Marching For Life

It was about halfway through the day Thursday that I remembered it was the day of the annual March For Life on Parliament Hill. Not being in Ottawa this year it had totally slipped my mind, despite it being the biggest gathering of demonstrators all year.

I won’t get into Canada’s lack or abortion laws, or what appears to be a tacit consensus among our politicians that abortion is not a topic for discussion, under any circumstances. The present government keeps insisting that abortion is a Constitutional right. Having read the Constitution (which I gather the Prime Minister has not) I know that is not true, no matter how much some people wish it was.IMG_20160512_141152

I have great respect for the people who come from across Canada to make their voices heard on the second Thursday in May each year. Much smaller rallies receive far more extensive press coverage, but we won’t talk about what appears to be media bias here – you can draw your own conclusions.

I did realize though that in 2016 I had meant to do a March For Life post and for reasons now unknown never did. But I have pictures, taken in haste with my phone, of the marchers as they walked the streets of downtown Ottawa. I thought I would share those today.

Those opposed to the pro-life cause claim the movement is part of the past, a relic from an older, patriarchal generation. It seems to me from what I have seen that there as many young as old who take part in the March, as many (if not more) women than men. The abortionists don’t want people to know that.

Look at the pictures and see for yourself.






  1. The international focus of Amanda’s responses is a bit off. There are many happy people with more children but who are relatively poor in the world.

    If the measuring stick is ‘unwanted’ children, what about the childless parents who would love to adopt? Morally, one should consider that. If one does not, it comes down to the selfishness of the parents.

    Also, if one has a cutoff of, say ’20 weeks’ for ‘scientific’ sentience and pain of the fetus, that leads one to suggest an anti-abortion law of 20 weeks. Nothing after 20 weeks….that is not current Canadian law. (and, what infernal experiments were done to determine that a fetus felt pain and/or was sentient at a certain date?)

  2. Thanks for the comment. This thread has gotten too long for anyone to read – I think people have probably lost interest by now. We can continue by email if you like, But I don’t see that much would be gained – my questions as to where a person finds their ethical positions and why they should have the right to impose those positions on others remains unanswered.

  3. Amanda · · Reply

    Also, do you really not understand that birth control methods fail ? What does that have to do with the right to choose?

    1. Yes, I understand completely that birth control methods can fail. That’s where responsibility and consequences come in. Since making a baby is a logically foreseeable consequence to sex, then people should understand the need to accept the responsibility for their actions should that occur. The “right” to choose is not Constitutional (in Canada anyway) and apparently does not consider the right of a child to be born – which may be just as artificial a construct as the “right to choose.”

      1. It is not your responsibility or place to establish consequences to sex; This sick mentality that men and women who have sex deserve to be stuck with pregnancy and birth needs to stop being pushed by “pro life” fanatics.

        Early term fetuses are unconscious and can not experience pain or suffering, therefore how is it unethical to abort them ?

        It is unhealthy and unnatural for adults to go without sex, and consensual sex between adults is ethical, so there is no reason for sex or accidental impregnation to be punished by law.

  4. Amanda · · Reply

    Girls and women do not deserve forced birth

    1. I’m not quite sure what you mean by that, though I too dislike being forced to do anything. However, none of us was given an option as to whether we would be born or not.

      If you are suggesting women should not have to carry unwanted pregnancies to fulfillment, then I would disagree. In most western countries women have access to birth control. Pregnancy is therefore more a matter of choice and responsibility rather than “want.” Actions have consequences, and it is difficult to argue logically that an unborn child should be terminated because of choices made by his or her parents. Pregnancy is a predictable consequence of sex. The only sure way to avoid it is abstinence. Anything else and as an adult you should accept the responsibility that comes with your actions.

      There are popular justifications for abortion, such as pregnancy through rape or incest, but those are statistically negligible (though horrific for anyone who has experienced them – I do not intend to belittle the trauma by pointing out that such incidents are comparatively rare.) Economic hardship in raising a child, another frequently cited reason, does not consider that there are many childless people looking to adopt.

      I continue to find it disheartening that our politicians are either unwilling or unable to have a reasonable discussion on the subject. I don’t expect anything to change, but it is sad that in Canada no-one really wants to discuss the issue.

      1. Enacting laws mandating pregnant girls and women give birth against their will is forcing birth, and promoting such laws is promoting forced birth.

        It is not the laws job to punish people for having sex. This idea that sex deserves “consequences” like children is ludicrous and it’s pushed by spiritual people who do not understand or who deny science.

