Bare breasts, and the hammer & sickle: what passes for pro-abortion arguments

It was a beautiful day in Ottawa for the March for Life. Thousands of people, young and old, packed Parliament Hill. Clergy of every denomination stood in solidarity with the pro-lifers, and politicians emerged from the House of Commons to voice their support for fundamental human rights. With thousands upon thousands of people packing the streets of Ottawa, it was an invigorating day to say the least.

  • Gary

    Gotta love the CBC , when a pro-life person supports a rally the CBC calls the right wing crazy and anti-abortion Christian extremists .
    When as Liberal feminist get violent and attack a pro-life rally as a nut case, the CBC calls them a Passionate supporters of the women’s rights.
    The media said the same thing about muslims terrorist ion Garland Texas, but the Chapel Hill shooter was a crazy pro-gun right winger.

    • Palidor

      Just goes to show the meaningless of these media labels.

    • Surele Surele

      get rid of C.B.C. NOW!

      • Justin St.Denis

        Maybe Omar Khadr’s proven skills could be employed to do just that. 😉

  • FactsWillOut

    If you need state power to accomplish a goal, you`re doing it wrong.

    • Some goals need state power.

      • FactsWillOut

        No honourable goal needs state power.

        • Sorry – disagree. E.g. dealing with the Muslim immigration problem requires state power. Just to cite one example.

          • FactsWillOut

            It’s the state importing them. So what you are in fact saying is not “use state power”, but rather “stop using state power”.
            Why do they come here? For state largess.

          • Clearly, the state caused the problem. But also clearly the state has the power and obligation to solve it. It is not the state as such which is at fault in this matter, but the moronic individuals embedded in state posts. Not the same issue. Anarchy cannot solve the problem of Muslim immigration – it can only create a Syria-Irak type situation, in which the evil Islamist killers thrive. It is the state democratically elected that must do the clean-up job.

          • FactsWillOut

            Equating western Europeans with Syrians is the height of folly.
            Simple landowners with “Trespassers will be shot and/or enslaved on sight” policies would solve all immigration issues.

          • FWO – I am not equating anything. I am saying that ‘war of all against all’ is the only prospect of an anarchic approach. It is an analogy – an example.

            As for your trespassing comment – that may work in a Texas cowboy movie, but the reality in Europe is very different. There is need for collective, legally supported action.

          • FactsWillOut

            Equating anarchy with “war of all against all” is also the height of folly, and I don’t buy into the Hobbsian BS that tells me I need a state to protect me. In fact, the western leaders are a far greater threat than Islam is. Islam is simply the perfect foreign and domestic bogeyman to be used as a pretext for ill-conceived foreign interventions and domestic police states.

            If you think for one second that the extortion/fraud/racketeering outfit known as the state is in any way helpful, then you are sadly mistaken, and suggesting that the state will act against it’s own interests is absurd. The state’s interests are diametrically opposed to the citizen’s interests, and they always have been. A state cannot exist without eventually enslaving it’s citizens, as the western Europeans and North Americans are slowly learning.

          • Sorry, I do not share your pessimism. And I assure you I am not fan of Hobbes. I do believe in parliamentary democracy, and the rule of law. It is true that today’s democracies are in a serious crisis (hell, the current president of the USA may be an illegal one) – but that just means we have to institute stronger checks and balances.

          • FactsWillOut

            In other words, “Its a great thing, really, it’s just never been properly implemented” Does that sound familiar?


          • FactsWillOut

            ” I am saying that ‘war of all against all’ is the only prospect of an anarchic approach.”

            “And I assure you I am not fan of Hobbes.”

            Those two statements are mutually exclusive.

          • No, sir. In between the totalitarianism of Hobbes and the lawlessness of anarchy lies the middle way of democratic rule of law.

          • FactsWillOut

            I suggest you look into free market anarchy, or anarcho-capitalism.
            Economist David P. Freidman has a few vids on youtube, and a free pdf ebook called “The Machinery of Freedom”

            It worked in Ireland for over 1000 years, and in Iceland for about 400 years.
            Dogmatic assertions like “anarchy = lawlessness” are essentially nothing more than stateist talking points.

            Hitler is a fine example of where “Democratic Rule of Law” can lead.

          • FWO – I looked into these issues 50 years ago. It is nothing new.

            As for Hitler, he was elected but once in power abolished democracy. He is no “fine example”.

