The Ugly Side of Pro-Choice

In yesterdays Fifth Column I made my Pro-Choice position clear. I also made it clear that I deplored the disgusting negative tactics and rhetoric of the so-called “Pro-Life” movement. I believe these tactics have helped marginalize them.

I believe that similar rhetoric, that attempts to trivialize pregnancy and the decision facing women considering an abortion, from those that support the Pro-Choice movement, is just as deplorable and does not help the movement in maintaining credibility and broad public support. What I find to be particularly disgusting is the use of the terms “fetus fetishists” and “fetus fetishizers” and I wish to disassociate myself completely from the use of such terms.

Why I Am Pro-Choice

As a male, whether to have an abortion is a decision that I will never be faced with. It is also a decision that I would hope no one would be faced with.

We do have to recognize that a pregnancy is not trivial. A pregnancy that is not terminated will lead to the birth of a human being. There are indeed moral issues involved in deciding whether to have an abortion. However, a fetus is entirely dependant on the woman carrying it and is virtually a part of her body. I do not believe that I, or society, have a right to take control of a woman’s body and force her to continue a pregnancy that she does not wish to.

That is sufficient enough reason for me to be Pro-Choice, but that is not the only reason I am Pro-Choice. As I said, I hope no one would be faced with the decision as to whether to have an abortion. The so-called “Pro-Life” movement way of dealing with it would eliminate women’s need to make that decision by making it for them. I would prefer to deal with it by supporting measures that prevent the need for the decision to be made, measures such as sex education and birth control that the so-called “Pro-Life” movement opposes. If one wants to reduce the number of abortions it only makes sense to support a movement that supports measures that will do that rather than to support a movement that opposes them.

The other reason I oppose the so-called “Pro-Life” movement is because of it’s horrible tactics, negativity and heartlessness. There is nothing more disgusting to me than to put up signs beside a medical clinic run by a holocaust survivor calling it “Canada’s Auschwitz”. Just as disgusting are the tactics of trying to pass off photographs and videos of late term abortions as being typical of the procedure and screaming “please don’t kill your baby” at women who are facing the most difficult decision of their life and calling it “counseling”. How could any caring person be on the same side as these people.

What women facing this decision need is speedy access to counseling and medical help so the decision can be made early in the pregnancy. They need access to information on all the options from carrying and raising a child, to adoption, as well as abortion. We need to provide real counseling options to help women make the right decision for themselves. Screaming at them and trying to take their right to decide away from them is simply unacceptable in a civilized society

The Border on CBC

I watched the first episode of The Border last night and I was impressed. It was hard to watch because even though you know it’s fictional you know it is also based on reality. The reality in the case of government anti-terrorism activities is that you do not know who the bad guys are. It is hard to cheer for the “good guys” when they may be railroading some innocent Canadian because of ethnicity or religion.

Of course this is television so everything is going to be simplified and exaggerated but nonetheless it was a compelling story with compelling characters. One might question whether the episode’s hero going against his Ottawa bosses was realistic, but then I wake up and read about Linda Keen this morning. These people do exist and they make great real Canadian heroes.

The show ends after vindicating the innocent Canadian by reminding us that real terrorists are out there and we have to fight terrorism while respecting all Canadians civil liberties and human rights.

Now to find out more about the “rogue American agent” in next week’s episode.

Is It Going To Be A Changing Day in Her Life

Is Doctor Phil going to save Britney. Read all about it here and here.

Doctor Phil is on the case. Is he going to save Britney. Of course, Doctor Phil’s usual way of saving people is to tell them to straighten up and then refer them to the “best professional help money can buy”. Apparently embarrassing yourself on network TV is a small price to pay for the kind of help the American health care system only provides to it’s wealthiest citizens.

But, of course, Britney is one of those wealthiest citizens (and apparently loves embarrassing herself in front of the world). Indeed she no doubt has been told to straighten out many times by those that care about her and has had the best professional help money can buy. She has just chosen to ignore them and reject the help provided to her.

But now Doctor Phil is on the case and no doubt he will be asking the hard question about her current lifestyle - “how is that working for you”. Everything else has failed. Perhaps getting counseling where it really counts, on Network TV, will be the solution. Doctor Phil, tell us “it’s going to be a changing day in her life”.

Blogging Holiday

The Fifth Column will be taking a vacation over the holidays. Blogging will resume early in the New Year.

Guns and Tasers - Then and Now

Then

Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

Now

Tasers don't kill people. People die after being tasered.

Tragedy and Assumptions

Although very few details about the circumstances surrounding the tragic death of Aqsa Parvez are known it has not prevented many bloggers from making assumptions and putting forth their own theories.

What is known is that her father told police that he killed her and he has been charged with second degree murder, indicating the police do not believe the killing was premeditated or planned. We also know their was conflict between Aqsa Parvez and her father, possibly relating to his religious beliefs and her not wanting to wear a hijab.

We know that this happened in a suburban community in Ontario. We know that it is common, and even considered appropriate, for Canadian parents to want to instill their own sense of values in their children, and that these values are often based on religious beliefs, We also know that it is common for parents and teenagers, particularly teenage girls, to disagree over appropriate dress as it relates to “modesty”.

Many bloggers have tried to make that conflict the issue. That is not the issue. Parents and children are going to be in conflict. The problem is violence. No cultural or religious group in Canada accepts family violence. It is completely inappropriate and unacceptable for violence to become part of family disputes whether between spouses or between parents and children.

The Role of the Ethics Committee in the Mulroney-Schreiber Affair

Some people, including Conservative Members on the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, argue that the Committee should not be studying the Mulroney-Schreiber Affair because a Parliamentary Committee is too partisan a forum to deal with allegations of wrongdoing against individuals.

However the Committee has a much more important role than simply determining whether people violated the law or ethical standards. They have a duty to recommend to the House of Commons what the laws and ethical standards should be. If the committee finds, as Conservative Members state, that Brian Mulroney did not violate any laws or Codes of Ethics the committee might still find that his behaviour was inappropriate and recommend changes to the ethical codes or legislation.

Indeed, if accepting cash payments of thousands of dollars and then hiding it in safety deposit boxes and not claiming it as income until it looks like you might be caught is not illegal then the law needs to be changed.

The Committee’s most important role may be in recommending stronger ethical standards for public office holders so that individuals could not engage in the type of sleazy behaviour that the Committee is uncovering yet not be in breach of ethical standards, even though it contravenes any common sense interpretation of “ethical”.

Just Say “No”

House of Commons Debates
VOLUME 142 NUMBER 036 2nd SESSION 39th PARLIAMENT
OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)
Wednesday, December 12, 2007

[English]

Mr. Michael Ignatieff (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister well knows that this side of the House did its duty last night.

[Translation]

Since the Chalk River reactor will now be restarted, can the Minister of Health guarantee that Canadian patients will be the first to benefit from the isotopes produced, before the international markets are supplied?

[English]

Would the minister guarantee that worried Canadians will not be waiting in line for isotopes while other foreign contracts for AECL are fulfilled?

Hon. Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, as I said last night, each hospital and each clinic has a contract that is sometimes with Nordion, AECL or with another supplier. Those contracts would be honoured.

At this time in the House, I want to give our thanks to the medical oncologists and the nuclear medicine specialists who have worked day and night across this country to ensure this particular situation did not create a medical crisis. I think they deserve all of our applause for doing so.

If the answer is “no” just say so. Don’t try to confuse everyone with bafflegab just because you know the Canadian public will not be happy with your answer that translates to “despite the fact that we are putting Canadian lives at risk we are not going to give Canadians priority access to the isotopes produced while this reactor operates in an unsafe manner unapproved by the nuclear safety regulator”.


PS : I wonder how much this had to do with the government’s decision

Don’t Fuck Around With Nuclear Safety

Sometimes an “expletive” is required and this is one of those times.

A Three-Mile-Island-type of nuclear accident could occur at Canada's Chalk River reactor unless a backup power supply system, capable of withstanding natural disasters such as earthquakes, is installed, according to an assessment by the president of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.

It is “essential” that the safety equipment be installed on two crucial pumps before the reactor, which makes more than half the world's nuclear medicines, is restarted, Linda Keen wrote in a blunt letter to two federal government ministers.

It is frightening that we were placed at risk because Atomic Energy of Canada Limited simply ignored safety directives from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission who discovered the fact in a routine inspection.

The situation is all the more worrisome because the country's nuclear regulator specifically ordered AECL more than a year ago to take extra safety precautions if it wanted to continue operating the aging NRU.

But there's more at stake than isotopes.

The technical competency of an industry trying hard to win back public confidence is being questioned, as is public safety, national security and the reputation of a company whose message to Canadians has consistently been: "Trust us."

Yet AECL not only failed to install a key piece of safety equipment on the National Research Universal (NRU), Canada's oldest nuclear reactor. When its mistake was discovered, it matter-of-factly camouflaged it in a Dec. 4 press release as little more than a routine maintenance issue.

In fact, an important safety repair had not been made.

On Nov. 19, a day after what was supposed to be a routine five-day shutdown, safety inspectors with the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) discovered a significant and mandated safety upgrade -- connecting two heavy water pumps to an emergency power supply -- had not been done.

It is even more frightening that the government, with the support of all parties, is going to put Canadians back at risk.

The emergency legislation introduced by the Conservatives, which would allow AECL to start the reactor immediately and run it for 120 days, was passed unanimously by all parties after four hours of civilized debate.

As an NDP supporter it troubles me that the only party to oppose this was the Green Party. The NDP should be ashamed.

The Prime Minister has disgraced himself by accusing the agency charged with the responsibility of protecting Canadians safety with “obstruction” for doing it’s job.

"There will be no nuclear accident," Harper answered in the Commons. "What there will be … is a growing crisis in the medical system here in Canada and around the world if the Liberal party continues to support the regulator obstructing this reactor from coming back on line."

The operator of the Chalk River reactor, Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., had said it expected the plant to be up and running by the middle of this month, but the safety commission was refusing to allow it to restart production until it resolved a host of safety issues.

So it appears that all we have to protect us from a nuclear melt down is the Prime Minister’s word that it can’t happen here.


References:

Globe and Mail: Ottawa thwarts nuclear watchdog

National Post; Emergency bill to resume isotope production off to Senate

Ottawa Citizen: The major safety snafu behind the isotope shortage

CBC: MPs pass bill to restart urgent isotope production

CBC: Green Leader May slams Tories' handling of isotope shortage