Wangersky was wrong

Send to a friend

Send this article to a friend.

I write concerning Russell Wangersky’s column “Playing whack-a-mole with the abortion issue,” Sept. 22.

Tory Stephen Woodworth’s motion would have created a committee to review the legal definition of what constitutes a human being. The current definition is based on outdated information.

This bill is only part of a debate that has been going on in Parliament and on the streets of Canada since 1967. It has been going for some 45 years.

Originally, the Supreme Court sent the abortion issue back to Parliament to make a better law.

Mr. Wangersky is a newspaperman, yet, he does not want to see this debate. So he and the rest of the media pretend it has not been happening.

He believes the abortion issue is settled; Canadians disagree.

Wangersky is an advocate of abortion. He comes out swinging and scaremongering.

What is he afraid of? What is it about honest debate that scares him?

For Wangersky, this matter is settled. However, the facts demonstrate otherwise.

Every year, hundreds of thousands of Canadian men, women and children march on Ottawa in the March for Life. They annually protest Canada’s lack of abortion law.

They march because all of Canada’s children are not protected. Further, every year, tens of thousands of men, women and children form Life Chains across Canada to protest the killing of our children in abortuaries.

Before 1967, feminists led an abortion caravan from B.C. to Ottawa to fight for abortion. Today, pro-life youth on the university campuses — they call themselves abortion survivors —  form an abortion caravan with huge trucks to show pictures of the killed children.

Canadians have been having an abortion debate in this country since 1967 but Mr. Wangersky and other media, with their bias against unborn children, choose not to report it.

He has clearly not been paying attention to write such an uninformed column.

Before 1967, before abortion, all Canadian children were assumed to be recognized as persons at conception. Canadian men, women and children, once again, work for the day all Canadian children — born and unborn — will once again have their right to life restored.

They will be recognized as persons and protected.

That is the right thing to do. Let the women have their rights but not on the backs of innocent children who cannot speak for themselves.

Mr. Wangersky wants to end this human rights movement.

He is so wrong!

He wants to leave these unborn children to their fate in the abortion clinics across Canada. Many of us are old enough to remember when all Canada’s children were protected, beginning at conception.

David M. Duff

St. John’s

Organizations: Supreme Court

Geographic location: Canada, B.C., Ottawa

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Thanks for voting!

Top of page



Recent comments

  • Colin Burke
    October 05, 2012 - 19:51

    Thank you, Mr. Morrison. I had earlier formed an impression that you and I could always debate on good terms personally, whatever our differences of opinion, and I am glad to have had that impression confirmed. God bless you -- and me.

  • Herb Morrison
    October 05, 2012 - 15:16

    Mr. Burke. Your apology is accepted. In turn please accept my apology for not giving you credit for possessing the kind of integrity and honesty that it takes to offer such an apology.

  • Colin Burke
    October 05, 2012 - 14:12

    Just for the record, since Mr. Morrison doesn't want to listen: Mr Morrison did not say, so far as I can find, that a fetus is not human. Nor had I said that he had done so; I had said he had said it was not an indisputable fact that the fetus is human. Apparently, though, he hadn't even said that that, either. So, unreservedly, I am sorry.All he said in that context, so far as I can find by re-reading (which is easier in the case of my own posts, naturally enough) was that it was not an indisputable fact that abortion is murder. Or such is my impression. Mr. Morrison not having said, first nor last, why abortion might not be murder, I rashly rushed to draw my own conclusion. I apologize for that and for pretending thus to be concerned about not appearing too self-righteous to apologize, which Mr. Morrison might prefer to believe I am. Just for the record, in case anyone not sounding off has been reading this discussion; there may be others whose opinion might matter as much as Mr. Morrison's.

  • Herb Morrison
    October 05, 2012 - 10:49

    Mr. Burke, the fact is that you stated that I had said that a fetus is not human. The fact that you may have unintentionally misquoted me because you couldn't comprehend what I was attenpting to say, does nor change the fact that you misquoted me. I don't need or want your apology. I am interested in being able to speak what I percieve to be the truth pertaining to the issue of abortion. It would appear based on the content of your most recent post , that you are are more interested in protecteing your own backside, than you are in seeking out the truth, and speaking truthfully. Finnally,I amnot interested in continue any discourse with you with regard to the issue of abortoin. I have spoken what I precieve to be the truth and I am moving on.

