The Shotgun Blog
« Bad timing department | Main | Deconstructing Kinsella »
Thursday, April 03, 2008
"Pro-life if necessary...
...but not necessarily pro-life." -- Ujjal Dosanjh, 2008
Posted by Terry O'Neill on April 3, 2008 in Current Affairs | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e55197a5d48833
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference "Pro-life if necessary...:
Comments
In discussing this over coffee this morning someone commented that Pro-choicers like Dosanjh and Joyce Arthur have been spewing the words for years and no-one has called them on it. "Like a cat chasing his tail" she said. It appears Joyce and Ujjal have now both caught their tails and can't figure out what to do with them.
Ujjal in particular has really lost his way. Last week on CBC radio's "Current" show with Anna Maria Tremonte, he was at a loss for words in trying to explain his being both pro-choice and opposed to "female feticide" He even advocated for a law preventing ultrasound clinics from telling patients the gender of their child for fear they would abort girl babies.
Time to call his bluff I say. If you feel so strongly about this issue Ujjal, introduce the Bill your self. You can't be both for and against abortion. At least CHOICE JOYCE is consistent on this issue. She sees no difference in the gender of the baby being killed. Girl or boy, neither gets any help from her. All she cares about is that women are allowed to kill any unborn before birth, if they want to.
Posted by: Servant | 2008-04-03 2:38:48 PM
John Hof is being a douch bag. Ujjal Dosanjh opposes gender selection. He does not oppose the right of a woman to have an abortion. That is pretty clear. Dosanjh does not support gender selection whether it is done after birth (by murdering girl babies), whether it is done pre-conception (by using technology to determine what sperm-egg combos will produce boys and chosing only to create embryos using them), or whether it is done by aborting fetuses that would become baby girls. He has a thoroughly consistent position against gender selection and only a politically motivated liar (like Hof) or a moron (like our own Karol K) would think otherwise. You can disagree with his views of abortion, but don't mistake that for any logical error on his part about what he has said.
Posted by: Fact Check | 2008-04-03 2:48:50 PM
Fact Check, you should be aware that John Hof was speaking tongue-in-cheek when he stated Ujjal was prolife.
I'm surprised that anyone is surprised that a politician would speak out of both sides of his mouth; however ad hominum attacks such as calling people liars and morons is illogical in and of itself.
Perhaps it would be better to provide good reasons to support the idea of a mother or father causing the death of their unborn children, such as ... oh yeah there aren't any.
Posted by: Barrie Norman | 2008-04-03 3:19:35 PM
I believe it was Ujjal Dosanjh who was Attorney general in the provincial NDP government when the pro-life students display at UBC was vandalized a few years ago, and destroyed by pro-abortion students. These young vandals were caught on camera. Yet,no criminal charges were laid by the NDPs chief law enforcement officer. I wonder Why?
To see the killings by "choice" and the atrocities that many politicians and others support go to: http://www.AbortionNo.org
Posted by: Stephen J. Gray | 2008-04-03 3:28:15 PM
This all just more of the same political schizophrenia and confused rhetoric.
If there is ever a reason that abortion can be thought of as wrong or uncomfortable (ie.gender selection) than abortion must always be wrong. You have to ask yourself "what makes it wrong in only this situation?" It cannot simply be wrong because the fetus is female. If a fetus is always a blob, or pregnancy tissue, (it obviously cannot sometimes be a blob and sometimes be a human) then it cannot really have a gender can it? It must only be "potentially" gendered, therefore there is no issue of right or wrong, and no reason for Ujjal to be upset. Those "females" never really existed in his own pro-choice mentality. Ujjal is inconsistant because he acknowledges the other methods of gender extermination as being the taking of a life, but then says that while abortion is not taking a life, it can sometimes be wrong.
How can it be wrong to abort a female fetus but okay to abort a disabled baby if they are both the same product of blobness?
Posted by: Colleen | 2008-04-03 3:33:43 PM
Dosanjh supports a world where "choice" reigns supreme, now they have to live in it. That means abortion for any reason at any time...meaning if someone wants to abort a little girl fetus...why not? And if they are going to be born with a cleft palate, why not? And if they are going to be born with down syndrome...why not? Welcome to the world of choice on abortion. You fought for it...now live with it and stop your constant whining.
Posted by: Ted Gerk | 2008-04-03 3:43:06 PM
Mr. Fact Check
I am not easily offended but I don't think douche bag is a compliment is it?
Mr. Dosanjh hit the nail on the head when he said I was playing fast and loose with his words. Indeed I was. I did so to point to the total absurdity of his position. Both he and his wife have been leaders in the Pro-Choice movement for years. Never wavering from their mantra of "every child a wanted child" Let the mother decide. Now those words have come back to bite him because people are deciding to abort for reasons he has problems with. You bet I am going to point out that this former premier has no clothes. I am going to take every opportunity to show how bogus his position is. If having some fun and welcoming him into being at least half Pro-life, is wrong then I say "tough".
Check out our newsletter at www.clcbc.org for the full story.
I am about to welcome Choice Joyce into the pro-life movement soon too. The minute she decides that all wanted babies need protection from their killer fathers. "ouch". Bit my tongue again.
Posted by: John Hof | 2008-04-03 3:58:33 PM
said perfectly, Karol Karolak.
Dosanjh has been a basketcase since his B.C. days followed by pollMartins appointment to a cabinet position(why doubt he can't handle a cabinet post when he was a proven failure at the provincial level--boobRay?). He's where he is because he's an ethnic opportunist, and probably sucks dick.
Posted by: reg dunlop | 2008-04-03 8:09:38 PM
" . . . [Dosanjh] said he does not support gender selection, which he called, 'absolutely inappropriate' and 'contemptible'. Yet, he also thinks women seeking abortions in Canada should not have to say why they want one. " (Georgia Straight)
Ujal Dosanjh, then, defends the right of women to absolutely inapproipriate and contemptible abortions. It does seem he has become entangled in a web of illogicality, a fact John Hof has cleverly called attention to.
I do have some respect for Dosanjh, because he suffered violence for standing up to extremists in the Sikh community. But, whatever his degree of sensitivity and compassion in some areas, it would seem his compassion does not reach so far as to lead him to renounce his doctrinaire position on abortion.
Posted by: Ted Hewlett | 2008-04-04 1:33:30 AM
One more try, for the truly thick-headed. Here are two imaginary conversations:
CONVERSATION 1:
Jack: "I support freedom of expression. The government should not restrict people from expressing any idea or thought."
Jill: "But won't some people abuse this right and sometimes say very mean and hurtful things?"
Jack: "Yes, they will. Saying mean and hurtful things is absolutely inappropriate and contemptible, but it is still right to have no law restricting speech."
CONVERSATION 2:
Jack: "I support the right of women to have an abortion. The government should not restrict women from having abortions in any way."
Jill: "But won't some people abuse this right and sometimes abort a child because they don't like the sex of the child?"
Jack: "Yes, they will. Aborting a fetus because it will become a girl child is absolutely inappropriate and contemptible, but it is still right to have no law restricting abortion."
Any questions?
Posted by: Fact Check | 2008-04-04 8:35:31 AM
Ok....now that we have the text of this fascinating conversation, and we dispense with the inability of "Fact Check" to offer his/her words of wisdom without resorting to insults...I ask the question...was it not Dosanjh who was saying the abortion of fetuses based on their sex was wrong? Shouldn't you be going after him for his inconsistency? Or is Mr. Dosanjh another Patron Saint of Choice and is outside the realm of criticism?
Posted by: Ted Gerk | 2008-04-04 1:10:41 PM
Ted: "...was it not Dosanjh who was saying the abortion of fetuses based on their sex was wrong?"
Yes, it was.
"Shouldn't you be going after him for his inconsistency?"
No, because there was no inconsistency. That is what my little conversations demonstrate. You should try reading them again and maybe you will see that.
But let me try one final time (and this really is the final time) to explain it to you. It seems that you can only imagine that wanting to abort female fetuses can be regarded as wrong if the abortion does a wrong to the fetus. But this is not true. One can think that aborting female fetuses is wrong WITHOUT thinking it is a wrong to the fetus. This is what Dosanjh thinks.
Look at it this way: It is not the having the abortion that is the wrong so much as it is the WANTING to have the abortion and the WANTING to have the abortion is wrong because the REASON for wanting it is motivated by a deeply felt sexism by the parents. So the desire to have the abortion demonstrates the parents sexism and it is the sexism of the parents that is unacceptable.