        Early term fetuses are unconscious and unable to experience pain or suffering.

        Girls and women should not have to give “justifications” for choosing early term abortion. If couples or singles don’t want to continue a pregnancy to mid term, it is their reproductive right and human right to terminate it before the fetus is conscious.

      2. I don’t think you and I have the same understanding of rights as a legal term. And the fact remains that a pregnancy un-terminated produces a human – that is science, whether you agree humanity begins at conception or somehow appears later. And in Canada children can be aborted up until the time they take their first breath, there is no legal concept of “early term fetus.” I stand by the concept that singles or couples who don’t want to continue a pregnancy should not become pregnant.

      3. The issue with ethical termination of life is not “human”, the issue is sentient.
        Are they able to suffer or have conscious awareness? If the answer is no, which it is for early fetuses, then it is justified to terminate.
        Kind of like how we all know that plants are living and yet it isn’t unethical to kill them because they dont have a brain or central nervous system, and therefore can not suffer.

      4. There are of course some who debate the ethics of killing plants, though I doubt they are serious, given that we are unable to digest rocks .

        What is sentient? Can we conduct a Turing test on animals? Although that measures intelligence (as we define it) not life. Does potential count?

        Is it ethical to terminate life if there is no pain involved? That would seem to be the rationale of countries with a death penalty. Yet many people, even in those countries, find such legally mandated killing to be unethical.

        Who defines what is ethical or not? What is the basis for their epistemology? These are timeless questions. Are you asking them? Or are you more comfortable with the status quo?

        My question to Canadian legislators was why they didn’t just admit that public policy required that pregnancies be terminated up to a certain gestation point. But they won’t do that because acknowledging that failure to terminate a pregnancy results in a human life is really annoying to some voters (though it is scientifically accurate).

      5. Amanda · ·

        Right, there is justification to why ending the lives of plants is ethical, just like there is justification to why ending the gestation of potential lives is ethical.
        Actually I’ve personally come across people using the argument that plants are alive and its unethical to kill them, of course they use it as a sarcastic attempt to make people who dont kill animals seem crazy.

        No it’s not about terminating a life if no pain is involved, it’s terminating undeveloped beings in cases that they are not capable of conscious awareness. The point is that there is justification for early abortion, there is not justification for death penalty, because a quick death and permanent unconsciousness is not a punishment; death as a legal punishment is also hypocritical.

        Laws are supposed to define what is ethical, however they often fail to do so; It is up to the voters to decide whether or not it is fair to force ten-week pregnant girls and women to be pregnant for nine months and condemn them to birth or punishment.

        “Human” is egotistical and arbitrary. The issue is suffering. Are we contributing to suffering through early term abortion? No. It should be case dismissed at this point.

      6. the question of whether it is indeed ethical to kill plants, animals or anything or anyone is a good one. Once again though, it depends on how you define the concept of ethics. If I understand you correctly, you think sentient beings have the right to decide the fate of the non-sentient. But on what basis? Because we have power? Does the ability to oppress confer some sort of justification?

        As someone who has been deeply involved in the political process I can assure you that the word “ethics” is a rare one in law making. And, as I said earlier, why should a person not take responsibility for their actions and carry a pregnancy to term? Because they don’t want to? There are lots of things I don’t want to do, but I do them because of a social good or fear of the consequences from society if I break the rules. Am I the sole arbiter of what is right and wrong? Or is there ethical agreement?

        From what I can see from your arguments, we have a gulf that makes consensus unlikely.

        I don’t understand why you would say death is not a punishment. If you don’t believe in an afterlife it would seem to be a punishment to have your life terminated prematurely. If you do believe in an afterlife then you could posit that an act that would cause society to snuff you out might also have ramifications in the next life. But that is conjecture. The state makes arbitrary decisions. If the death penalty is wrong (as I understand you believe it to be) then why is abortion right, given that both are painless (as far as we know).

        I am not convinced that the science is settled on the matter of abortion, though you appear to have an almost religious faith that it is. An d to repeat what I have said earlier, I am more saddened that in Canadian political life there appears to be no discussion of the issue.

      7. Amanda · ·

        They are good questions that we have the answers to. Who has a brain and central nervous system has the ability to suffer and it is therefore unethical to harm them.

        It’s not that I think sentient beings have the right to kill plants and fetuses, it’s that they deserve the right because it causes no suffering to do so.

        What needs a justification is forcing girls and women by law to remain pregnant and give birth when they otherwise wouldn’t inflict suffering with early term abortion.