  • Colin Burke
    October 05, 2012 - 10:27

    Mr. Morrison, I did not "brag" about being self-righteous but merely declined to deny your accusation, as it is irrelevant to the truth of the matter we have been discussing. Nor, since no one is judge in his own case (even when one wants an abortion), will I lay claim to be solely and wholly dedicated simply to convincing you of the truth as I see it, which, by the way, I do not claim as "my truth" but only believe to be "the truth" which I and others are obliged to serve. Meanwhile, the words "hussies" and "degenerates" are not my words for women who I suggested have selfish motives for seeking abortion; they are your words which you attributed to me -- I will not say "misrepresented as mine," for that would be judgementalism on my part. I ask you again: if it is not true that women seek abortions for selfsh reasons, why have you not simply said it is not true instead of imputing unworthy motives to me? I myself have not yet said outright that selfishness must be an unworthy motive; that could seem to be your own judgemental conclusion from my stating what I deem to be simply a fact.

  • Herb Morrison
    October 04, 2012 - 19:18

    Mr. Burke.You profess to be a Christian. According to my Bible, the truth is what makes me free. On the other hand, Jesus' distain for the self-righteousness of the Pharisees is well-documented in Scripture. Why would a Christian brag about being self-righteous, as you did in a pervoius post, as if your demonstrated level of both self-righteous and self absorbation, both of which are condemned by Christ in Scripture, were something to be proud of. I have chosen to continue this discourse with you in order to that the truth, as I precieve it, pertaining to the issue of abortion. On the other hand, the contents of the posts, which you have writen pretaining to the issue of abortion clearly indicate to any intelligent, thinking individual that your objective in engaging in this debate just might be a selfish desire to win. Which is strange in light of the fact that you profess to believe in Jesus Christ, a person who, in the eyes of unbelievers, is regarded as the world's biggest loser who lost His bid for worldly power. Considering the possibility that your motive participating in this debate may be soley your selfisn desire to win, you have a lot of nerve to point a judgemantal finger at women who, for legitimate reaon for procuring an abortion, and accusing these women of being self-sh. Could this be a case of "the pot calling the kettle black?" I have spoken my truth and seel liberated. How are you feeling about your part in this debate, Mr. Burke?

  • Colin Burke
    October 04, 2012 - 18:48

    Mr. Morrison, if you can point to a place where I have misquoted you or misrepresented what you have said, as opposed to only replying to your comments on the basis of my having unintentionally misunderstood what you said, please cite the specific instance and expect an apology. Meanwhile, since we still seem to disagree on whether abortion is murder, let me define the term "murder" as I understand it, which neither of us seems to have done yet. I define murder as the killing of someone who does not deserve to be killed or the killing of someone who does deserve it but who is killed by someone who lacks authority to punish murder (or perhaps to punish rape). I hope that that is clear. If your definition differs from that or if you can show that aborting babies does not fit that definition, I shall be glad to read what further you may have to say. I should be pleased if I were afforded a like courtesy.

  • Herb Morriosn
    October 04, 2012 - 13:04

    Mr. Burke, Self-righteousness is a failing ascribed to people like yourself, I suspect, who not only THINK that they are always right, but have an tendancy to treat life as a contest, where, within the context of any particular situation, there must always be a winner and a loser. Such persons, and you have chosen to include yourself in this group, Mr. Burke, resort to any means possible to discredit arguements, which jepardize what, in my opinion, is their misguided belief that they are always right and deserve to win a debate , which they regard as a contest. For instance, delibrately misquoting what someone has posted on this website, reading something into a post, and claiming it represents a statement made by an opponent, and wait, there's more, when the use of such tactics fails to improve their chances of winning the contest/debate in question, these person are not above stooping to character assassination by portraying people as selfish, degenerates who have committed a sin against God by their actions or words. I don't know about Mr. Burke, but I find it impossible to phatom how a person who professes to aspire to the high ideals of the Christian Faith when they are, at least in my opinion, capable, of, willing to do so by stooping so low as deemed necessary to win what they regard ads a contest

  • Colin Burke
    October 04, 2012 - 11:32

    Sorry again, Mr. Morrison. The inference that the fetus is not human is indeed something I only "read into" your statement that abortion is not indisputably murder. My reading that into what you said was grounded in my own assumption that killing a human who has done nothing to deserve it must indeed (indisputably) be murder, so that if abortion were not murder, this must mean the victim was not human. That is, I was trying in my own misguided manner to regard your statements as having logical implications. Silly me. Silly, silly me. Meanwhile, my being self-righteous and judgemental, which I do not deny (since no one is judge in his own case), in deploring selfishness as prompting abortion does not necessarily mean that selfishness is never or is infrequently an element in a woman's exercising what currently seems to be the legal right to choose to kill her baby. If you believe selfishness never or infrequently plays such a part in that choice, I think it might have been charitable to try to establish that, or at least to have made a simple, bald, unsupported assertion to that effect, without drawing attention to my own glaring and doubtless incorrigible personal defiiciencies. (Self-righteousness is most commonly a failing ascribed to people who usually are simply right to begin with, is it not?)

