The Shotgun Blog
« Did anyone notice the cross-dresser? |
Main
| Iraqi myths blown to pieces »
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Celebrating abortion on Parliament Hill
There’s a gala event next week to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the “decriminalization of abortion in Canada.” Didn’t that happen in 1969? And “celebrate” is an odd choice of words. Women don’t celebrate abortion. We can only imagine what fun this gala will be. What do you wear to an abortion party? Go with black, I’d say. All black.
The Honourable Senator Lucie Pépin is hosting the event, alongside the usual suspects: Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada (ARCC), Action Canada for Population and Development (ACPD), Canadians for Choice (CFC), Canadian Federation for Sexual Health (CFSH), Fédération du Québec pour le planning des naissances (FQPN) and the National Abortion Federation Canada (NAF). Henry Morgentaler will do a video presentation and Judy Rebick will speak. There’s entertainment too, provided by Lesley Hoyles and the Asinabika Women’s Drumming Circle. Who knows what Judy Rebick will say, but she told a crowd in Calgaryin June 2005 this:
If you think about if for a minute these are people [pro-lifers] who really believe that abortion is murder. So if you believe that you would be a fanatic about it. Because you would think there is mass murder going on all the time in this country and what could be more important than that, to stop that. … so it is important to understand where they are coming from. …but the thing about that is that just like other elements of the right they have a very powerful story to tell which is that a fetus is a human being and they walk around with these big mangled fetus pictures…
Rebick must be very, very sure that the fetus is not a human being. Otherwise, that would be a bad mistake to make.
Cross-posted at ProWomanProLife.org
Posted by Andrea Mrozek on January 23, 2008 in Canadian Politics | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e54feecda18833
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Celebrating abortion on Parliament Hill :
Comments
I've noticed that many of abortion's strongest supporters are also among capital punishment's strongest opponents. It's a pretty sad and twisted lifestyle to which an unborn infant is a greater threat than a serial killer.
Abortionists say to themselves, over and over, "It's not alive; it's not alive." In spite of the fact that it has fingerprints, heartbeat, brainwaves, can most likely feel pain, and is their own flesh and blood in every sense of the word, they tell themselves it's no more than a troublesome wart. They couldn't live with themselves otherwise.
Women who have abortions should be required to look upon the physical results of the procedure. Then let them look me in the eye and say, "It was never alive."
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-01-23 7:09:42 AM
Abortion, a battering ram of the Left to whack at will to score political points.Sad commentary on the state of humanity.
How often have we heard the question of abortion asked of Conservatives by hacks and hounds in the MSM?
Has anyone asked Dion what his position on abortion is? They certainly went after Harper, it was one of their favorite questions.
Will this despicable display give the media fools an idea to start another round of abortion questioning?
Posted by: Liz J | 2008-01-23 7:46:42 AM
I think it's a sad commentary on what the Left thinks of the state of mind of female voters, Liz J.
I hope they are wrong.
>"Has anyone asked Dion what his position on abortion is? They certainly went after Harper, it was one of their favorite questions."
Liz J | 23-Jan-08 7:46:42 AM
A very good question, and I would like it asked of Mr. Dion.
Mr. Dion is a Roman Catholic, is he not?
Perhaps, after Mr. Dion gives his answer, his parish Priest could comment on whether or not Mr. Dion is welcome to participate in the Mass or not.
Posted by: Speller | 2008-01-23 7:58:06 AM
Excellent comments and spot on Shane.
At the very least abortion must be removed from health care funding just as any selective surgery is already. Secondly there would be as much education and information concerning what abortion entails as is given concerning "safe sex" and "sex education". These two steps would greatly decrease the number of abortions. Partial-birth abortions should be against the law altogether.
Posted by: Alain | 2008-01-23 10:13:52 AM
>"Then let them look me in the eye and say, "It was never alive."
Shane Matthews | 23-Jan-08 7:09:42 AM
Look you in the eye, Shane Matthews, Geez Louise, get over yourself.
Are you sitting in the place of God or the father of the human becoming?(being?)that never was?
Maybe in the future men will have something to celebrate when they are as free from women's reproductive responsibilities as women are and not enslaved for 2 decades if a women 'chooses' not to abort.
Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander and maybe it's time we chose as a society to make individuals responsible for fertilizing eggs on an individual basis rather than pretending the issue is about group rights.
Eliminating the option of enslaving some man would go a long way toward preventing many pregnancies and abortions resulting from 'buyers remorse' afterward.
I also endorse the defunding of abortion in the many provinces that do fund it under their health care plans.
Posted by: Speller | 2008-01-23 11:06:02 AM
Speller, spare me the feminista “women were slaves; you owe us” battle cry. Choosing not to abort doesn’t mean keeping the baby. Adoption services will take that kid off your hands within 24 hours and you’ll never hear from him again, if that’s your wish, and you’d bring some childless couple a lot of happiness. And men might be more interested in being part of the deal were the rights and responsibilities more evenly balanced. As things are, the woman has sole discretion to abort or not to abort—the father has no say—but he still has to pony up if she decides to slap a paternity suit.
Enslavement is defined by having obligations with no rights. If any party to this transaction fits that description, it’s the man. Enslavement is also defined as the state of one human being owned by another, to the extent that the owner may sell or even kill the slave. If any party to this transaction fits THAT description, it’s the baby. Any way you look at it, abortion is an ugly practice, performed at the behest of ugly people. If anybody needs to get over themselves, it is those to whom their own personal convenience matters more than all the rights that any group ever had. If you want to prevent abortion, outlaw it in all but medical cases and make the father compensate the expectant mother for all lost wages and contribute half of all expenses. Fair, equitable, and the baby gets to live.
And we’ll do without your beliefs, or lack thereof, on matters spiritual, thank you. Yeesh, why does a debate on abortion always result in strident-voiced harpies taking the cudgels to organized religion? Your belief that a fetus is not alive in the face of all the evidence to the contrary is no more rational than belief in a Supreme Being. The belief that a fetus is not alive and not a human, at least, is easily disproved. No one has disproved the existence of God, and the existence of Jesus, Mohammed, many Old Testament figures, and Gautama Siddartha are verified historical facts.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-01-23 11:36:49 AM
>"If any party to this transaction fits that description, it’s the man."
Read my screed again, Shane.
>"And we’ll do without your beliefs, or lack thereof, on matters spiritual, thank you."
I'll write what I believe, whether you like it or not, and whether I actually believe it or not. When you are a webmaster here, Shane, you can do something about it and censor my speech like a fascist.
Posted by: Speller | 2008-01-23 11:43:06 AM
We see and hear politicians of ALL political stripes say: "They are for "freedom of choice" on abortion. So what is this choice?
The Evil of “Choice”
By Stephen J. Gray
“Woe to those who call evil good” (Isaiah 5:20).
The word “choice” is frequently used by proponents of the abortion industry. Has this industry successfully camouflaged what abortion is by using the word “choice?” After all, who could be against “choice?” But, what is this “choice” that these people are promoting? Is it healthy? Is it ethical? Is it decent? Of course not. What is healthy, ethical or decent about having a “choice” to kill a child in the womb? Yet, abortion supporters advocate this type of killing, provided that this life is not wanted. The use of language to dehumanize victims is not a new phenomenon. Throughout history, words have been used to dehumanize those slated for killing. “Useless eaters” was used by the Nazis to justify their killing of human beings. And a slogan used by abortion advocates in today’s society is, “Every child a wanted child,” the idea being that if the unborn are not “wanted,” the “final solution” is to kill them in the name of “choice.”
The atrocities committed under the slogan “freedom of choice” have resulted in over 100,000 innocent lives killed yearly by abortionists in Canada, and untold millions world-wide. This massive genocidal execution program for the innocent “unwanted” is presided over by governments of all political stripes. These same governments who say the Holocaust must never be forgotten overlook that they are party to the massive holocaust of innocent unborn children.
“Politics have no relation to morals” (Machiavelli).
“I support freedom of choice on abortion” is the boast of many politicians on the election trail. “Vote for me and ‘choice’ will continue,” is their message; in other words, killing will continue. Many of them voice platitudes about “human rights” but when it comes to that tiny human in the womb, the only “right” they will apportion to him is to be killed by “choice.” (Note: In Canada, spotted owls, grizzly bears, and other animals have more protection than children in the womb.)
When politicians speak of supporting “choice,” on abortion, what that actually means is permitting unborn children to be cut up and carved to pieces, or killed by other methods such as poisoning by saline solution. Others are murdered by having their skull pierced by sharp scissors and their brains suctioned out (partial birth abortion). Barbarity is being practiced and human sacrifices are made.
“Today in seventeen European countries, there are more burials than births, more coffins than cradles” ( Pat Buchanan in his book, The Death Of The West, page 9).
The consequences of “choice” are there for all to see. Many years of killing the unborn has resulted in an ever-increasing aging population in many parts of the world.
Here in Canada, there is a lack of workers for many jobs. Some in the “investigative” media blame this on “low fertility.” However, no connection is made by the media that if you kill millions of unborn human beings over the years, the result will be an aging population, and a lack of workers. Speaking of workers, trade unions here in Canada are big supporters of “freedom of choice,” and now these union “experts” are complaining about union membership declining. They are the authors of their own misfortune.
Furthermore, in some countries, females are the present day “unwanted,” and are killed by abortion. This has resulted in an imbalance in their populations of more boys than girls. One wonders where the radical feminists who speak of “equality” are when these innocent females are slaughtered by discriminatory “choice?”
The idea that human life is disposable has created a frightening reality for today’s aging population: perhaps the generation raised to believe that parents can kill their children will soon act on the idea that children can kill their parents. It seems euthanasia is not far off, showing that society will reap what it sows.
To see the heinous act of “choice” supported by many politicians go to: http://www.AbortionNo.org
Stephen J. Gray
Dec. 21, 2007.
[email protected] website: http://www.geocities.com/graysinfo
Posted by: Stephen J. Gray | 2008-01-23 1:26:39 PM
Speller wrote: "I'll write what I believe, whether you like it or not, and whether I actually believe it or not."
So you're a liar as well as a troll. Good for you.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-01-23 1:59:14 PM
This is a great post Shane Matthews. Questioning the 'sanity' of people who defend very small helpless people (unborn babies) shows where this Judy Rebick 'is comming from'. Women like 'she' really are the cat's mother and are not worth recognizing as a person, nevermind a woman who maybe could be a child's Mom.
My Mom always said that children are NOT property, they are visitors to a household and must be expected to leave when they are grown...NOT property!! People who have the opinion that unborn people are property are as misguided as the people who owned slaves - thinking that they 'owned' the body and soul of somebody else.
I think Deyawn should be asked about the rights of unborn people too Liz J.
Like AIDS, abortion is almost 100% preventable - if adults act responsibly. If an unexpected little person arrives in a family they should be welcomed with open arms as an Heavenly gift to the family. Treasures of life are the greatest gifts of all - as a person who has never had a child, I would know.
Posted by: jema54j | 2008-01-23 2:33:27 PM
Liz J is spot on.
Ask Citoyen Dion two qestions.
First his thoughts on the Capital punishment in Canada.
Then his thoughts on ABORTION OF FULL TERM FETUSES IN CANDA.
Posted by: Joe Molnar | 2008-01-23 2:53:47 PM
I also wonder where Judy R. would be on the 'choice' of tobacco smokers to smoke in a vehicle or ANYWHERE within a mile of a person under 18? Would she 'defend' the adults who some fanatics say are 'killing' the innocent or would she speak right up and say that the 'toxins in second hand smoke are harmless (as science has proven) and the only crime of the smoker is that he/she is risking the health of his/her OWN lungs (a real piece of personal Property)? This question should be put to Judy R. and an answer demanded, IMP.
Posted by: jema54j | 2008-01-23 2:59:39 PM
jema54, she must be very happy with Alberta's decision to ban smoking inside trucks - talking big rigs. This was in the news the other day when the truck drivers' comments, which included that their truck cab is the home away from home. I must say I am finding Alberta more and more disappointing in its shift to the lunatic fascist left.
Posted by: Alain | 2008-01-23 3:52:16 PM
One argument I hear from the abotion is good crowd is this.
A fetus is not a viable human being. It is unable to live on it's own without the care of others, the mother in the case of a fetus.
Well the same thing can be said of about 20% of the adult population in Canada. Care by the tax-payers in the case of useless lazy unmotivated adults.
So let's drop the 'viable' and call a human being what it is. If it is a humanoid and has a pulse, it's a human being.
Abortion is killing. There are some cases where killing can be justified, but not in the case of an unwanted pregnancy. Rape or severe deformity might quality along with the death penalty for the likes of Clifford Olson, Paul Bernardo etc. End of story
Posted by: John West | 2008-01-23 4:24:51 PM
Alain wrote: "I must say I am finding Alberta more and more disappointing in its shift to the lunatic fascist left."
No kidding. Bring back Ralph Klein. I'd rather be governed by the first hundred names in the phone book than by Stelmach's crew.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-01-23 4:33:19 PM
A newborn baby, totally viable, won't live either unless it is nourished and totally cared for. An embryo/fetus becomes viable as it grows in it's uterine environment as nature intended through a normal gestation period.
Those who contemplate abortion should be aware of exactly what they are getting rid of.
The excuses for pro-abortion are beyond reason in this enlightened age. It goes beyond freedom of choice, it's being responsible, taking responsibility for ones behavior.
Posted by: Liz J | 2008-01-23 5:07:16 PM
A fetus is not a child. And pro-choice does not automatically mean pro-abortion. And whether or not you think the fetus is "alive" is a moot point, because for every "scientific expert opinion" the anti-choice crowd can drum up, the pro-choice crowd can find ten who will say exactly the opposite. But in the end, it does not matter what the "experts" say, because it's not their body, either.
And it's not just about whether or not a woman wants to have a baby, but whether or not she's willing to remain pregnant. If she's not willing, nobody can force her.
This whole argument is about who gets to have any legal say in what happens to whose body.
If it's not your body, shut up.
If you want a baby, grow your own.
And if you can't grow your own, it's definitely not up to you to corral an unwilling woman and force her to do what you want. Look for another alternative.
Posted by: Chimera | 2008-01-23 6:07:11 PM
How about everybody shutting up on the abortion issue?
It sure as hell is not anything that can be legislated on by any government in a democracy. In a theocracy, a different story. It may also twig a few people who have any thoughts about allowing Sharia to be written into our laws.
The hacks and hounds in the media make a game of going after anyone who they think is against abortion, just to try to make it an issue, as they have done in the past with Reformers and Conservatives. They then yell and scream the Conservatives have a hidden agenda and are anti-women and anti-pro choice.
Never have they asked the Liberal/Leftoids where
they stand, the hypocrites are not exposed.
Harper put an end to by telling them it would not be discussed at all by his government, case closed.
At any rate, abortion is not anything to celebrate by anyone.
Posted by: Liz J | 2008-01-23 6:28:04 PM
Spare me the moral outrage, Chimera. The fact that a fetus is not a child is not the same as saying that it is neither alive nor a human being. Every textbook out there teaches us that life begins at conception, so you owe us an awful lot of “scientific opinions” that say a fetus isn’t alive. The fact that someone’s body is involved (actually, TWO people’s bodies are involved) does not negate truth.
Jeez, you feministas and the cult of the body temple. You are so full of yourselves you remind me of an ancient Sumerian text: “Inanna placed the shugurra, the crown of the steppe, on her head. She went to the sheepfold, to the shepherd. She leaned back against the apple tree. When she leaned against the apple tree, her vulva was wondrous to behold. Rejoicing at her wondrous vulva, the young woman Inanna applauded herself.”
Let’s get some facts straight:
1. A fetus is human. It is genetically complete, and at eight weeks it has brain waves, heartbeat, fingerprints, and probably feels pain. That is LIFE. It’s not a matter of OPINION.
2. If a woman isn’t willing to have a baby, she shouldn’t get pregnant. Just as you are required by law to finish CPR once you start it, so can the law require you to finish pregnancy once you start it.
3. The fetus’s body is not yours. So YOU shut up.
4. “If I don’t want it, no one can have it, so I’m going to flush it.” Yes, you pro-abortionists are such a wholesome bunch. Reminds me of the hyena greeting ritual of licking and sniffing the genitals, only grosser.
5. Women who get pregnant commit the act of mating willingly. Nobody’s corralling anybody. If you don’t want a baby, either wear protection or keep your legs together.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-01-23 10:51:51 PM
"You are so full of yourselves..."
Well, barring the fact that it's not possible for me to be full of any foreign body, I can say with absolute confidence that the women of my acquaintance would much rather be full of themselves than of some foreign body whose presence they do not countenance and will not accept.
1. "Probably?" feels pain? NOT a matter of opinion? Pfft! As for the rest: so what?
2. "...she shouldn’t get pregnant." Easy for you to say, bub. It can't happen to you any more than it can happpen to me, so you're safe, and to hell with those still in danger, huh?
3. YAWN. So far, it doesn't seem to belong to anybody. So why are you so concerned?
4. If you want it, get yourself over to surgery, pal, because the transplant procedure is gonna be done today. And quit with the tiresome "pro-abortion" bull, willya? Nobody is pro-abortion. What we are is pro-CHOICE. And that means if a woman CHOOSES to carry to term and birth, then we support her right to do that, too.
5. Sure, most of the time women are willing. Sometimes not. That's not the point. The point is that sometimes all the contraception in the world will not stop a determined sperm from doing the hunter-seeker thing with the egg.
Society's views and opinions (not to mention choices) about sex have changed, for the most part. Sexual activity is pretty much a sport, these days. Time to dispose of the automatic thought that sex has only one purpose -- procreation. It has become recreation. Nobody should have to spend nine months in the penalty box for not cross-checking!
Posted by: Chimera | 2008-01-24 1:50:12 PM
Great post. Rebick's talk about what pro-lifers "believe" spurs me to make the following prayer:
Almighty G-d,
Please deliver us from the beliefs of pro-abortionists.
Their belief that the fetus is not a human being is causing much harm.
Amen.
Posted by: Ricky | 2008-01-24 5:27:43 PM
Chimera is.
Posted by: lwestin | 2008-01-24 7:11:20 PM
Chimera wrote: “Well, barring the fact that it's not possible for me to be full of any foreign body, I can say with absolute confidence that the women of my acquaintance would much rather be full of themselves than of some foreign body whose presence they do not countenance and will not accept.”
In my experience, Chimera, pro-abortion feminists run remarkably true to type. They would much rather be full of themselves than of ANYTHING else. Of humility, certainly. Grace, duty, honour, and maturity are also sadly lacking.
Chimera wrote: "Probably?" feels pain? NOT a matter of opinion? Pfft!”
It’s true that no one has ever tested a fetus to destruction for pain response, Chimera; even most abortion doctors would probably turn cold at the thought. Tell you what—why don’t you get the info straight from the horse’s mouth and abort a fetus yourself? Then you can poke it with a stick. It sounds like the sort of thing you’d enjoy.
Chimera wrote: “As for the rest: so what?”
So life signs mean life. Duh. Sorry, I'll try to speak slower.
Chimera wrote: “Easy for you to say, bub. It can't happen to you any more than it can happpen to me, so you're safe, and to hell with those still in danger, huh?”
In danger of what? Not being able to wear a bikini for a summer?
Chimera wrote: “YAWN. So far, it doesn't seem to belong to anybody. So why are you so concerned?”
Says who and based on what? As for why I’m concerned, it is possible for some us to respect the lives of others in addition to our own. Doubtless you consider this practice pathetically quaint and obsolete and an inconvenient stumbling block on the road to that greatest of callings, the unbridled pursuit of absolute personal pleasure.
Chimera wrote: “If you want it, get yourself over to surgery, pal, because the transplant procedure is gonna be done today.”
I make you a counterproposal—you carry it to term and we WON’T send you up the river.
Chimera wrote: “And quit with the tiresome "pro-abortion" bull, willya? Nobody is pro-abortion. What we are is pro-CHOICE. And that means if a woman CHOOSES to carry to term and birth, then we support her right to do that, too.”
Yawn, yawn. (Learned from the best.) You dance with words, your denials are meaningless. A turd by any other name would smell as foul. Hiding behind a word doesn’t change who or what you are. If you support abortion rights, you support abortion in practice. You cannot separate the two.
Chimera wrote: “Sure, most of the time women are willing. Sometimes not. That's not the point. The point is that sometimes all the contraception in the world will not stop a determined sperm from doing the hunter-seeker thing with the egg.”
You lie. There are ten or so days in every woman’s cycle immediately after menstruation where it is IMPOSSIBLE to get pregnant. The symptothermal method is very effective. Of course, it requires effort, which probably explains why you didn’t think of it.
Chimera wrote: “Society's views and opinions (not to mention choices) about sex have changed, for the most part.”
And guess what? They’re going to change again—not necessarily in your favour. No situation is static.
Chimera wrote: “Sexual activity is pretty much a sport, these days. Time to dispose of the automatic thought that sex has only one purpose -- procreation. It has become recreation.”
Spoken like a true hedonist.
Chimera wrote: “Nobody should have to spend nine months in the penalty box for not cross-checking!”
Sure, skip out on the whole actions-have-consequences thing. Nobody should be sentenced to death because someone ELSE failed to cross-check. Tell me, do you EVER think of anybody except yourself? And if you don’t, tell me, why should anybody ever listen to you?
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-01-24 10:39:55 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