        Why do you suggest that carrying a pregnancy to term is inherently the responsible choice for all pregnant people? In MANY cases abortion is the responsible decision.

        Death is not a punishment because dead people do not know they are dead. A permanent nap is nothing compared to decades in a prison isolation cell, which is what prison is for. Not only this, but killing someone because they killed someone (or committed any violent crime) is by definition hypocritical.

        Trust in science is very different from religious faith because, not only is there evidence, research, and data to back up scientific theories, but because when the theories are proven wrong, instead of turning a blind eye, science trashes the theory and starts over with the research/observation/experiment to seek the truth.

      8. Why is it unethical to harm someone? A scientific proof please. (Yes, I know there’s a religious argument, but this discussion has not gone there, and I had the impression you rejected religious-based arguments. Or was I wrong?)

        We disagree that abortion is a responsible decision. We also disagree that it does not cause suffering, although that point is moot as you have not explained why causing suffering would be unethical.

        From which it follows that long prison sentences are to be preferred to the death penalty. Not because of the possibility of an error of the justice system or rehabilitation (two of the reasons why I oppose the death penalty)but because we can’t make dead people suffer. They need to pay for their crimes by rotting in a jail cell, Society wants revenge and retribution – we want to be sure they suffer.

        I think that is a logical inconsistency. I also think you made a very compelling case for mistrusting science, and seem to suggest that science cannot discover truth, just what passes for truth today.

      9. Amanda · ·

        It’s unethical to unnecessarily harm someone who we know can suffer because we are aware of our ability to create complex concepts such as right/wrong, good/bad, and we are therefore obligated to base our decisions on critical thinking that results in avoiding contributing to unnecessary harm of those who can suffer.

        The religious arguments, while I’m willing to discuss them, are not necessary in my opinion.

        Why do you insist that the science is wrong about early term abortion not causing suffering or pain to the fetus?

        And how can you suggest that producing one human for every one egg that’s fertilized is in any way positive for society, the environment, the economy, child welfare, the planet, collective success of girls and women, or humanity? Is it really fair to force the rest of us to live shoulder to shoulder, drive bumper to bumper, and foot the bill for government assistance for single parents and guardians?

        How is supporting the criminal justice system logically inconsistent with wanting the most fair and just form of punishment?

        Science is always discovering truths, with or without it’s disbelievers’ acknowledgements.  

      10. Your ethics argument is chasing its own tail. If someone says it is ethical to torture or murder,

        I didn’t say the science is necessarily wrong on pain – but as you have pointed out, today’s scientific fact frequently becomes tomorrow’s falsehood. The idea that fetuses can’t feel pain until they are 20 weeks is based on brain development. That’s a general agreement, but not a hard and fast rule. And it leads to an interesting question:

        Is it okay to inflict pain and suffering if it will not be felt? If someone has passed out at a party from drinking too much alcohol, is it okay to abuse them, since they won’t feel it happening? The law says no, the ethical stance you are presenting tells me differently. Or should pain not be the foundation for our ethical awareness?

        You’ve made a generalized statement about the birth rate, emotionally powerful but I am not sure I see the logic of it. What evidence do you have that allowing babies to live would cause us to live shoulder to shoulder and drive bumper to bumper? If we are concerned about the environment, maybe banning private vehicle ownership would be more effective than abortions. What is the projected cost for assistance to single parents and guardians compared to what is being spent now? What are the projected benefits? There are people who run these numbers for policy makers, but they aren’t allowed to touch this issue because the lawmakers don’t want to know the answer.

        I am still puzzled as to why you think it is ethical to incarcerate people for long periods of time. Is this not an assault on their dignity and humanity? What gives society the right to say someone is not allowed to live freely as they wish, even if what they wish is to kill others?

        Yes, science is always discovering truths, sometimes ones that contradict what is already considered to be truth.

      11. So we shouldn’t perform any procedures that we know are safe because in the future we may realize they aren’t safe, despite the facts we have that suggest otherwise? That is not an argument.

        That is a fallacy. A doctor terminating an undeveloped unconscious fetus in an exam room is nothing like sexual assault of an unconscious person, that is autistic.

        So you dont believe that overpopulation leads to less space and resources for everyone? That is common sense, more people equals less space, our planet is not growing while our population is growing a new billion people every decade; do you still really think that more people is positive? I really doubt that is your honest opinion.