  • Herb Morrison
    October 04, 2012 - 10:51

    Mr.Burke, I did not state or imply in any of my previous posts that a fetus is not human. Your assumption to this effect is perhaps due to the fact that you appear to be incapable of distinguishing between exegesis and eisegesis ( not sure about the spelling of that last term.") Execesis refers to what we glean from something we have read. Eisegesis refers to what we read into what we read, based on factors such as life experience, educational, background etc.Within the context of this debate, you are reading into my posts what you believe you see, this is perhaps attributable to the fact that you have obviously been indoctrinated the Roman Catholic Churches anti-abortion rhetoric. You then rant on about the quality of mercy, thereby erroreously implying that either people such as myself who exercise ther right of choice by supporting abortion, or women who exercise their legal, free right to procure an abortion, have, by exercising our right to choose, by our actions or words, committed an act that is sinful and requires mercy. Finally, with regard to your definition of mercy, and our being underserving of mercy. It is indeed unfortunate that, within the context of this debate you have choosen, not to "practice what you preach regarding mercy. In my opinion, given your portrayal of women who procure abortionsas selfish, hussies, your perchance for attempting to destroy my credability by delibrately misrepresenting what I have posted, and your desire to sit in judgement of others, which was highlighted on several occasions in your posts when you, for example unilaterally declared that abortion is indisputable, absolutely the equivalent of murder. In my opinion, your well-documented self-righteous, judgemental, merciless attack on both woman who choose to procure an abortion, and people like myself who have chosen to adopt a pro-abortion stance, leads me to pose the age old question: "Would you buy a used car from this man?"

  • Colin Burke
    October 04, 2012 - 08:38

    Mr. Morrison, I did not misquote you to the effect that having an immortal soul is not what makes us human; rather, it was a reasonable inference I drew from other things you did say. You said a child -- sorry, your word was " fetus" -- in the womb has an immortal soul. You said it is not an indisputable fact that such a child -- er,fetus -- is human. There are only two conclusions one can draw from putting those two statements together: either having an immortal soul does not make one human, or it is not an indisputable fact that the "fetus" has an immortal soul, even though you made that statement as if it were indisputable. I admit I may have chosen the wrong one of those conclusions. Sorry. Meanwhile, one must make a distinction between what justice must demand, or rather what justice is obliged to declare, and what mercy may allow; "mercy forgives the unforgivable or it is not mercy." One can "merit" mercy only by admitting one's utter lack of merit regarding it; that is why we call it mercy and not justice; if we deserved it, it would not be merciful

  • Herb Morrison
    October 03, 2012 - 17:59

    Mr. Burke, first of all,I didn't state that having an immortal soul is not what makes us human. This marks the second occasion on which you have feebly attempted to refute my arguement by attempting to call my creditability into question by misquoting me. If you are the well-educated person you claim to be, you know full-well that the only way to refute an arguement is by presenting an iintelligent counter arguement. Then again, you know that, don't you, Sir? Your latest post appears to be the product of what is commonly referred to by experts in the field of conflict management and resolution, as a knee-jerk reaction.The fact that, in my opinion, your most recent post contains more emotion than reason, would appear to me at least,to indicate that I have struck a nerve. This fact coupled with your tendancy to relish sitting in judgement of those who are pro-abortion, in general, and women who choose to exercise their legal right to procure an abortion, in particular, is possibly attributable to the fact that you are part of that generation of Roman Catholics who were indoctrinated with the fallacious notion that the Catholic Church was the only true Church, and that the Roman Catholic Churches' teachings were the only truth to be gleaned from Scripture. Roman Catholics of your generation, like most most of my Roman Catholic relatives and friends, also were indoctrined with the notion that all Protestants were going to Hell. This probably accounts for what,in my opinion,is your misguided belief that the Roman Catholic Church in general, and the Pope in particular,not only has the inside track on what constitutes Biblical truth, but also has the authority to sit in in a God-like manner in the judgement seat,passing judgement on women, who chose to exercise their legal right to have an abortion, as if they had committed a Sin by choosing to take this particular course of action. Such an assertion, is an insult to both my intelligence and my concept of common decency. In addition, your attempt to portray all woman who have abortions as promiscuous, self-absorbed, selfish people, who have no legitimate reason for having an abortion, serves as further evidence of of your seeming obsession with being able occupy the seat of judgement. Finally, when you state , for example that abortion is murder, as if this were an undisputable fact, you further betray a perchance for relishing the judgement seat. And you have the audacity to attempt to call MY credability into question. Perhaps the possibility that you just might be as human as the rest of us, is too much for you to take. Take heart, God is much more merciful, loving and forgiving than we mere mortals can ever hope to be.