I am sure that if Dosanjh were asked if he though it would be better if parents who hate girls and don't want a girl baby decided to abort the fetus or if it would be better for them to deliver and keep the baby, he would say that the abortion is the better option. But I am also sure he would quickly add that what would be best of all would be for parents not to hate girls.
There is nothing bizarre about thinking, for example, that the motives for a murder make some murders worse than others. A so-called "honour killing" is worse than killing someone because you are mad that he stole your car. Both are wrong, but one is worse because of the motive.
Similarly, if you think abortion is murder you still can think that aborting a fetus because it is female and the parents hate girls is worse than aborting a fetus because carrying the fetus to term could endanger the life of the mother. You can still think both are very wrong, but that one is worse.
And if you think abortion is not murder, thus not wrong, you can still think that aborting a fetus because it is female and the parents hate girls is wrong because sexism is wrong. This is the view Dosanjh has. This is why he has said that gender selection is "absolutely inappropriate" and "contemptible". It is not the fetus that is wronged. It is the sexism of the parents that is absolutely inappropriate and contemptible.
You can disagree with his position. You can believe that he is 100% wrong. But to say that there is anything inconsistent about it is foolishness. If pro-lifers cannot see this, it is just further proof of their inability or unwillingness to think clearly.
Posted by: Fact Check | 2008-04-04 2:54:57 PM
While we are on the topic of abortion…
Horrors! The Guelph Resource Centre for Gender Empowerment and Diversity held an event Tuesday called: 'Looking At Choice,' which featured a panel discussion on past, present and future access to abortion in Canada (which had the privilege of being advertised to the entire student body through their list serve). But there was nothing "empowering" about what ended up transpiring.
The event was arranged in response to a successful and tasteful event put on by Guelph University pro lifers two weeks ago who had invited crisis pregnancy centers to display their resources (pamphlets etc.). They had held a lunchtime concert and members of the Silent No More Awareness Campaign got up to express their grief over past abortions.
Those in attendance at the “Looking at Choice” symposium were treated to a panel of four women, not exactly looking at choice, but rather bemoaning the lack of access to abortion and the use of language in Epp’s Bill 484 dealing with unborn victims of violence (they don’t approve of the word “unborn”). Two women from Kitchener-Waterloo Planned Parenthood, one from the Scott Clinic in downtown Toronto and Shelly Gavigan from Osgoode Law School comprised the panel.
The woman from the Scott Clinic actually brought in a an “unborn” fetus (5 weeks gestation) that she claimed to have killed that morning in an abortion procedure! She brought in the dead baby apparently to demonstrate its insignificance, as if killing one of these is no big deal. Ghastly measures for desperate times in the world of pro abortion advocacy!
Posted by: Natalie Hudson | 2008-04-04 4:26:43 PM
Now there is a switch. Are you saying the PRO_CHOICE movement is using graphic visuals in order to make a point? Can you imagine the outrage if a pro-lifer brought an aborted fteus into a public meeting to use as a prop. They get lambasted for simply showing pictures. Speaking of which, I hopr there were some pictures taken of this latest strategy by the Choicers. You can bet they will deny deny deny when this story hits the wire service.
Posted by: Servant | 2008-04-04 6:12:16 PM
Fact Check
Ted asked,"...was it not Dosanjh who was saying the abortion of fetuses based on their sex was wrong?"
You answered "Yes"
This prompts me to only ask one more question and a brief comment. The question and I think you know the answer does not involve sexism or cultural differences. WHY IS IT WRONG TO ABORT ON THE BASIS OF SEX?
The answer is not given by me but by a well known abortionist. Dr. Garson Romalis speaking to UBC students encouraging them to follow his path into the abortion industry is quoted in a Vancouver Sun as saying "Abortion will always be a subterranen thing. Children don't walk around saying 'My father is an abortionist.'"
Did you follow that? Always subteranean. That means it is always hidden away in the darkest corners under rocks. He realised then and Mr. Dosanjh is coming to the awareness that abortions always kill. Slowly the penny is dropping and even more slowly the truth is going to win out and children will live.
Posted by: John Hof | 2008-04-04 6:21:59 PM
--Strange consistency on Dosanjh's part, if it is consistency. Sexism is abhorrent, but the deliberate killing of an infant is an inalienable right, he is apparently saying. If not inconsistent, then his views are mind-boggling in their moral insensitivity on this question.
Posted by: Ted Hewlett | 2008-04-05 1:08:00 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.