        Adults who choose to violate the law are responsible for paying time, that is an agreed upon structure of the nation; you want to live here? Then dont terrorize or you’ll be in the criminal justice system.
        This is ethical because we need to protect the rest of society from the danger that is violent crime. You do the crime you do the time, and people dont go shoot up schools or churches without planning on suicide or prison time, so for some reason I doubt they’re that surprised by prison sentencing.
        Preventing a potential life with early term abortion is ethical because no suffering results from it and prison sentencing is ethical because it is the most humane form of punishment while still serving justice and keeping the citizens safe.

      12. Once again it seems to me like you are avoiding the issue. No-one is saying abortion isn’t a safe procedure. I didn’t say government should outlaw it – though I would like politicians to call it what it is (and I did say that earlier).

        I have been trying to see if you can think outside your preconceptions, and sadly appear to have failed. Why is a doctor performing a legal abortion nothing like a sexual assault on an unconscious person? Can you give a reasoned response that goes beyond “everyone knows it is different” or “everyone knows such an act is wrong?” The dictionary definition of ethical refers to a system, without naming any system. You appear to have a formulated system of beliefs, but haven’t been able or willing to articulate them. And “majority rule” is a shaky foundation – especially in a multi-party democracy. Canadian governments usually represent about 38-40% of the electorate, but they are nonetheless legitimately able to enact legislative policy.

        I agree that we have a criminal justice system that operates under common agreement. My question is what is the basis for that agreement, what is the foundation of law? Why is it ethical to protect society from danger?

        I still don’t see how you can determine that a prison sentence is “the most humane form of punishment.” You cause a person suffering in locking them up for years. Wouldn’t it be more ethical to end their life without suffering. Or are we a vengeful society?

        We have ranged far afield in this discussion. I do hope you will consider some of the points I have raised about the foundations of belief and ethics.

      13. And saying “they should just not impregnate or become pregnant if they dont want to give birth” is kindergarten and ignorant because they DO become pregnant, it is not a matter of whether or not people should become pregnant because even people who try not to become pregnant still do!

        People impregnate people! That is nature and it is not unethical to terminate early term, unless you have an argument for why it is unethical ?

      14. If I understand your argument, you feel that pregnancy just happens, and no-one is responsible. Yes, that is a simplification and maybe unjustified, but my point was that if actions have consequences then those consequences should be considered before the actions are taken.

        In politics we spend a lot of time looking at the consequences of policy proposals, trying to figure out all the possible ramifications before they are implemented. In theory that should make for better government. In practice we frequently miss things and bad government happens.

        I don’t think we have a mutually agreed definition of what is ethical – and we seem to be talking at cross purposes here. You refer to early term terminations, but in Canada there is no legal definition of early or late term, abortion is always permitted.

        If sentience is your definition, how do you prevent mistakes in what is at the moment an inexact science? When does a “fetus” become sentient? Day 90? Day 89? And how do we know exactly how old the fetus is? And does it vary from one to another?

        I’m not asking you to change your mind on the subject, just to ask the questions.

      15. Amanda · ·

        I would never suggest that pregnancy just happens, that is ignorant.

        I suggest contraceptives, vasectomy, tubal ligation, and early term abortion, because not only do birth control measures fail, it is not unethical to choose abortion if the fetus is undeveloped enough that suffering wont occur.
        Whether or not people use birth control, while I can encourage people to do so through positive outreach, is NOT my business and it is CERTAINLY not the government’s place to step in and garner control over reproduction of the people.

        Sentience is not my definition of suffering, sentience is a large part of fetal and prenatal medical studies in relation to abortion procedures and healthcare. It has been shown and continues to be shown that fetuses are unconscious until after twenty weeks, generally the lower boundaries of consciousness and ability to feel pain develop around twenty four weeks, but even at that point it is still highly undeveloped.

        This is a very important issue and it’s super important for people to be discussing these ideas openly; thank you for allowing me to give my thoughts here and spread awareness on the full issue because these issues really do matter to a lot of people in this world.

      16. I won’t bother to repeat myself about the point where suffering does/does not occur. It just begs the question earlier question as to the basis of our epistemology. Who says suffering is wrong? Why is it wrong?

        Whether you like it or not, governments step in and garner control over many areas of society, sometimes for good, other times for ill. Part of the social contract is that we have ceded that privilege to them.

        From a governmental perspective, abortion has several facets, with reproductive “rights” only being part of a larger picture. There re also long-term considerations of demographics, health care, employment and pensions which are not often addressed. Usually nobody wants to go there.