  • Colin Burke
    October 03, 2012 - 13:42

    Mr. Morrison, perhaps I am merely obtuse, but I really do not see, yet, how disapproving of a mother's selfishness which results in her killing her child can lead rationally to approving the selfishness of men who exploit somewaht oflder children. If you are the same Herb Morrison from whom I've read requests for reasonable and courteous discussion which forgoes personal attacks, I can reasonably hope, I think, that you will explain how my line of reasoning leads to the conclusion that orphans deserve to be abused, especially since I have said people deserve the effects of what they do and I have not alleged that orphans victimized by clergy and lay religious had done anything to deserve it. The fanciful position that orphans might deserve to be abused seems to me to be more consistent with arguing that the unborn deserve to be killed, which is an argument I have in fact opposed. I am well aware that Christ forgave a woman taken in adultery, but I read also that he told her to go and sin no more. He did not say, so far as I have been able to ascertain, "Go on sinning, girls, there's always abortion." Christ's forgiveness comes after the sin and may not be presumed in advance. Also, if our having immortal souls is not what makes us human, what does do that?

  • Herb Morrison
    October 03, 2012 - 11:09

    Careful, Mr. Burke, your halo is slipping. What appears to me to be a merciless,and judgemental,display of self-righteous,on your part, which in turn is, I suspect attributable, at least in part, to your affiliation with the Roman Catholic Church, leaves a lot to be desired. If you follow your line of reasoning, the orphans, who were both physically and sexually abused by Priests or Christian Brothers, deserved the abuse which they suffered at the hands of people whom they should have been able to trust because their sinful mothers engaged in unprotected sexual intercourse. Furthermore, the Catholic Church's ban on articifical methods of birth control,can legitimately be cited as a contributing factor, when it comes to either the issue of abortion, or the fact that the majority of people served by Food Banks are children who, through no fault of their own, are forced to live in poverty. I would suggest to you, Mr. Burke, and to others who share your opposition to either abortion or the use of artificial methods of birth , and who, like yourself, appear to relish occupying the judgement seat, that you first read the account of Jesus' encounter with the woman taken in adultry, and the howling mob calling for her death. Then I suggest that you and others who share yourviewpoint, ask yourselves the question what would a professing Christian like yourself, do,adopt what in my opinion, is the hypocritical Offical stance of the Roman Catholic Church which, on the one hand condemns as sinful both abortion and the use of artifical methods of birth control, while at the same time refusing to accept responsibility for the abuses suffered by children at the hands of those entrusted with their care by mothers, who could not provide them with the necessities of life. or following Jesus' example when He extended love, mercy, and forgive forgiveness to the adulterous woman, while, at the same time condemning the judgemental actions of the mob calling for her head?

  • Colin Burke
    October 03, 2012 - 09:07

    Mr. Morrison, I quite agree that the sanctity of human life is not the highest principle of Christianity -- or even of natural justice. I suggest that the highest principle of Christianity is the pursuit of natural justice for the love of Jesus Christ and God the Father. Natural justice consists in rendering what reason sees to be due (what is deserved.) What we deserve are the effects of what we do; Christianity and natural justice agree on this, except the version of Christianity called Calvinism. A baby in the womb has done nothing to deserve his being killed. A woman who engages in coition knowing that it may occasion her choosing to kill a child or bring him into the world to suffer intolerably from her lack of love deserves at least to be inconvenienced to some degree. Or do you agree with Mr. Smith that people's deserving their deeds' effects is only my personal belief which anyone else may lightly dismiss?

  • Herb Morrison
    October 02, 2012 - 18:27

    The point I was attempting to make by citing the work of Richard Gula is that the notion of the sanctity of human, like the notion of the seal of the confessional, is not the highest principle of Christian teachings. The highest principle of Christianity is that we are to love God. As I stated in my earlier post, it is the sanctity of the human soul, not the sanctity of human life which is God's primary concern. How we live our lives is indeed of concern to God, however, because human life is not the only life there is, at least in God's eyes,the notion that the sanctity of human life is the highest of Christian principles is, once again in my opinion, a fallacy which is not Divinely inspired. In fact, according to my Bible one of the principles of my Christian faith is that I be willing to give up my life for God's sake if I feel inspired by God to do so. Furthermore, my statement that the aborted fetus is safe in the arms of Jesus does not represent any attempt to justify abortion rather it is a statement of fact with which surprisingly, you appear to disagree?? The remainder of your latest post, in my opinion, consists of nothing more than incomprehensible ramblings amounting to what is commonly known as the use of "smoke and mirrors." Such a tactic is commonly utilized by people who cannot find a intelligable means to refute an arguement