          • FactsWillOut

            You are of course free to believe whatever you wish.
            The facts, as I have stated them are still true. Hitler was democratically elected.
            You may not “share my pessimism”, but you are disagreeing with all the evidence of history, not to mention some of history’s greatest thinkers. When you can show me where a state actually gave true freedoms to citizens without being forced to at gunpoint (or bowpoint, as the case may be), let me know. I’m talking real freedom, like freedom of association, private property rights, rights to bear arms, and so on.

          • Actually, Hitler was elected, but his methods even before election were thuggish. The republic he was elected in was a very weak, post-war contraption that had little hope of surviving in the context. Germans at the time were looking for some hobbesian totalitarian dictator, whether of the left or of the right.

            As for true freedom, it may not exist, but we have achieved considerable freeing since the Enlightenment. I do not know any of “history’s greatest thinkers” who advocated anarchy. Some like Plato and Hobbes, advocated a super strong state. Others, like the US founding fathers advocated a democratic system. But anarchy? To advocate anarchy is a contradiction in terms. Anarchy is the negation of organization.

            Please, let us close the subject now. It does not interest me much, to tell you the truth. You are of course welcome to reply, and I will read your comment. But I will probably abstain from further comment. Thank you for your patient exchange of views with me.

          • FactsWillOut

            “Anarchy is the negation of organization.”.
            No, anarchy is simply the absence of a government.
            Free markets pre-date governments, and are self-organizing.
            Iceland from 800 to 1200 AD, free-market law and defence, no central authority.
            Same for pre-1500 AD Irealnd.

          • FWO – you need to read ancient history. World history. You are not informed as to the actual course of history. I have read many many world history books (it is one of my favorite pastimes) including histories of Ireland. Your claims are just not reflected in them.

          • FactsWillOut
          • Kaye

            Don’t bother, Avi. I’ve noticed before that FWO seems much more interested in “winning” any discussion than in reasoned discourse. Notice the reflexive fallback on indirect insults in his/her comments.

          • FactsWillOut

            Of course, reasoned discourse precludes anyone winning an argument. No winners or losers, right?
            Here’s your participation trophy.

          • You can win if your reasoning is convincing. Otherwise, you can win if you are convinced by the other’s reasoning. It is win-win. The only losers are those who are not moved by reason.

          • FactsWillOut

            History indicates that every time a state is formed, it bloats into a tyranny and is eventually overthrown, either from within or without.
            They have never voluntarily given individual rights and freedoms to their citizens, and have instead stolen from their citizens to give to their cronies. South Africa is a case in point. Canadian law grants monopoly or near monopoly status in many economic sectors, as well, not to mention giving the state a monopoly on force, while requiring citizens to be “proportional” towards aggressors.

            “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of
            government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always
            collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: From bondage
            to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence
            back into bondage.”
            -Alexander Fraser Tytler

            Similar principles have been penned by Plato, Socrates, Aristotle and many more of histories greatest thinkers.

          • FWO – I agree with these historical facts. They are inevitable developments, given human nature. What I disagree with is your conclusion that anarchism is a viable alternative. Human society is complex, and there are no simple solutions to its problems. We have to do our best within these unpleasant parameters. Parliamentary democracy is the only way as I see it.

          • FactsWillOut

            Anarchy worked in Ireland for over 1000 years, and in Iceland for 400 years.

            People are capable of self-governing. It is not fear of reprisal that stops a good man from raping, looting, and killing. It is now fear of reprisal that stops a good man from standing up to looters, killers and rapists. State reprisal.

            Given that the state is the biggest looter, that isn’t surprising.


            Parliamentary democracy has failed utterly, in case you haven’t been following the news about the UK, and to a lesser extent in Canada.

            The USA’s Constitutional Republic also failed to preserve individual rights and freedoms.

          • “Anarchy worked in Ireland for over 1000 years, and in Iceland for 400 years.” – in small simple social groups, it may be conceivable (and even there I would doubt it). But in the large urbanized, industrial societies of the present it is out of the question. Get real. It is not a matter to be dealt with using romantic fantasies. Utopias do not exist, cannot do so. Societies are hard work to manage.

            “Parliamentary democracy has failed utterly, in case you haven’t been following the news about the UK, and to a lesser extent in Canada. The USA’s Constitutional Republic also failed to preserve individual rights and freedoms.” That is true. But it just reflects what you yourself pointed out in an earlier comment (quoting Alexander Fraser Tytler), namely that democracies rise and then fall. This is the nature of this world – there is no stability in anything man makes, the work needs constant renewal.

