly they would help those who need it most, and would be supportive also of non-extremist positions. Anyone's "God", and ongoing religious based wars, will tell you that we have too much extremism already. The Courts have decided to provide choice. Through this we can collaborate and improve society, while remaining respectful of one anothers opinion. By all means speak out and demonstrate, that's how we evolve, but remain respectful and seek to understand too, cuz that's how we grow and improve. God (goodness) bless!!

    • Aunt Lizzie
      June 06, 2013 - 10:11

      @Peter Austin: You seem to be interested in having a civil fact-based discussion of this issue, which is why I feel compelled to correct some of your statements. First, you imply that access to abortion is already restricted in some way. This is not true. In fact Canada has no abortion law whatsoever. Any woman can have an abortion for any reason (or no reason at all) at any point in the pregnancy right up to the moment the child is born. There are clinics that specialize in late-term abortions. Almost every abortion in Canada is publicly funded. Girls who are younger than 18 do not need their parents' permission to have abortions. Doctors are not permitted to ask a woman her reason for seeking an abotion or counsel her on alternatives. So when you say that "nobody wants to allow (women) to choose abortion so as not to bother with the burden of a young life," you are sadly mistaken. That is exactly what the so-called pro-choice lobby wants, and it is exactly what Canadians allow to happen. So when you say that "right to life supporters... should seek to lessen abortions through more stringent regulation," you miss the point that there is currently no regulation whatsoever limiting the number of abortions. And sadly the radicals on the other side of the issue go absolutely bananas whenever any such regulation is proposed.

    • choice
      June 18, 2013 - 09:17

      Aunt Lizzie- I feel I should correct your false statements. You say that there are no restrictions to access of abortion in Canada- how wrong you are! The limit in Newfoundland and Labrador is 16 weeks, the limit in Nova Scotia is 16 weeks, Prince Edward Island has zero access to abortion, and so on. So inform yourself if you are going to say there are no restrictions. While it's true that there are no laws against getting an abortion at any time during the pregnancy, that does not mean that it is physically possible to get an abortion at any stage of the pregnancy. And why should girls under 18 need their parents permission to have a safe, legal and private medical procedure? They may have valid reasons for excluding their parents from the discussion.