  • Colin Burke
    October 02, 2012 - 14:44

    Sorry, Mr. Morrison. I had the impression you were citing a Roman Catholic theologian as if his being such were somehow validating your own opinion; obviously I was mistaken in that. If failure to prove indisputably that a child generated by humans is in fact human justifies killing that child, would a similar ignorance as to whether movement in the woods was caused by a moose or a human justify shooting in the direction of that movement with a hunting rifle? (I have read that Dr. Morgenthaler was asked that question in a television interview which was immediately suspended upon its being asked, and that the network televising the interview suppressed its being broadcast.) In at least some instances of such an event during hunting it might be impossible to prove indisputably after the fact, that one had been shooting at a human even if in fact one had done that. So, would one have been justified in such latter instances? If we may make the cases as parallel as may practicaly be done? If your argument about the souls of the aborted being in the arms of God justifies abortion, would not a similar argument justify the early Roman Empire's killing Christian martyrs? If, of course, the aborted have immortal souls, which would mean they were human. Otherwise, they would be animals which would later be receiving immortal souls, which if ever it were true of baby seals would be something, I feel sure, the funds for animal welfare would really like to hear about.

  • Herb Morrison
    October 02, 2012 - 10:40

    Mr. Burke. First off, God's primary concern is for the strengthening and sustaining of my immortal soul. This is exemplified cheifly by the fact that Jesus, during His earthly ministry, first addressed the people's Spiritual needs by providing food for the spirit. Then and only then did He address the physical needs of the people to whom He ministered during aHis earthly ministry. Inevitabely, oour physical lives will come to an end. This physical life of ours is not all there i and mno one is more aware of that fact than the Almighty. I believe that any fetus has an immortal soul. I also believe that the immortal of an aborted fetus is safe in the arms of a loving and merciful God, where I am sure it is quite happy, having been spared the pain and suffering that may have been inflicted on it, as it lived in this world. Finally, Mr Burke, you are entitled to consider abortion as being the equivalent of murder if that's how you feel about it. However, in my opinion, neither you nor anyone else can assert that your opinion that abortion is equvalent to murder is an indisputable fact. The fact that , offcially, the Roman Catholic Church may or may not support the stance taken by any theologian, does nothing to either diminish or negate the validity of what that theologian has either spoken or written.

  • Colin Burke
    October 02, 2012 - 09:30

    Mr. Morrison, not every book written by Roman Catholic theologians expresses the official teaching of the Church. And do you really think that murder's being painless makes it other than murder? I myself really think that when death is inflicted on the innocent, it is almost irrelevant to consider whether that death happens to be painful; it is killing, not inflicting pain, which is the real evil, though inflicting undeserved pain is wrong enough. Those who kill babies in the womb implicitly endorse this view by not caring much whether the babies they kill feel anything or not. By the way, have you seen any television commercials depicting heart surgery done on babies in the womb to correct heart defects -- during the fifth month of pregnancy? Current law allows "fetuses" to be killed at that age. If one may actually inflict death for the sake of a higher cause, by killing a baby, is it not even more permissible merely to allow a mother's death in order to keep her child alive? And should not a mother's making her children's lives miserable just because she is selfish -- or, if you prefer, generous to males -- be thoroughly punished by law? The real "crime" in "bringing an unwanted child into the world toi suffer being unwanted" is not having the child but failing to want children in the first place or at least failing to resist, or at any rate failing to condemn, a way of life would encourages failing to want children. Mr. Smith, I do not merely believe that persons deserve the effects of what they do; I see it clearly to be true; you may if you wish call me deluded in thinking I see it thus, as I may deem mentally blind anyone who does not see it after it is pointed out. Carry on, sir. Deaths in traffic accidents are not deeds people do; they are events which occur to people and may be deserved or not as neither you nor I could be competent to judge. However, deaths in traffic accidents which are due to criminal negligence are not events which "merely occur" and these sometimes lead to the negligent's getting what they deserved by what they did or chose not to do.

  • Herb Morrison
    October 02, 2012 - 08:29

    When I was in Seminary, I read a book written by a Roman Catholic priest and theologan name Richard Gula. Gula asserted that even the seal of the confessional could be broken if the person making their confession threatened the life of either the Priest hearing the confession, or someone else. Gula argues that the preservation of a human life is a higher principle that the seal of the confessional so the higher principle takes priority.My bible tells me that :greater love has no person than this, that they are willing to lay down their life for someone." My Bible also tells me that "God so loved the world that God gave God's only Son that whoesoever believes in God will have everlasting life." Consequently, even God supports the reality that, under certain circunstances, the sanctity of human life should take a back seat to a higher principle. The fact that life of a pregnant woman could be threatened, should she attempt to carry a baby to term, or the reality that a child could be born into a world where their quality of life would be so poor that they might wish they were deadell be better off dead, in my opinion would qualify as higher principles which would justify the woman's right to choose to have an abortion.

  • Herb Morrison
    October 01, 2012 - 18:22

    Mr Burke, while you have every right to express your opinion of my pro-abortion posts on this site, your opposirion to said posts doesn't mean that you have refuted my arguement in any way shape or form. In fact, I thank you for supporting my argument in favour of abortion. Trust me Sir, if anyone were to shoot you or myself between the eyes with a gun, at close range , there would be no pain and no screams of agony eminating form our lips as death would be instaneous. Similarily, the death of a fetus during an abortion performed by a properly quilified medical doctor, would be equally instanteous, painless, and devoid of screams of agony. Thank you so much for strengthening, albeit inadvertently, my pro-abortion stance.

  • crista
    October 01, 2012 - 16:30

    the lack of education leads to numerous serious matters that need to be addressed, just because you say you are educated and you are a expert or a professional do that give you the right to advocate a human life, canada has a crimical code which is a law that says you are not a human until you come from the mothers who has the right to decide a human formed fetuses life,once life has been decided who has got the right to take life,if you as an adult try to take your life you can be charged or detained for such actions,so it should really be decided by ones in authority that write these laws not some one that go by their beliefs and opinions is that not why you have professionals and experts to help and assist some one that has been put or has got themselves in a situation and that are unable to make a decision for them selves ,when hitler???? had it done what was he called???? you do it today and you call it the right decision or it was the wrong decision, now how is some one supposed to know how to make a decision when the ones making the decisions do not know how to make a decision????

  • Doug Smith
    October 01, 2012 - 16:01

    Mr. Burke, by checking an article in Wikipedia, entitled “Catholicism and Sexuality”, you will find the supernatural basis of your belief in “natural law”. To say that you believe in the principle ; that a person deserves the effects of what they do, well that is just a personal belief , it has nothing to do with natural law. There are thousands of deaths on our highways each year, did all those people deserve to die? To say , as you do that a person who engages in sex with a resulting pregnancy must therefore become a parent is just wrong. Those involved may have used contraception but it failed for some reason. Why on earth should they be forced to be parents if they don’t want to? Finally, the social laxity, as you call it, in matters of sex is really not fostered by experts in sex education as you suggest but by the freedom contraception gives people to enjoy sex without pregnancy resulting. Even Catholics ignore the church’s orders not to have sex except to procreate. According to an article in the New York Times 98% of Catholics have used artificial birth control. It seems they like sex as much as everyone else. Doug Smith, GFW

  • Colin Burke
    October 01, 2012 - 13:30

    Mr. Smith, my concept of natural justice is found in primarily in the principle that persons desrve the effects of what they do: for example, one who does what makes him a parent deserve to be a parent and is therefore obliged to carry out any responsibilities which being a parent may entail, such as keeping his children alive. What is "supernatural" about my perception or my reasoning therefrom? My reference to people "having sex" because "experts" encourage it refers to a general social laxity in matters of sex which has been fostered partly by "experts" in sex "education." Your own attitude seems at least partly affected thereby, though you probab;y choose to feel you're the sort of person who "thinks for himself. As for the comparison Mr. Morrison made, I feel fairly certain that any pain I might feel upon being shot in the middle of the forehead with a high-powered pistol must pale in comparison with what I would feel if disembowelled without anesthetic, but that still gives no one the right to shoot me in the forehead or even to offer me that choice; in fact, I am very grateful for thus being able to refute Mr. Morrison's argument, in the event of anyone's being inclined to offer me that choice.

  • Doug Smith
    October 01, 2012 - 11:44

    Mr. Burke, your comments of Sept. 29 are so filled with errors I don’t know where to begin, however I will only remark on three least you lead someone astray. First the idea of “natural justice”, rests on a belief in the supernatural. Therefore any appeal you make having “natural justice” as a principle is an appeal to fantasy not reason. Second, your crazy idea that people would refrain from sex if the purposes of “natural justice” could not be served shows a complete lack of understanding regarding human nature, especially sexual behaviour. Thirdly, your statement that people have sex, “partly because experts keep telling them they are going to …” ; is a statement divorced from reality. I don’t know of even one person who had sex because an expert told them to, let alone people in general. In summary, Mr. Burke, your statements are totally absurd. Therefore, I recommend you read the sensible and reasonable comments made on Sept. 29 by Mr. Morrison and Mainlander for your enlightenment. Doug Smith, GFW

  • Colin Burke
    October 01, 2012 - 10:12

    Mr. Morrison, a child who is born to endure pain and suffering in comparison with which that of a fetus must pale still has at least the choice of ending it by committing suicide -- if indeed death is preferable to suffering, which I deny but which those who want to allow assisted suicide seem to affirm. If someone has the right to assisted suicide, why deny that right to someone who can exercise that right without assistance? Would not such denial be due to the emotionalism you deplore rather than to the kind of logical reasoning against suicide which would also oppose abortion? The fact is, of course, that a normal child resists suicide and clings to life because life itself is good, which also is why a normal child is horrified by the thought of abortion, until "adult thinking" warps his judgement. I may be mistaken but I believe that in using the word "kid" I was following the lead of someone who wanted us to concentrate on supporting those "kids" already born. (I admit to being easily led by others, especially in non-essentials.)

  • Herb Morrison
    September 30, 2012 - 15:55

    By the way, Mr. Burke, the term kid is routinely used to describe a young male goat. So much for respect for the dignity of the unborn fetus, in particular, or any child in general.

  • Herb Morrison
    September 30, 2012 - 15:47

    Incidently, Mr. Burke. A kid is a term used to describe a young goat. So much for respect for the dignity of the unborn fetus

  • Herb Morrison
    September 30, 2012 - 13:07

    Note to F. Ross. The use of emotionalisn in the absence of reason has been the cause of much pain for various societies throughout history. Hitler fired up the German people by referencing the raw deal the Germans recieved at the hands of the Allies at the end of the First World war. Hitler employed unbridled nationalism to ready his people for war. Not to mention Hitler's open propafgation of racism as he promoted the superiority of the white, blue-eyed, blond-haired race and murdered several milloin Jews. In more recent history, in the U.S. in the fifties and early sixties , people like Governors such a George Wallace and Lester Maddox employed emotionalism in an attempt to prevent desegration of schools in their States. Who can forget the mass suicide of people belonging to the People's Temple of one Jim Jones, which took place in Guyana. Emotionalism devoid of reason.without reason is a dangerous tool which has been employed throughout recorded history with disastrous results. Note to Mr. Burke. Bringing an unwanted child into the world to suffer is not exactly my idea of a supportive act. Any pain which an unborn fetus might endure an abortion pales in comparison to the pain and suffering the child could well endure if it is allowed to be born. In a perfect world where reason tempered with emotion would be the norm your line of thinking might hold sway. However in our imperfect world populated by imperfect beings, sometimes doing the right thing involves chosing between the lesser of two evils.

  • F. Ross
    September 29, 2012 - 23:35

    I hear the little angels cry, Oh Mama, Mama tell me why They had to let you let me die, Oh Mama, Mama , tell me why. You would have learned to love me so, If you had only let me grow. I was so snuggled up inside, I didn't feel the need to hide. And then I felt the awful pain, And I was right back here again. To be in line to wait my turn, So I can get a chance to learn. But Mama, Mama please don't cry. It's not your fault they let me die. When they gave you the right to choose, You didn't know how much I'd lose. You're not the only one to blame Society must bear the shame. Of cutting off my chance to live, And I have oh so much to give. Oh Mama, if you try again, Won't you next time let me in , Just let my earthly wings unfold, And I will love you when you're old. Yes I will love you when you're old, We have a story to be told, So Mama, Mama please don't cry It's not your fault they let me die. There are so many here like me. We make our plans with hopes to be. And give the world all we can give If they would only let us live. If they would only let us live, We have so very much to give, Please let our earthly wings unfold, And we will love you when you're old. I hear the little angels cry.........................

  • No dude, you're wrong.
    September 29, 2012 - 18:11

    First off, the legal definition of a person is a corporate fiction, so the notion of making a flesh and blood organism a corporate fiction is foolish in itself. Second, the abortion debate is settled. Poll after poll shows that Canadian's feel the debate is settled and if it wasn't for the naive, gullible and ignorant (i.e religious right) we wouldn't have to keep telling people such as yourself to get out of our abortion rights. If you're pro-life great, don't get abortions. But the rest of society recognizes that it's a humane and ethical procedure in cases where it may be beneficial regardless of the character of the person getting the abortion. Keep this crap in church.