        From your description, it still does seem to me that the lines of your definitions for consciousness and pain are inexact. Does that not raise an ethical dilemma of an abortion performed after the child was conscious and could feel pain, only the physician didn’t realize that developmental stage had been reached. People develop at different rates, both before and after birth;, is it ethical to take that risk?

        I agree that these issues are important and matter to many people – and I thank you for stimulating the discussion.

      17. Amanda · ·

        The point about suffering not occurring before late mid term is the most important point regarding the ethicality of abortion.

        Unnecessary suffering is wrong because we are moral agents based on our ability to comprehend and evaluate suffering and necessity. The law decides what’s wrong, and the people decide the law.

        The government does not have the ability to pass laws the take human rights without the people voting first (as far as I understand with democracies).

        The reason the cutoff date for legal abortion is important is because we know how early we can cut it off while still causing no harm without a doubt. If we know that fetuses begin to develop consciousness at week twenty four, why would a twenty week cutoff date be unreasonable? Or even an eighteen week cutoff?

        Surely eighteen weeks is enough time to realize you’re pregnant, come up with several hundred dollars, and have the procedure before the fetus is developed enough to suffer.

        The underestimation people place on abortion doctors (but for some reason not on other doctors) is really the issue here; abortion has been part of healthcare for some time now and the myths and confusion around it need to be put to rest.

      18. What is a moral agent? Who defines morality? Science? Eugenics used to be all the rage, Not so much so these days.

        The law decides what’s wrong? Then the law also decides what is right? When was the law wrong – when slavery was legal or illegal? Why? When marijuana was legal or illegal? Why?

        Unfortunately it appears law is a human construct and highly subjective.

        Lawmakers can set whatever cutoff date for abortion they like. In Canada there is none. By your own standards that means Canadian doctors are empowered by law to cause suffering and harm. The state permits it. Choose whatever date you like – that’s a smoke screen that takes away from the larger life issue.

        By the way, in Canada you don’t need to worry about coming up with money for an abortion. Health care is taxpayer funded. Pharma care however is not. What do you think that means for the abortion rate when it is cheaper for prospective parents to have an abortion than pay for birth control?

        It doesn’t seem to me to be a matter of myth or confusion – people make choices. I’d just like to see them accept responsibility for their decisions and not pretend to worship “rights” that are socially constructed.

      19. Amanda · ·

        Well, language defines words, words have their own definitions; perhaps check a dictionary if you have further questions about definitions since I’m not sure what going further down the semantics rabbit hole is going to do for either of our positions.

        Taking a position of science over faith/ideology is not defining morality, it’s giving people information that allows them to decide what is morally acceptable in their societies. This is why some countries still practice slavery/child labour, because either their government is not caught up with the people or the people are not caught up with the rest of the world.

        Law is certainly not subjective, it is a collection of decisions agreed upon by adult voter majorities. Don’t like something, vote on it! But don’t blame the government/legal system for immoral or wacky laws that could have been prevented by the voices of the people.

        Personally I think people should 100% pay for their own drugs and their own abortions. The leading diseases and causes of death are largely caused by diet and lifestyle choices/habits, therefore I dont want my tax money paying for obese patient’s bariatric surgeries or cigarette smoker’s cancer treatments either.

        Like I said often times abortion is the responsible choice (I’d say in all cases where a pregnancy/baby is unwanted), and to deny this is to hold an ignorant position on an issue that is impacting an obscene amount of unwanted, uncared for children.

      20. You may see it as a semantics rabbit hole, but words and their definitions are important. If there is no common agreement then there is no dialogue, which seems to be where we are going. You have strong opinions, but I still don’t understand what you mean by words like “ethical.” I don’t know whether your opinions are based on some external source or whether they are internal and no more valid than any other post-modern thought.

        Since you mentioned the rabbit hole from Wonderland, allow me to quote from Looking Glass: “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”
        “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
        “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master – – that’s all.”

        If you think science doesn’t define morality, then what does? Government? Is the majority always right then, and the actions of the majority always moral? Yet you seem to feel that countries with slavery “have not caught up with the rest of the world.” That is a moral judgement based on what? Why is your morality right and theirs wrong?

        I’m not a big fan of my tax money paying for people’s bad choices, but I understand that in a collective with a social contract, that is going to happen, I have no school-age children, but pay a lot of school tax each year.

        I don’t think childless women and couple hoping to adopt would agree that abortion is a responsible choice. I also don’t see evidence that there are an “obscene” amount of unwanted children in North America.

        Nor do I see how you jump to uncared for children. Canada has taxpayer funded abortion, therefore it is likely that most children would be considered wanted. That they are uncared for is a different issue and should not be linked to the abortion discussion. If it is different in your country, please explain.

