Shame on Harper

I already know: this is going to be a heated topic and I will most probably be blasted by every Conservative pundit on the intertubes and who read blogs.  So be it.  Because at the end of the day: this is a topic I feel very passionate about: The right to choose.

Abortion.

While it’s been legal in Canada since 1969 and no longer considered a crime under the Canadian Criminal Code since 1988 – there appears to be a wee bit of hypocrisy happening with some of our Canadian politicians – especially on the world scene.  Specifically, with the upcoming G8 Summit, being hosted in Canada.  Oh, yes, the Christian fundamentalist who form the base of the Canadian Conservative Party that our boring and uninteresting Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, is part of, rejoice at the stance he’s taken on Maternal and Child Health (the Conservative government says it wants to make maternal and child health a major priority but it refuses to fund contraception and abortion services – breaking from other G8 countries, like the US and GB.  Canada’s contribution will not include funding for contraception and abortions).

Now don’t get me wrong.  The true focus should be on Maternal and Child Health… but one cannot exclude or include/impose religious values where it has no place: in politics and global health issues.  Abortion is part of ‘maternal’ health – you cannot say that maternal health and reproductive health don’t go hand in hand.  You cannot have one without the other.  And where there is reproductive health – one must consider everything from contraceptives to family planning to access to legal abortions. It’s all encompassing.  In third world countries where women are often forced into sexual relations against her will at such a young age and raped without legal consequences – a woman NEEDS to have the option to safely end a pregnancy, should she so choose too.  She should also have the right to have access to contraceptives and birth control to prevent even having to make such a hard and life-altering choice for herself.  She should have the right to choose to do what is right for her and her mental and physical well beingPERIOD.  HER CHOICE.  Not yours.  Not mine.  Not imposed.  HER CHOICE.  Religion has no place in that basic, fundamental, human decision – to do what is right for HER.  To say “yes to this but not that” while it’s legal in the country you represent… is absurd.  It’s hypocritical.  To the core.  Stephen Harper is putting his religious beliefs ahead of the Canadian Constitution and Laws… where religion has no place in.  In politics.  He’s crossed the limits between state and church… by speaking for all Canadians and going against even our own Laws to protect women and children.

While it’s perfectly acceptable that one has and does hold their personal beliefs based on their conscience, religious or any other basis – its unacceptable to intervene and impose those beliefs onto others.  The operative word is PERSONAL.  Not GLOBAL.  To declare someone ‘morally bankrupt’ or ‘morally criminal’ for exercising their own personal beliefs and choices to do what is RIGHT for them – now THAT is totally unacceptable.

It boils down to this:  You cannot impose Maternal and Child Health rules without considering ALL aspects of what Maternal and Child Health includes.  Yes. Every woman deserves to be given the opportunity to be educated about her choices and be given a safe and supportive environment to exercise whatever choice she chooses.  Every woman who has been the victim of rape and violence NEEDS & DESERVES every option available to her empowering her to choose whatever SHE wants to do for her well-being/healing… without the fear of repercussions – be it the choice of pregnancy, adoption or abortion.  That is her HUMAN right.  Religion should be there to support her in her healing process, regardless of her choice… not further victimize her with guilt and fear and be called a criminal.

No.  What Canada’s Prime Minister is saying is:  I will give you money to only do the things that I want you to do.  Not to give you fundamentally what you need. Do as I say, not as I do. And I don’t support that.  Nonewhatsoever.  Especially when you are talking about Maternal and Child Health Care.  This most definitely doesn’t make me morally bankrupt or criminal.  No.  It makes me human.  And I’ll take my humanity over religious bigotry and exclusion any day.

Anything less… is criminal.

(As Old Iron shoulders himself into the arena wearing his favorite lochadore mask and nothing else…)

Time to have some fun.

KC, I am going to make this quick as to not deflate the momentum that you have established above.

I respect the stance that you have taken, with the equality for all trumpet blaring as loud as humanly possible. You took that to 11 my friend.

I also understand your interpretations of one law for one, one law for the other. Groovy.

Just want to drop this on you and I’ll leave.

Canada is contributing to this fund but has decided to voice how the money is used. I would think it is fair that although they are donating this cash, those in power that have authorized this decide, based on the controlling power’s conservative nature, to stand by their opinions and say that the money will not support abortion. Hey, Canadians voted them in by a majority for those very opinions so they, in turn, are doing as their constituents would have them do; representing them.

Also, about the sexual congress that you state occurs in different countries; have you ever thought about what would happen if you asked a devout muslim if she would like the option of having an abortion, and what the repercussions would be? If it was Saudi the LEAST that would happen to you would be lashings. KC, different cultures have different social allowances. Whereas we have sort of open armed the concept of abortion, even in our supposedly “enlightened” culture there is still turmoil over this decision. Who are we to try to push that same social allowance onto other cultures? You ask a woman here if she would get an abortion and she would slap the shit out of you for even proposing such a preposterous idea. They need all of the hands that they can get to help them either till the fields, sort out trash or just generally populate the jungle. Who are the collective “we” to push this practice onto them?