  • Colin Burke
    September 29, 2012 - 18:06

    "How about we also put our efforts into supporting kids who already exist....?" I'm all for that, since it's evident that a kid who can be aborted must "already exist" despite not yet being born. "People are going to have sex," true enough, but at least partly because "experts" keep telling them they are going to. And the statement that "people are going to have sex" overlooks whether they are going to choose to do that. It is not self-evident that people who cannot choose not to "have sex" will exercise good judgment about whether to have children who may turn out to be more capable of self-control than their parents. Nor is it evident that people who simply decline to exercise self-control, by choosing to "have sex" ought to avoid responsibility for a natural effect of what they do; they can legitimately pass that responsiblity on to "all those right to lifers" only if the latter so severely punish their denial of the responsibility as top render them unable to fulfil it, which is an alternative I am inclined to favour. I'm afraid the real reason for so much modern sexual irresponsibility is that modern young are never told the real, and really excellent, purposes connected with having children, which have to do with a genuine love of justice, and no one has explained to them that when those purposes cannot be served, that is itself an excellent reason to refrain from "having sex."

  • Jacklyn Adams
    September 29, 2012 - 11:59

    One thing jumped out at me. He said "Let the women have their rights - but not on the backs of these innocent children' In other words, remove the rights of an entire class of people - pregnant women. Listen up. We are never forced to give blood, donate organs, etc. Heck, we cant even take organs from the DEAD without permission. So why should an entire group of people - women who become pregnant - be forced to donate their organs - uteruses - without permission from them? If indeed fetuses are human beings, as you like to claim, they should have the same rights as everyone else - NOT special rights. If abortion is made illegal, only one group of citizens will be forced to donate an organ. That is a violation of human rights.

  • Political Watcher
    September 29, 2012 - 11:46

    Why is it that it seems that some of the most outspoken advocates opposed to abortion are male? I am a male and strongly believe that if you are not a female then you have very little say in what a women does with her body.

  • mainlander
    September 29, 2012 - 10:52

    Here we go again. This is a choice between a woman and her doctor. Not a journalist, not a so-called human rights advocate, not a politician and certainly not a church. Unless all these "right to lifers" are going to start raising all these babies from these unplanned pregnancies, stay out of it. You have no idea what goes on for each woman who has to make this decision. But it is hers to make. Not yours, not mine and not anyone else's. You may not like that it is legal and up to a woman to make it, but that is how it is and how it should remain. If you want to prevent abortion, how about getting behind preventing unplanned pregnancies? This means real education for males and females and access to birth control. If you think abstinence-only education will prevent pregnancy, give your head a shake. People are going to have sex. They are even going to do it outside of marriage. If you don't want there to be abortion, start with preventing unplanned pregnancies. No woman should be forced to carry, deliver and then raise a baby they did not plan and/or do not want because you believe they should. Women have a right to safe, legal abortions. How about we also put our efforts into supporting kids who already exist, not ones who haven't been born?

  • Herb Morrison
    September 29, 2012 - 08:43

    The pros and cons of abortion will continue to be debated with no possibility of a consensus being reached pertaining to the rights and wrongs of abortion. Pro-life groups do a considerable amount of crowing about the sanctity of human life. Yet there is very little written or spoken concerning the quality of that same human life. Look around you, people. Why should anyone be compelled to bring a child into the world if that same child is born into a community, where social problems lead to that same child resorting to sniffing gasoline or engaging in other forms of behaviour, which are either self-destructive or perhaps involve criminal activities, which pose a threat to the well-being of others. When speaking or writing concerning the sanctity of human life, the pro-lifer, anti-abortion advocates, in general, and those who are professing Christians would do well to remember that as professing Christians we are obliged to demonstrate our respect for the sanctity of human life by doing what we can to address the genuine needs of those around us, in order to insure that our neighbours have a life of sufficient quality, that said life is worth living. Not that long ago, certain citizens of Paradise, living in close proximity to the proposed site of a treatment centre for troubled teens, raised Holy Hell in opposition to the proposed site. Recent reports concerning the resurgence of gas sniffing among the Inu children in Labrador have indicated that a lack of follow-up treatment, when the Government of the day, some ten years ago was, to some extent shamed by adverse publicity, into providing Gas-sniffing Inu children with treatment, is at least in part responsible for the reoccurrence of the problem. In these situations, genuine concern for the sanctity of human life is conspicuous by its’ absence.