Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Leave it to Cleavage | Main | Canadians support RCMP probe into Bernier controversy: Poll »

Thursday, May 29, 2008

Women's rights versus freedom of speech

In the Post, today, a report about the ban of pro-life groups on campus. Again. Says Gilary Massa, vice-president of the York Federation of Students:

"Is this an issue of free speech? No, this is an issue of women's rights."

Broken record alert: It is no one's right to have an abortion. Abortion is not now, never was a right. The Supreme Court of Canada never said that. And if you take away freedom of speech, you sure don't enhance women's rights. Repeating this is getting tiring, but then again, I'm not the one initiating thought bans at major universities. 

Cross-posted to ProWomanProLife

Posted by Andrea Mrozek on May 29, 2008 in Current Affairs | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Women's rights versus freedom of speech :


Andrea is absolutely correct about the Supreme Court's ruling: abortion is not enshrined as a right.
And now the Canadian Federation of Students has passed a motion supporting a ban on pro-life groups at all campuses. http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/may/08052809.html. Outrageous censorship. It seems the CFSers are prepping for careers as human-rights commissioners.

Posted by: Terry O'Neill | 2008-05-29 8:19:32 AM

If a university is private, they should be able to allow a motion on a ban to pass. But they are not private. The CFS is so intolerant of ideas I can't find the words to descibe it.

Posted by: TM | 2008-05-29 8:43:34 AM

I can't imagine that even a moderately pro-choice person would see any justification for this motion.

Posted by: dp | 2008-05-29 9:06:11 AM

The Supreme Court of Canada struck down Canada's abortion law in 1988 as unconstitutional. It said the law violated Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms because it infringed upon a woman's right to "life, liberty and security of person." Chief Justice Brian Dickson wrote: "Forcing a woman, by threat of criminal sanction to carry a foetus to term unless she meets certain criteria unrelated to her own priorities and aspirations, is a profound interference with a woman's body and thus a violation of her security of the person."

To advocate the legal prohibition on abortion is to advocate the enslavement of women. Banning pro-slavery groups on campus, however, is an infringement on free speech. All pro-slavery groups should be allowed to have their voice heard, including the anti-abortion groups.

Posted by: Fact Check | 2008-05-29 9:19:20 AM

"Gilary Massa, vice-president external of the York Federation of Students, said student clubs will be free to discuss abortion in student space, as long as they do it "within a pro-choice realm," and that all clubs will be investigated to ensure compliance."

I'm completely pro-choice, but this is total BS. The members of the York Federation of Students should be ashamed of themselves.

Posted by: Angela | 2008-05-29 9:33:13 AM

If all discussion is within the pro-choice realm, what do they have to discuss?

How do they plan to investigate the clubs?

Posted by: dp | 2008-05-29 9:37:37 AM

Had the Human Rights Commissions evolved the way Canadians were promised, this matter would make a valid complaint.

Given the way HRC's have evolved, this is a matter that they would likely investigate and prosecute on behalf of York's leftist totalitarian student federation.

Posted by: bob | 2008-05-29 9:47:41 AM

Fact Check, you seem like one of the most sensible pro-choice people out there. I have a few thoughts on what you wrote.

There were people who did not care that slavery was legal and pushed for its abolition. That abortion is legal, is does not matter to those that view it as murder. They will continue to speak against it no matter what. They would also argue that to force a woman to keep her one year old or oone day old would also be enslavement if you didn't allow her to terminate the child.

Anyway, banning speach is always a bad idea.

Posted by: TM | 2008-05-29 10:01:30 AM

I finally picked up a copy of Mark Steyn's book, America Alone.

I've always been in favour of the concept of the sanctity of human life and that would be my choice.

Even though I'm only in Chapter 2, I can see the theme ... cultural suicide through a declining birth rate which is unable to replace itself and pay for the exhorbitant feminized social programs.

BTW. With three children, I've done my bit for the future of Western CIvilization.

Posted by: set you free | 2008-05-29 10:35:57 AM

Is anybody really surprised at these student unions? They are funded by compulsory student activity fees. Therefore the pro-life students are forced to fund these little dictators. Meanwhile their Big Brothers and Sisters at the Canadian Labour Congress have "honored" abortionist Morgentaler. Here is the articles:
Dr. Henry Morgentaler Receives Canadian Labour’s Highest Award
May 28, 2008
TORONTO – The Canadian Labour Congress today gave Dr. Henry Morgentaler its highest honour, the Award for Outstanding Service to Humanity, for his contribution to the cause of equality for women.
The Award was presented to Dr. Morgentaler, in front of 2,000 delegates to the CLC’s 25th Constitutional Convention in Toronto Wednesday afternoon.
“This year the Canadian Labour Congress is shining the spotlight on the growing wage gap between men and women and the outrageous actions of a federal Conservative government that has turned the clock back on women’s equality,” said Ken Georgetti, president of the Canadian Labour Congress.
“So it is more than fitting that as we celebrate Dr. Morgentaler’s historic legal victory for women in the Supreme Court of Canada 20 years ago – we honour his amazing contribution to the advancement of human rights, women’s equality, and progressive change,” Georgetti told delegates.
The court’s ruling in 1988 declared the law that prohibited abortion to be unconstitutional, thus confirming women’s reproductive rights.
Georgetti noted that at its Convention in 1988 the CLC had passed a resolution stating that: “Choice is an equality and economic issue affecting women”, and that the labour movement would fight any attempt to roll back the clock including the current attempt to do that by stealth through C-484, a Conservative private member’s bill.
The Canadian Labour Congress, the national voice of the labour movement, represents 3.2 million Canadian workers. The CLC brings together Canada’s national and international unions along with the provincial and territorial federations of labour and 130 district labour councils. Web site: www.canadianlabour.ca.
The Convention, which meets every three years, is the supreme governing body of the Canadian Labour Congress.
Contact: Jean Wolff, Communications, 613-878-6040

To see the victims of Morgentalers "highest award" go to Http://www. AbortionNo.org

Posted by: Stephen J. Gray | 2008-05-29 10:59:40 AM

Mortgentaler didn't exactly volunteer his services. He's become a very rich man selling his service to humanity. I could understand if he won business man of the year, or entrepreneur of the decade. Left-wing students worshipping him is sort of like commuters worshipping OPEC.

Posted by: dp | 2008-05-29 11:11:21 AM

Student Unions and Labor Unions need to be made voluntary. If a person is compelled to support an organization, they are NOT free. I believe: It is a scandal that they are allowed to use their memberships time and money in this way to support the atrocity of Abortion.
See the victims of Abortion at: http://www.abortionno.org

Posted by: Stephen J. Gray | 2008-05-29 11:12:59 AM

Andrea is correct. It matters not which side one supports, for this is clearly another attack on freedom of expression. Of course our universities are anything but a bastion of freedom of expression and it is time to take them to task on it.

Posted by: Alain | 2008-05-29 11:35:04 AM

The young lady at York university clearly does not understand her own Rhetoric. If she is indeed Pro-Choice, one would think she and her group would respect someone else's CHOICE and opinion on an issue of disagreement. It is not only she, but the entire students Union movement in Canada has taken a step towards anarchy with the endorsement of the Pro-abortion only clubs on campuses across this land. The time has come for the Federation of Canadian Students to be reined in. Their collection of millions of dollars in "mandatory" dues and their advocacy of policies that totally misrepresent Canadian students, points to a need for change. Several universities have already voted to leave the CFS and kick them off campus. It is time for the students at York to organize and do the same. Cut off the money tap and these radicals and anarchists will very quickly go back into the holes from whence they have come.

Posted by: John Hof | 2008-05-29 1:05:14 PM

Hmm interesting to note that woman from York quoted in the Post is a muslim.
I guess its not enough for her to belong to a relegion that enslaves woman,she needs to spread the pain.
If you look at the York Federation of Students site the President and VP are both muslims and most of the exec has been hijacked by the same as well.
We all knew this was coming didn't we???

Posted by: Merle | 2008-05-29 1:59:30 PM

Activists have held, time and time again, that conservative organizations are required to comply with the secular and egalitarian spirit of the Charter so long as they receive government funding. I counter that the same is true of liberal ones. Universities rely far more on government funding than most religious or social institutions.

University is supposed to be about the free exchange of ideas. Leftists say that the common conservative claim of liberal bias on campus is exaggerated and that the spectrum of views is well represented. I wonder just how much time such Leftists have actually spent on campus lately. No way I'll send a kid of mine to one of these groupthink cesspits. Now if only we could find a way to remove government funding altogether.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-05-29 2:08:40 PM

Both the insecurity and weakness of a group is exposed when it cannot afford free and open debate.

These are the hallmarks of censorship, propaganda, intimidation and the signs of a doomed social entity which ultimately cannot prevail in its attempts to control a people. History provides example of individuals and groups which undertook such activities.

The so-called "pro-choice" are IMPOSING their beliefs on others, actively stifling alternatives and restraining the freedoms of others. That is certainly not a "pro-choice" position, or even a true liberal position. It's not the democratic and free position many have fought with their lives to gain and protect.

The so-called "pro-choice" position once argued that "pro-life" and "religious" people were "forcing" their views on others. What an irony to see such a blatant forcing of one's beliefs on others - to the extent of tangibly and physically depriving others their freedoms of expression.

A child has a right to life.

Posted by: JT | 2008-05-29 3:32:36 PM

Fact Check:
Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._v._Morgentaler, has a good article on the ruling, and it states: "....there were three different opinions given by the majority, none having achieved more than two signatures. As such, no Morgentaler precedent is binding...."
Moreover, Dickson actually advanced several arguments, one of which focused, not on women's rights, but on the issue of whether the then-system for approving abortions (hospital committees, etc.) was fair. He decided it was not fair, because smaller hospitals could not provide the administrative system needed.
Morever, turning now to the actual text of the decision, http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/1988/1988rcs1-30/1988rcs1-30.html , Dickson wrote: "I wish to reiterate that finding a violation of security of the person does not end the s. 7 inquiry. Parliament could choose to infringe security of the person if it did so in a manner consistent with the principles of fundamental justice."
My reading of this is that Dickson believed there was no inviolate Charter right to abortion; all Parliament need do would be to put into place a fairer system for dealing with applications for abortions, and abortions could be regulated.
This, after all, is exactly what the Mulroney government attempted to do.

Posted by: Terry O'Neill | 2008-05-29 4:33:28 PM

Fact Check said

"To advocate the legal prohibition on abortion is to advocate the enslavement of women. Banning pro-slavery groups on campus, however, is an infringement on free speech. "


Advocating legal prohibition on abortion is to advocate legal prohibition on abortion.

Advocating enslavement of women is to advocate enslavement of women.

Please stop injecting your biases into the debate.

Advocating legal prohibtion on abortion is a free speech issue. FULL STOP!

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-05-29 5:53:19 PM

Fact Check,
If a woman is not pregnant, ipso facto, she is not enslaved. Hence, your argument is bombastic hyperbole and therefore unhelpful for rational debate.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-05-29 6:13:46 PM

Two points:
The Supreme Court of Canada may not have stated that there is a constitutional right to abortion, but it's pretty clear that an outright prohibition would be unconstitutional.Not to mention political suicide.

Bob, taking the typical knuckledragger position on human rights commission writes:
"Given the way HRC's have evolved, this is a matter that they would likely investigate and prosecute on behalf of York's leftist totalitarian student federation."
In fact, the BC Human Right Tribunal agreed to hear a complaint by a pro-life group which was refused club status by Capilano College and rejected a motion by the college to dismiss the complaint.

Posted by: truewest | 2008-05-29 8:34:38 PM

For Heavens' sake. If we had more abortions, we wouldn't have as many people arguing, now would we. Maybe TM's comment about post partum abortions might suggest a reduction in those other abortions.

Posted by: Agha Ali Arkahn | 2008-05-29 9:44:56 PM

From the Cdn Fed of Students website, founding principles: "To provide a common framework within which students can communicate, exchange information, and share experience, skill and ideas".

Posted by: goop | 2008-05-29 10:35:51 PM

truewest, taking the typical knucledragger position on disagreeing with a poster wrote

"Bob, taking the typical knuckledragger position on human rights commission writes:..."

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-05-29 11:32:00 PM

C'mon Harper, put this in your campaign platform. I dare you.


This issue must be as dead as the gay marraige one, then.

Posted by: joe bleau | 2008-05-30 3:46:25 AM

Fact Check: "To advocate the legal prohibition on abortion is to advocate the enslavement of women."

Oh, really? And does the legal prohibition on slitting children's throats while they sleep amount to the enslavement of parents? They are required by law to see to those kids' welfare until the age of majority, period. Using your logic, this is no different to the prohibition on abortion. Why is one okay, and not the other? The child is alive in both cases.

You have a DUTY to the life you create. If you don't want the duty, don't create the life. Condoms cost 12.95 for a pack of 30 at the Mammoth Mart. And don't give me the sob story about the girl carrying the child of rape; according to my calculations, you have a sixteen-times higher chance of being struck by lightning.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-05-30 7:21:15 AM


One: Since judges don't have to worry about politics, this point is moot. And since no more than two judges could approve any one position, all that's clear is that nothing is settled. The trouble is that women voters have foolishly come to equate this "right" as the key to their liberation. Any attempt to reason with them results in strident catcalls and a torrent of anti-1950s-moral-cliches.

Two: I see you're shilling for your buddies at the HRC again. If I didn't know better I'd say you worked for them. Your unreasoning and stubborn defence of the creeping influence of these latter-day Thought Police is practically your signature. Perhaps they've finally woken up to the political danger they are in and are starting to rein in their more obvious injustices for fear they'll end up like Mary Woo Sims.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-05-30 7:31:35 AM

Joe Blow wrote: "C'mon Harper, put this in your campaign platform. I dare you."

Joe, you're an imbecile. Any politician worth his salt knows that you spend your political capital coming out of an election, not going into one.

"I dare you"? What's the matter, have they kicked you out of the treehouse again?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-05-30 7:33:10 AM

"And don't give me the sob story about the girl carrying the child of rape; according to my calculations, you have a sixteen-times higher chance of being struck by lightning."

The chance of being struck by lightning is about 1 in 3 million:

In the US in 1998, there were an estimated 25,000 pregnancies that resulted from rape:

I'm terrible at math, but I think your estimation might be a little off, Shane. Anyone have a calculator?

Posted by: Angela | 2008-05-30 8:42:25 AM

A society which cannot replace itself is committing suicide.

Canada's 1.5 children per couple is below the 2.1 necessary to keep our culture alive in the long run.

I choose life.

Posted by: set you free | 2008-05-30 9:45:17 AM

Achtung!! The vaporization of anything to do with pro-life thought or speech on our campuses is to begin immediately! Once the pro-life uberscum are fully silenced, prepare the anti-choice awareness missile kits and commence firing!

We owe much to CFS and YFS for making the science-fiction concept of time travel a reality! They have set scholarly debate, mature and objective pursuit of learning and reasoning, and their own advocacy of tolerance back eons. This will enable us to see firsthand how fascist, totalitarian regimes develop, how rational thought is steamrolled over by emotionally-charged inertia to perceived opposition, and to study the physical reaction of foaming at the mouth caused by a challenge to imagined control.

We also owe them thanks for conceding to allow pro-life discussion "within a pro-choice realm". "As long as you play by my rules, you can play- but if you do or say anything I don't like I'm taking my football and going home. So there."

Posted by: paul | 2008-05-30 9:58:40 AM

Angela, according to the figures quoted in this STUDY dealing in ESTIMATES, the pregnancy rate from these rapes is about 1 in 10. That doesn't sound a little high to you? The averaged odds of a young, fertile woman getting pregnant from a single instance of sex at a randomly chosen time are about 3 in 100. The rate for older women drops significantly, down to basically zero after 50 or so. Older women are raped more often than you'd think. Also, not all reported rapes are truthful; "buyer's remorse" is fairly common. I shall, however, eliminate these factors, as there is no reliable way to estimate them.