      21. There is common agreement though, just because you may be unfamiliar with certain words does not take away their place or importance on the topic;
        What I mean by ethical is the dictionary definition, “relating to moral principles”. My opinions, as I assume yours, are based on my critical thinking skills and ability to comprehend information.

        Forced birth has ONE meaning, and it is when someone gives birth against their will according to someone else’s ruling.

        As I said before, people collectively decide what is moral and laws exist to abide morality, though at times laws fail to do so.
        Societies collectively decide what their morals are based on their ability to reason and judge as a whole. This is why voting exists.

        I agree that my taxes are for things that dont necessarily involve myself, however schools are necessary and being three hundred pounds on five medications is not.

        Every situation is different and is MANY situations abortion is the most responsible decision. Forcing a child into foster care or into the streets is NEVER a responsible decision, and yet it happens every single day all over the world because women are shamed and guilted away from abortion.

        The fact that you choose to turn a blind eye to the amount of children in every single country suffering and living poor quality lives does not change that it is reality. The fact that there are ANY children in these situations should be alarming, and yet people care about fetuses and not living children for some reason I can not figure out.

        Accidental pregnancies are not wanted babies and you can not force people to want or care for the children they have.
        Uncared for children are a DIRECT result of anti-abortion/pro-life ideology and that is why we-re discussing it, because more abortions lead to less unwanted children and to deny this is to deny common sense. People have babies that they dont want ALL the time because of people like you putting pressure and shame on them to do so.

        We need to start taking serious care of the more than two billion children we have on the planet now instead of pushing a ton of new ones into existence for no good reason.

      22. I think we have pretty much flogged this discussion to death. I get the distinct impression that I am taking to brick wall, that you are unwilling or unable to consider the questions I am asking (and you may feel the same way about me), but I will try one last time.

        I keep asking you to define ethics, you keep sending me to the dictionary. Which gives me a printed message, but doesn’t necessarily dovetail with your beliefs. You said ethics is a set of moral principles, which agrees with Miriam-Webster: a : a set of moral principles : a theory or system of moral values the present-day materialistic ethic an old-fashioned work ethic —often used in plural but singular or plural in construction an elaborate ethicsChristian ethics
        b ethics plural in form but singular or plural in construction : the principles of conduct governing an individual or a group professional ethics
        c : a guiding philosophy
        d : a consciousness of moral importance forge a conservation ethic.

        All of which tells us what ethics is, but not what they are. What are the common values. What moral principles? And what is the basis for them. There are seven billion people on this planet, and if I understand your reasoning each has an equally valid morality. There is no consensus, though you appear to be unwilling to accept that.
        If ISIS wishes to behead me that is their moral and ethical right.

        I once lived in a country that would not allow me to be a citizen because of the color of my skin. That was legal, constitutional in fact, and in the eyes of the citizens moral. Was it? After all, “people collectively decide what their morals are.”

        If every situation is different, why should that apply only to pregnancy? What right has the law to tell me I shouldn’t steal if I feel it is morally right to do so. Why would you want to impose your morality on me? Why is the majority right? After all, the majority once believed the earth was flat.

        My post was about Canada’s lack of abortion law. Worldwide population and quality of life is a separate issue – and frequently reeks of neo-colonialism from well-meaning westerners.

        I fail to see the connection between world population and unwanted children. In Canada, with free abortion, you can make the claim that all children are wanted – which does not prevent child abuse. In most countries the idea of abortion is abhorrent – those of us in the First World frequently don’t understand that. Imposing abortion on Africa or India would seem to be morally wrong according to your definition of ethics.

      23. Beliefs have nothing to do with this issue for me though, and I think it’s a problem that it has anything to do with it for others.
        If you have a problem with the definitions of words, that isn’t really pertinent to the conversation nor is it my problem;

        You’re suggesting that ethics are arbitrary, and yet you rely on arbitrary ideas of human being distinctly more sacred/valuable/important than other species.

        I have not suggested that laws define morality or ethics, I’m saying that PEOPLE (the same people who created these concepts) agree on it and laws either get passed, denied, or overturned because of our ever evolving ability to have empathy and to reason with it. A society evolves as one (with exceptions as always) which is why some societies are “behind” others (meaning more barbaric/less civilized).

        More unwanted children = more strain on society & the world. It is very simple and it is accepted as a reality of how nature and humanity operate. I never suggested imposing abortion, I suggesting the right to choose early term abortion.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: