Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Action star Wesley Snipes will spend three years in jail for misdemeanour tax charges | Main | Different takes on conservatism »

Friday, April 25, 2008

Status of Women versus Women

There's women's views, and then there's the Status of Women view. It bears repeating that these are not one and the same. If there's one agency that needs to be defunded pronto, it'd be them. I'd argue this by starting simple, with their name. "Status of Women" Whose status? Which women? And we could move on from there.

(cross-posted to ProWomanProLife)

Posted by Andrea Mrozek on April 25, 2008 in Canadian Politics | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e55211be348834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Status of Women versus Women :

Comments

My response to Status of Womans piece;



If only the pro-abortion lobby could try to be objective in this argument it would be nice. I read your blithering article and I could not belive the blatant lies and bias.
First of all how dare you say "It should be noted that this bill is not proposed by groups working to end violence against women" what a lie!! as if its only a bunch of lesbian activists that protect womans rights in Canada. There are plenty of pro-life woman that work hard everyday to support woman, so stop the patronizing attitude.
As for pregnant woman abusing drugs while pregnant, yes they should be forced into treatment. My taxes dont need to go to support another FAS baby. If you are stupid enough to abuse drugs or booze while pregnant then you need intervention, not liberal pity.
The fact is this bill makes it a double homocide if you kill a pregnant woman.
The other point is that yes Canada is willing to re-open this debate and we will. This is simply the first step. As for the woman and the unborn child being one, that is medically wrong and insane.
The child in the womb has its own blood type and DNA as well as its OWN organs, not the mothers organs.
Unless you believe like Joyce Arthur in Vancouver that the uborn child is a parasite. Yes she said that, a parasite.

Posted by: Merle | 2008-04-25 8:34:15 AM


As I believe I have said, there is NO logical justification for abortion, unless you go to the extreme of adopting Malthusian mathematics (in which case you'll be celebrating such illustrious company as Ebenezer Scrooge). It has been my experience that the less logical and factual support an argument has, the more shrill, deceitful, and self-serving it is likely to be.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-04-25 8:53:47 AM


"If only the pro-abortion lobby..."

Speaking of bias - have you ever heard of a group that calls itself "pro-abortion"? Ever heard of "pro-choice"? I don't know of any group who thinks that abortion itself, as opposed to the right to choose, is a "good" thing.

"First of all how dare you say "It should be noted that this bill is not proposed by groups working to end violence against women" what a lie!!"

Speaking of lies - do you know who proposed this Private Members Bills? Ken Epp, who is known for being anti-abortion (or should I call it "anti-choice"?) Groups that support this bill, such as the Canadian Family Action Coalition, are also doing so because they see it as a first step towards criminalizing abortion. This does not mean that they don't support initiatives to stop violence against women (really - who is "pro-violence against women"?) but it is certainly not the mandate of their organization to stop it. The point of this article is that groups whose sole or main goal is to stop violence against women do not support this bill. If you can find something to contradict that, please feel free to post it.

I don't think that you and the big bad feminists really disagree on this point, Merle. You stated: "The other point is that yes Canada is willing to re-open this debate and we will. This is simply the first step." Those trying to get this bill passed refuse to admit that it is a first step towards criminalizing abortion, continually insisting that it is only about ending violence against pregnant women. Feminist groups would welcome an admission of the type you made.

Posted by: Angela | 2008-04-25 9:20:17 AM


Angela.

First of all read the story and my quote is dead on. She said "these people" dont work to end violance against woman.
Yes many of these people are pro-abortion as they ban pro-life groups on University campuses across Canada.
That is thus allowing only one voice not two.
You failed to respond to the comments of Joyce Arthur.
In addition if you dont think its a death culture then read this sick and vile story:

www.dustmybroom.com
Speaking about self-induced abortion art
Liberalism is a mental disorder
Written by Darcey
Thursday, 24 April 2008
The student from Yale who claimed she artificially inseminated herself and followed it up with self-induced abortion to make 'art' explains herself as a guest columnist in the Yale Daily News - go forth and find weirdness.
http://sigcarlfred.blogspot.com/2008/04/hitting-rock-bottom-and-asking-for.html

Sory Angela, but it is a PRO death culture. Anyone who would induce serveral abortions for art is SICK!!!


Posted by: Merle | 2008-04-25 9:42:39 AM


Angela:

Choose life!

Posted by: set you free | 2008-04-25 9:46:52 AM


oh and your logic for the terminology is B.S. too.
Its all vey nice just to say you are pro-choice meaning you dont favour the act itself but if you choose to do it then its ok "your choice"
BS.
You advocate for the right for someone to kill the unborn-period.
Its no differnt in my mind that advocating to the right to have sex with minors.
Its all what is good for you at the moment- right? Moral relatavist crap.
The leader of the abortion fight Henry Morgantaler)is also a sicko as I saw on CBC as he read his poem about how he worships the woman's breast.
He never felt his father loved him either he said, so the answer is what? Kill unborn babies to feel better.Ya ok you follow him Angela, but not me.

Posted by: Merle | 2008-04-25 9:49:14 AM


Merle,

My point is this:
This bill is a very thinly-veiled effort by anti-abortion groups to criminalize abortion in Canada. Politicians who are insisting that the purpose of the bill is solely to prevent violence against women are being dishonest. That's it.

Do you have anything to say in reference to that?

Everything else you wrote was off-topic and, for the most part, bizarre. Using the examples you did as a means of demonstrating the "sickness" of pro-choice advocates is as ridiculous as using people who blow up abortion clinics and murder doctors as a means of demonstrating the "sickness" of anti-abortion advocates.

Posted by: Angela | 2008-04-25 9:59:16 AM


Through careful application of natural selection, a master race will be created.

But first, the concept of justifyable homicide must be instilled and accepted into the populace as we help nature along its path to the Brave New World.

The imperfect must be culled and sterilized under a program we are introducing today called eugenics.

If they resist our wisdom, they themselves have decided they have no right to live.

It is part of maintaing order.


Posted by: set you free | 2008-04-25 10:00:03 AM


Angela.


There is no secret agenda here. As limiting abortion would be decided by parliment and I might add this is a debate the pro-aborts dont want to open, as they know they will lose.
This proposed law is in place all over the USA and abortion is still legal, soooo how do YOU explain that???
I value all life, born and not yet born what say you???

Posted by: Merle | 2008-04-25 10:17:30 AM


by bizzare do you meaan not true? As I assure all of what I posted is 100% true!
yes the pro-death culture is bizzare-I agree.

Posted by: Merle | 2008-04-25 10:19:09 AM


I dont support bombing an abortion clinic, but I understand the thought as trying to end the killing of the innocent.
No one employed at an abortion facilty is w/o innocnet blood on their hands.

Posted by: Merle | 2008-04-25 10:20:58 AM


I agree the Status of women needs to be "defunded." Unfortunately, I do not believe this "conservative government has the courage to do so. Here is some info from Lifesite news. SJG

Record Funding for Status of Women Canada under Harper Conservatives
By Hilary White

OTTAWA, February 15, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Josée Verner, Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Status of Women, has told a Parliamentary committee on the Status of Women about the Harper government's "firm commitment" to Status of Women Canada.

Verner said the total budget for the federal organization was $29.9 million, "a record for Status of Women Canada". Under the government's new "Women's Partnership Fund," the government provided $10 million to the agency in 2007 and has no plans to stop.

The women's organisation, REAL Women of Canada, has been calling on the government since at least 1999 to abolish the department, arguing that it is an outdated, ideologically driven sink-hole of tax money that exists only to perpetuate a militantly pro-abortion and anti-family feminist agenda.

REAL Women describes Status of Women as "a radical feminist organisation established in 1973 under Prime Minister Trudeau" that, over the years, "has funded feminist groups to serve as agents of change, never recognizing that other women have different views and have no wish to be represented by these feminist organizations."

In August 2006, a concerted lobbying effort at the grassroots level, started by REAL Women of Canada, resulted in a wave of public awareness about Status of Women. The story was eventually picked up by Maclean's, the Globe and Mail and the Kingston Whig Standard and a number of other papers across the country.

In September the same year, the Tories announced they had cut $5 million over two years out of the agency's $23 million annual budget. In December, Heritage Minister Bev Oda said 12 of the agency's 16 offices were going to be shut down across the country, after a re-evaluation of the program showed it was not offering concrete help directly to women. According to the Public Service Alliance of Canada, 61 of the 131 jobs at the Status of Women were cut.

Subsequently, however, the Tories renewed federal funding of the organization. A Parliamentary review of the cuts took place in February 2007. REAL Women told LifeSiteNews.com that the House Committee was stacked with witnesses who opposed the cuts. The 27 witnesses opposed to the cuts were all funded directly by Status of Women and according to their testimony, said they regarded the government grants as their "entitlements."

Posted by: Stephen J. Gray | 2008-04-25 11:08:58 AM


"There is no secret agenda here. As limiting abortion would be decided by parliment and I might add this is a debate the pro-aborts dont want to open, as they know they will lose.
This proposed law is in place all over the USA and abortion is still legal, soooo how do YOU explain that???"

You sure are fond of contradictions, Merle. On the one hand you acknowledge that this bill is a first step towards criminalizing abortion (a fact with its supporters vehemently deny), and then you say that there is no "secret agenda". You point out that there are similar laws in place in the US but abortion is still legal (implying that abortion will continue to be legal in Canada), but then you say that the abortion issue is going to be decided by parliament and pro-choicers are going to lose. Make up your mind.

It's true - abortion is still legal in the US for now. However, supporters of similar bills in the US would like to use the bill to overturn Roe v. Wade. Also, these bills have been used in ways which many people find deplorable - such as to criminalize the behavior of pregnant women and throw them in jail. I know that you have no problem with this, but many of the groups referenced in the above piece would not like to see this kind of thing in Canada.

http://advocatesforpregnantwomen.org/whats_new/sc_womens_health_coalition_members_speak_the_truth_about_scs.php

"by bizzare do you meaan not true? As I assure all of what I posted is 100% true!"

I'm not sure what sort of thesaurus you're using but no - by "bizarre" I do not mean "not true". I meant completely irrelevant to the discussion. So much so that I have no idea why you brought it up.

Posted by: Angela | 2008-04-25 1:23:59 PM


"There is no secret agenda here. As limiting abortion would be decided by parliment and I might add this is a debate the pro-aborts dont want to open, as they know they will lose.
This proposed law is in place all over the USA and abortion is still legal, soooo how do YOU explain that???"

You sure are fond of contradictions, Merle. On the one hand you acknowledge that this bill is a first step towards criminalizing abortion (a fact with its supporters vehemently deny), and then you say that there is no "secret agenda". You point out that there are similar laws in place in the US but abortion is still legal (implying that abortion will continue to be legal in Canada), but then you say that the abortion issue is going to be decided by parliament and pro-choicers are going to lose. Make up your mind.

It's true - abortion is still legal in the US for now. However, supporters of similar bills in the US would like to use the bill to overturn Roe v. Wade. Also, these bills have been used in ways which many people find deplorable - such as to criminalize the behavior of pregnant women and throw them in jail. I know that you have no problem with this, but many of the groups referenced in the above piece would not like to see this kind of thing in Canada.

http://advocatesforpregnantwomen.org/whats_new/sc_womens_health_coalition_members_speak_the_truth_about_scs.php

"by bizzare do you meaan not true? As I assure all of what I posted is 100% true!"

I'm not sure what sort of thesaurus you're using but no - by "bizarre" I do not mean "not true". I meant completely irrelevant to the discussion. So much so that I have no idea why you brought it up.

Posted by: Angela | 2008-04-25 1:24:33 PM


If unborn humans are people, then it is difficult to support abortion. So the bottom line argument is realy whether or not they are humans. All other arguments are really secondary or separate in the end.

If it were proven that fetuses were humans, or if by law they were considered humans, would the pro-choice proponants still support it? It is easy right now to see how wrong it is to end the life of a person +1 day old, but some see no wrong in ending the life of a person -1 day old.

This is scary indeed.
Regarding the term pro-choice, I wonder if those who identify themselves as pro-choice

Posted by: TM | 2008-04-25 10:28:36 PM


Regading the term pro-choice, not only do the unborn have no choice in the matter, tax payers in Canada don't either. I have no choice but to pay for abortions.

The term pro-choice is hardly about choice.

Posted by: TM | 2008-04-25 10:31:06 PM


Angela wrote: “Speaking of bias - have you ever heard of a group that calls itself "pro-abortion"? Ever heard of "pro-choice"? I don't know of any group who thinks that abortion itself, as opposed to the right to choose, is a "good" thing.”

That old red herring isn’t going to work, Angela. To support the right to choose an action is to support the validity of the action itself. Think about what you’re saying. Replace the word “abortion” with any crime or despicable act you care to name, and then read the sentence again. It sounds a lot different now, doesn’t it?

Angela wrote: “Speaking of lies - do you know who proposed this Private Members Bills? Ken Epp, who is known for being anti-abortion (or should I call it "anti-choice"?)”

Using this logic, people who oppose capital punishment should not be permitted to speak on issues concerning capital punishment. And “anti-abortion” is fine.

Angela wrote: “Groups that support this bill, such as the Canadian Family Action Coalition, are also doing so because they see it as a first step towards criminalizing abortion.”

I’m sure you believe that personally. It would be nice to see proof, however.

Angela wrote: “…Does not mean that they don't support initiatives to stop violence against women (really - who is "pro-violence against women"?) but it is certainly not the mandate of their organization to stop it.”

I see. So organizations are permitted to speak on one subject only, forsaking all others, for as long as they all shall live.

Angela wrote: “The point of this article is that groups whose sole or main goal is to stop violence against women do not support this bill. If you can find something to contradict that, please feel free to post it.”

Such a posting, if one existed, would be irrelevant. Activist groups have no status in the government and have no say in the making of law, beyond the single vote that each of their members has and the relationship each of their members has with their MP. I do wish MPs in Canada were more like American Congressmen and free to vote their conscience regardless of party line, but that’s another topic.

Angela wrote: “Those trying to get this bill passed refuse to admit that it is a first step towards criminalizing abortion, continually insisting that it is only about ending violence against pregnant women.”

Again, proof?

Angela, I wonder if you realize just how anti–free-speech you sound here. Of course, since according to our Human Rights Commission, freedom of speech is “an American idea,” we don’t really need to respect it, do we?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-04-26 10:10:44 AM


Angela wrote: “My point is this: This bill is a very thinly-veiled effort by anti-abortion groups to criminalize abortion in Canada. Politicians who are insisting that the purpose of the bill is solely to prevent violence against women are being dishonest. That's it.”

Maybe, maybe not. You haven’t proven anything either way. I could argue that the gun registry was a very thinly veiled preliminary to mass confiscation, but would the initial phase’s inherent dishonesty be enough to make you vote against the registry if offered a say? I think you object less to these politicians’ methodology than to the fact that the anticipated result is something you won’t like. You should at least have the honesty to say so.

Angela wrote: “Everything else you wrote was off-topic and, for the most part, bizarre. Using the examples you did as a means of demonstrating the "sickness" of pro-choice advocates is as ridiculous as using people who blow up abortion clinics and murder doctors as a means of demonstrating the "sickness" of anti-abortion advocates.”

Not quite, Angela. Virtually every scientific discovery made since Roe vs. Wade has not strengthened the argument for abortion, but weakened it. Studies of fetal development, 3D ultrasounds that show babies at 12 weeks gestation sucking their thumbs, the ability to diagnose pregnancy within days of conception (as opposed to the almost four months required in 1973), the surgical repair of damaged fetuses in utero—all point to life, and all point to human life. Today there are only two ways a person can support abortion: 1) To not have the facts, or 2) To have the facts, and not care.

You, of course, are option 2.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-04-26 10:18:37 AM


#1 - Merle promoting values? hoho. Have you ever read about him on wikapedia?

#2 - Someone mentioned "A Brave New World." That would be a world where the state decides on the future of THE WOMAN'S fetus. Everyone should mind their own business and let the fetus carrier worry about her fetus or not.

Posted by: abc | 2008-04-26 4:00:22 PM


abc,

The problem with #2 is that I have to pay for abortions. You am me may or may not agree on the abortion issue but I am forced to pay. You may find it morally acceptable for a woman to have an abortion. But If I view a fetus as a person worth protecting, and consider it murder, should I have to pay?

Posted by: TM | 2008-04-26 5:48:59 PM


TM: No you should not. Just like you shouldn't have to work to the benefit of another.

Posted by: abc | 2008-04-26 6:20:40 PM


abc, just to be clear I do believe in charity. Like most people I choose my charities carefully. There are many pro-choice people out there. Some polls suggest a majority. So there should be enough who believe strongly enough in free and accessable abortion that they would donate funds for it. That way those of us who believe it is one of the most tragic problems of our time, don't have to. Those who seek abortions might even be willing to kick in a bit.

Posted by: TM | 2008-04-26 6:32:37 PM


A business shouldn't require charity, although it should be free to accept donations. Let the market decide if abortion clinics exist. No paying customers - no clinic

Posted by: abc | 2008-04-26 7:20:43 PM


Agreed.

Posted by: TM | 2008-04-26 7:25:52 PM


ABC wrote: "Someone mentioned "A Brave New World." That would be a world where the state decides on the future of THE WOMAN'S fetus. Everyone should mind their own business and let the fetus carrier worry about her fetus or not."

Says you, ABC. Got news for you--since the science of the matter categorically states that the fetus is human (though not yet a viable one), any attempt by the woman to claim title to that fetus amounts to slavery. (The legal definition of slavery is where one human being is owned by another, not involuntary servitude.) Last time I checked, slavers were hostis humani generis, "enemies of all mankind," right up there with pirates.

Women really should get over themselves. The Universe does not begin and end with their gonads.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-04-27 8:47:53 PM


ABC wrote: "A business shouldn't require charity, although it should be free to accept donations. Let the market decide if abortion clinics exist. No paying customers - no clinic."

And do you take the same view towards hit men?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-04-27 8:49:46 PM



The comments to this entry are closed.