-Wait, hit a local up as he was walking by and asked him how does he feel about abortion. His response?

HE SAID IT WAS BARBARIC.

…And on that note I am done.

Let the games begin!

Advertisements

About ~KC~
Strong but open minded, opinionated, sensitive, vivacious, outgoing, caring, compassionate, spiritual, habitual, mutable, at times controversial, sometimes superficial, perceived as egotistical and knowledgeable but mostly loveable... all things Sagittarius.

13 Responses to Shame on Harper

  1. So the right to choose is at odds with the survival of another human being. What to do.

    Well, we could begin with the premise that the other is not a human being yet. That makes everything nice, clean and simple…a bit too simple. It’s defining a human being out of theoretical existence for the sake of convenience to the other. If we go that route, how far do we go? Does the same principle apply to other situations? I have a “right to choose” to do business with people who can talk to me, so don’t I get the right to tell a restaurant manager “I’m sorry, you need to find another employee who can take my order correctly because I cannot talk to this guy.” What if the cashier’s job comes to an end because of that. That’s okay, isn’t it? My choice?

    • ~KC~ says:

      You compare language barriers to a woman’s right to choose over her own body? While I get what you’re saying… that’s comparing apples & oranges Morgan! Not the same, and you know that. This isn’t a simple topic that should be simplified to that level.

      It’s defining a human being out of theoretical existence for the sake of convenience to the other.” You are utlimately saying that your choice is the right choice… because its YOUR choice. Morally sound and correct. Based on a Christian principle. Therefore – it MUST BE imposed onto everyone because its the only right choice to make – regardless of the consequences that led a woman to be in that situation. Making such a choice isn’t about convenience – at times, it’s a matter of HER survival. The emotional, mental and phsycial health of the mother takes precedence. While you might not agree… until you are faced with that decision – its easy to sit in judgement of those who have had to be.

      *EDIT* I want to clarify that while I say YOUR… I am not personally attacking you Morgan. It’s the belief system that you’ve subscribed to (as you are allowed too… LOL) that I am disagreeing with.

      • Old Iron says:

        I think the point that is sailing over this discussion is that this money is going to be used ELSEWHERE, NOT in Canada, and the conservative party that is in power just made a decision based off of the constituency they represent on how to use the money while it is being spent ELSEWHERE, NOT in Canada. This is not in any way infringing on your rights, but defining the use of a donation. I do it all of the time when I give to charities (which in essence this is what happened but on a much grander scale)by only giving to those that I deem represent a use for the money that I believe in. This is not some world-encompassing international dictation as to the options that said recipients of aide will enjoy; far from it, it is one voice among others as you so pointed out saying “Hey, we will give you this cash, but here is our terms”. KC, due to the other donors abortion is still on the table, just not paid for with your tax dollars.

      • ~KC~ says:

        OK Old Iron. I get your point. But that stance by our Canadian Government is hypocritical. And that is something that I abhour. To say “Do as I say, not as I do” – especially on a world scale – is a slap in the face to the fundamental issue they are supposedly supporting – Maternal and Child Health. It’s just wrong. It’s childish! I know it happens. Point in case. But I am embarassed by it and I say: SHAME ON HARPER’S GUBBERMENT for doing so. He’s crossed the line btw state and religion… where as a politician, he shouldn’t… but did.

  2. Making such a choice isn’t about convenience – at times, it’s a matter of HER survival.

    Since it is sometimes one, and sometimes the other, and you’re interested in exploring the argument for its complexities rather than for its simplicities, let’s subject your argument to the worst-case scenario and presume it’s a matter of convenience. Hey, it does happen that way. Sometimes you’re right and it’s a matter of survival. But that’s a simple scenario and not a complicated one, so let’s presume it’s a matter of convenience.

    It is a basic premise of all civilized societies that people have choices, and when those choices bring harm or threat to others, they lose the choices. If that woman has to make such a choice about the baby I put in her and her choice is to carry it to term, she has every right in the world to wait eighteen years and then ambush me with a valid claim for child support and interest. She can bring absolute ruin to my household, my house, my marriage, my own (other) kids. Is that a situation that is fair to everyone? No. Sometimes it is necessary to be unfair, take choices away from people, in order to do right by that child.

    The problem with your argument, KC, is that you’re effectively reduced to saying if that same child is still in the womb, everything works the opposite way. Real life just isn’t that twisty.

    We haven’t even addressed the issue that, from what I have read, Harper’s position has to do with de-funding something as opposed to criminalizing it. If Canada is a civilized country, its citizens have every right in the world not to be forced to subsidize something with their tax dollars, to which they are deeply morally opposed. The taxes you folks pay up there are not exactly chicken feed, so this is not a trivial matter.

    • Old Iron says:

      Well said. If this is such a requirement for said society why won’t private practice take it up? Supply and demand will take care of the rest and no tax dollars would be used to operate these facilities. No matter how it is made… profit is profit.

    • ~KC~ says:

      Here’s my stance: with choice comes consequences. As a civilized society – we know that. We acknowledge that. With choice comes abuse… and abuse needs to be limited, where permitted under the law.

      But to deny someone the ability to choose for themselves, and in particular, we are talking about HERSELF – because of a belief system that is based on a religious understand imposed onto us – is unacceptable to me. She NEEDS to be fully informed by an unbiased party who can tell her about the consequences of ALL her choices – right from pregnancy to adoption to abortion… so that she can leave and has the ability to make a decision that is right for her. She will have to live with those consequences for the rest of her life. Not you. Not me. Her. And as the person who is carrying the fetus – she does have the obligation to do right by herself and that child. If she chooses that ending a pregnancy is the RIGHT thing for her (not you, nor I) then she needs to fully understand and live by those consequences, rather to be forced into something that isn’t capable of handling.

      (I am not talking about those who abuse the right to choose – especially those who use abortion as a means of birth control rather than actually go on contraceptives or those who FORCE themselves onto others sexually because they can or anyone with mental health issues that cannot make those kinds of informed decisions. This is almost a different topic entirely.)

      I don’t think we will agree on the topic of ABORTION. Period. I am pro-choice. Have the ability to be fully educated on all my options and choose accordingly… and be supported accordingly. You don’t agree with that. I get that. While I don’t agree with your stance – I respect it. Because that is the choice you can and do live with… while mine is different.

      Now: wrt being ‘forced’ to subsidize stuff with our taxes – that yes, we pay exhorbitant amounts of. We cannot be forced into anything that we don’t even have a say in. I didn’t vote for the Conservative party nor ever want to. But I am being forced to pay taxes to a government that I don’t agree with on how they are spending my hard earned money… and I don’t agree with how they are dictating hypocritically to others… how they can use my hard earned money. I make the choice to pay my taxes because I don’t care for the consequences of not doing so. But I also have the choice and the right to bitch them out on how they spend it… even if its not the majority voice.

      • Qwatcher2 says:

        No one knows what they would do until they walk in the shoes of the person having to make the choice. I know this is focused on the issue of government (your tax dollars at work. Take out the abortion issue. This is a right to choose what happens to her body. I.E., another way for government to further the socialist culture. I don’t care what the issue, it is about taking your rights away…again.

        An interesting point: Why don’t they put a national database in place that prevents a man from being able to have 2 or whatever number of pregnancys and then have them be mandatorily “fixed”?

      • ~KC~ says:

        An interesting point: Why don’t they put a national database in place that prevents a man from being able to have 2 or whatever number of pregnancys and then have them be mandatorily “fixed”?

        Very interesting point… I wonder what men would say about that…

  3. Buck says:

    I’ve read the back and forth here and I think Harper is doin’ The Right… er, Correct… Thing. Surprised? I thought not.

  4. But I also have the choice and the right to bitch them out on how they spend it… even if its not the majority voice.

    See, that right there is the entire problem. Canada is having the same troubles my country is having. We have this democratic-republic process in place, and what is really happening is various constituencies are using it to get as much as they possibly can. That’s fine to a point, but what is becoming increasingly common as these civilizations are maturing — I would say metastasizing — is the constituencies are forming noisy advocacy groups and then tugging on emotional cords to get everything done their way.

    In the case of abortions and women, I’ve been spending my entire life listening to this stuff about how we shouldn’t utter so much as a peep of protest because the emotions are so intense. Careers will be destroyed and plates & glasses will be thrown. Far less trouble to just let the women have what they want.

    Well, guess what. Some of the aborted fetuses are girls.

    So just thinking on the situation logically, we fail to come across a simple answer that is fair to everyone. But we CAN see it doesn’t make any sense to “honor womens’ rights” by adopting a strict pro-choice stance, and really when you think about it, that ends up being the coward’s way out to be blunt. It’s cowardly because it caves into only the one side that is already voting, breathing air, protesting…et al. And when that’s the situation, we would have to portray this process as one of trying to be decent & civilized, and failing at the stated goal. Because civilizations are not civilized if they only defend the rights of those who have an influence on their politicians, and ignore the rights of everybody else.

    Hey here’s a thought. How about just ending all foreign aid? If one country is lacking in a comfortable standard of living, and the other country has comfort but also a debt & an annual deficit that adds onto it…you can certainly say that comfortable country really has no business subsidizing anybody else even if it happens to be comfortable. If it owes money and has no foreseeable means of paying the money back, then the money it’s really donating is money that belongs to its creditors, so maybe it shouldn’t be doing this.

    • ~KC~ says:

      Hey here’s a thought. How about just ending all foreign aid? If one country is lacking in a comfortable standard of living, and the other country has comfort but also a debt & an annual deficit that adds onto it…you can certainly say that comfortable country really has no business subsidizing anybody else even if it happens to be comfortable. If it owes money and has no foreseeable means of paying the money back, then the money it’s really donating is money that belongs to its creditors, so maybe it shouldn’t be doing this.

      Now there’s a solution.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: