not that mr. hunter hasn't been a cunt before, but hahaha oh wow

[mc776]

OH NOES OUR MORRULZ R GON CANADA IS NAZI ATHEIST KILLER DEATH LAND ONONO NO A BLOO BLOO BLOO BLOO BLOO

Amazingly, the comments are even worse. Like, YouTube worse. Here's a rather disturbing look into the creationist, patriarchal, is-ist* and just plain creepy mindset the anti-death zombies think in:

...

Regarding your second paragraph, who forces an unwanted pregnancy on anyone? Yes, I know, rapists do, but their children account for very few of the abortions induced. Don't Canadian women realize the purpose of specialized female anatomy? Don't they understand the complementary male anatomy? Motherhood is a responsibility, and there is such a thing as child abuse.

...

Every child a wanted child, and every mother a willing mother.

Because, of course, the state can always legislate someone into wanting and willing something.


*Which I've since narrowed down to the basic act of taking a category and fetishizing it as inviolate and sacrosanct - a bit of an anticlimax, I know.


EDIT: Link unrelated

Comments

[vaecrius.livejournal.com]

More quotes from the same guy in the comments:

Many Canadians say, "A woman's body is her own. She may do what she wants with it." Is this true? Do you agree with these Canadians? Does a woman's body belong to herself?

We all need each other, but we do not all have the same authority; we are not all rulers. Before I grew up, I belonged to my parents; they ruled over me. They owned me, but they owned me in love, for my own good. So they were good for me, and I grew up to be strong and healthy.

A child also belongs to his city. The city tells him how to live as a good citizen. If he becomes a robber or murderer, they take him and put him where he does not want to go. He belongs to them, and he hurts himself if he forgets. Of course, the rulers of the city are supposed to care for the people of the city.

Before marriage, a girl belongs to her parents, especially her father. When she grows up, her parents give her to the man who becomes her husband. Then she belongs to the husband. But the husband rules his wife with love. He makes good decisions for her and her children. He brings home food for them.

And the husband belongs to his wife too! We can say that the smaller owns the bigger. The smaller claims and remembers and talks about the love of the bigger. A child owns his parents; he expects them to feed, clothe, and instruct him. A man owns his city; he can walk in its streets and enter the public places. A wife owns her husband; his love is for her and for her alone.

So I ask you, "May the husband who owns a wife hurt her? beat her? kill her? Of course not! She belongs to him in love! Do the rulers of a city kill the poor people of the city? No, the city tries to give the poor work and wages. The stronger helps the weaker; the bigger helps the smaller.

So why do we say that parents may kill their children? Yes, we do! The United Nations encourages abortion. The governments of many nations want mothers to kill their pre-born babies. Oh, yes, of course the mother is stronger than the baby--the baby belongs to the mother--but she is supposed to own it in love. Her belly is the safest place for the little baby. The baby trusts her. And she feeds the baby and makes it grow.

Every person, whether he is small or big, weak or strong, belongs to God. God owns everyone. IN LOVE God has said that one man may not kill another man. A mother may not kill her baby.

So I don't wander into a church tomorrow morning and go on a shooting stabbing spree, I'm going to write this guy off as a troll.

[furikku.livejournal.com]

I am too tired and this argument hurts far too much for me to try to take any of it in.

I really hate the idea that a woman does not own herself even after she is legally old enough to do so. (Whether or not she is married!)

Also, it looks like he is trying to relate things that are not exactly related.

I think the troll decision sounds the best, though I am saddened to think that he probably DOES espouse that view. -_-

[vaecrius.livejournal.com]

I am too tired and this argument hurts far too much for me to try to take any of it in.

See my reply below. The only relevant argument is that there's also the fetus's interest to consider in addition to the woman's.

The rest is just supporting cultural context, but of the very sort of culture that no one in their right mind would espouse in a UDHR (http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html)-ratifying state.

[vaecrius.livejournal.com]

For future reference/anyone who might read this later and get the wrong impression: I do agree with the premise that the fully autonomous individual is a myth, and that every freedom or constraint placed on anyone must be considered in the context of one's surrounding social, economic, and physical environment. I am not advocating any position where a well-defined Individual sits in their little fortress of solitude making Rational Self-Interesting decisions subject only to their own Inviolate Will.

The difference here is cause and effect versus conflating one's cookie cutter fetish with thought.