            Please note that I am not an advocate of Big Government, never was. But some (democratic ) government is necessary, some collective organized rational action by the members of a society. No government is a folly – it would only give power to the most brutal elements.

          • FactsWillOut

            At what point did I suggest any form of utopia?


            “But in the large urbanized, industrial societies of the present it is out of the question.” I disagree, and as it’s never been attempted, there is no evidence to support either of our viewpoints.

            What we do know, however, is that every single other method of securing freedom for citizens has failed.

            My viewpoint does however hold the moral high ground, in that it makes it very difficult and dangerous to be a thug, ie that a man is free to defend himself from aggressors, and hire security to do so, as
            well. My viewpoint flows naturally from the NAP, the Golden Rule and free market principles. All other forms have to be artificially imposed by force.

            In the end, you either support sending men with guns to attack folk who have harmed no-one, or you don’t.
            I don’t. Do you?

          • Justin St.Denis

            Evil islamist killers only thrive if they are not killed first. I am all for preemptive action on that score, be it in Syria, Iraq, the USA or Canada. Wherever.

          • I agree – tough response against Islamists, even preemptively, is essential to peace and security.

  • I read an estimate some time ago that ONE BILLION abortions occurred worldwide in the 20th century. Just think – the 2nd World War resulted in some 50 million deaths. The 1st in about half that number (I think, not sure). Abortion – “legal” and illegal – 1000 million. Surely, those who support abortion on-demand must see how murderous it is.

  • FactsWillOut

    Abortion is bad, yes. Declaring a fertilized human egg legally a person is much, much worse.

    • Surele Surele

      two faces of the same coin.

      • FactsWillOut

        Then I guess you better get set to lobby against pregnant women skydiving, drinking, scuba-diving, riding motorcycles, etc.

        • Clink9

          From abortion to scuba diving. What a long strange trip it’s been.

          • FactsWillOut

            It’s called the law of unintended consequences.
            Or perhaps they are intended, as those who call for more state power are usually up to no good.

          • Clink9

            So true.

            These two are on your side. And they wouldn’t mind if you hit their tip jar with any extra cash you might have laying around.

          • FactsWillOut

            At what point did I voice support for free abortion on demand?

            Oh, here’s a couple of guys on your side, an Islam apologizing warmist, and his BFF:


            And another guy on your side:



          • Justin St.Denis

            Deadheads never die, they just fry and fry (their brains out).

        • Minicapt

          Perhaps thinking about the subjects manifestations would be more productive than fetid imaginings.


          • FactsWillOut

            Spoken like a true stateist. Well done, comrade.

          • Justin St.Denis

            Fetid is where FWO lives, it would seem.

    • Okay.

      Here comes the can of worms.

      Who are you to declare what is or is not a human being and by what standards do you arrive at that conclusion?

      • FactsWillOut

        Personally, I would say with the development of frontal lobes, but that’s just me.
        Who are you to make that determination?
        Who are you to tell an adult woman what she can or cannot ingest?

        Oh, and you get a nice, shiny participation prize too, cause we’re all winners!

        • I’m not the one making pronouncements. You are.

          You don’t get a participation pin today.

          • FactsWillOut

            No pin?

            The assertion I made did not include asserting when someone was or was not a person. You played the old lefty straw man trick.

          • What strawman argument? Do you even read what you type?

          • FactsWillOut

            It seems that you, like most stateists, cannot discriminate between legal fiat and reality.

            I made an assertion that certain legislation is a very bad idea. You, all of a sudden, ask “Who are you to declare what is or is not a human being and by what standards do you arrive at that conclusion?”. Out of decency, I answered your question, and asked you a question, which you declined to answer, as usual. I’m not the one pushing for more laws here, my detractors it seems, are.

            I have more respect for folk who try to blow up abortion clinics than folk who try to sick the rabid dog of the state on them.

          • Wait- did you want to be taken seriously?

            I can never tell.

          • FactsWillOut

            I get that alot.

          • You must be used to it by now.

  • Justin St.Denis

    Babies are beautiful.

    Murderous bitches – not so much.

  • I didn’t even know those people were there.

    They must be used to making zero impact by now.


    What bare breasts?