Further consider that most sexual assaults are not rapes; the charge covers everything down to copping a feel. If we estimate that only a quarter of such assaults result in actual penetration, and further deduct chances to allow for the fact that rapists don't always climax (sounds weird but it's true), our chances drop to about 0.5 to 1 percent. So I'd like to know how they ESTIMATE that these rape victims magically have a three-times-higher fertility rate?

To complete the calculations, we'll take that 0.5 percent rape/pregnancy rate and multiply that by the total rape rate, which is 333,000 divided by 150 million; final figure is 0.00001, or about one chance in 100,000. In the United States about 1,000 people are injured by lightning every year, so 1,000 divided by 300 million is about .000003.

One chance is only three times higher than the other, so they're still comparable and by no means outrageously disparate. Hence, while my original math may have been slightly flawed, the point remains proven--pregnancy by rape is an extremely rare occurrence and not common enough to affect sensible abortion policy. I know it and you know it. Ditto for failed contraceptives.

Next case.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-05-30 12:38:05 PM

Paul wrote: "As long as you play by my rules, you can play- but if you do or say anything I don't like I'm taking my football and going home. So there."

That's the really juicy part of it, Paul--they don't own the football.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-05-30 12:39:40 PM

I've got to hand it to you. You're not shy about revealing your ignorance. Or your inability to read.
1) In R. v. Morgentaler, only two of seven judges could be said to have found Parliament can pass an absolute ban on abortion. To suggest that because the other five took different routes to finding that the Criminal Code provision limiting access to abortion was unconstitional means that "nothing is settled" is simply idiocy. But then, you're good at that, having had so much practice. BTW, the reference to political suicide was to the prospect of Parliament, specifically the Harper Conservative, passing a new abortion law, not the court, numbnuts.
2) I don't have any connection the human rights process. I just hate to see a bunch of mouth-breathing morons like yourself and bob, whose only knowledge of the process comes from self-promoting buffoons like Ezra Levant, making grand pronouncement on a useful process.

BTW, just because you look like you're pregnant doesn't give you any particular insight into the circumstances of pregnant women. So why don't shut your pig-ignorant, bullying, moralizing cakehole?

Posted by: truewest | 2008-05-30 8:49:27 PM


You state the chance of being struck by lightning is 1 in 3 million, but according to the supporting link you quote there are almost 9 millions lightning strikes or 3 deaths per day. Well 3 deaths x 365 days = 1095 deaths per year due to lightning.

The stats on the rape pregnancy rate are estimates only, and clearly the study's author's are biased to the pro choice sexual health philosophy.

It is not a matter of statistics. The state has an obligation to protect you, Angela, when you are defenseless...even and especially when you were not yet born.

Posted by: goop | 2008-05-30 8:50:51 PM

1. The BC Tribe anal was forced by a higher court to hear the Capilano College case.

2. Its by no means settled that the supreme court could out law a total parliamentary ban on abortion.

Posted by: goop | 2008-05-30 9:00:48 PM

1. B.S. The complaint was filed in June 2007. Capilano College brought two applications to dismiss. Both were dismissed, the first in August 2007, the second in January 2008. The case didn't go anywhere near a higher court.

2. It is as clear as day that the Supreme Court would strike down as unconstitutional a total ban on abortion. To suggest otherwise just makes you look as stupid as Matthews. Well, stupider - at least he can write complete sentences some of the time.

Posted by: truewest | 2008-05-30 9:24:20 PM


1. You’re dancing your ass. The fact that three separate and circumlocutious paths ultimately led to the same result shows just how fuzzy the underlying reasoning is, and raises questions as to whether the outcome was predetermined regardless of the facts. Nothing was settled because CANADA HAS NO LAWS GOVERNING ABORTION, the ONLY country in the world for which this state exists. Every other country in the world has managed to decide one way or the other. But not our demented dominion.

2. Exactly who is this process useful for? Malcontents, curmudgeons, feuding neighbours, Jehovah’s Witnesses who are allergic to plants. And anyone who doesn’t have enough of a case to be heard before a real judge. It was supposed to prevent people from being fired or turned down for housing because of discrimination, you imbecile. It wasn’t supposed to morph into the Thought Police. The fact that it has and you still can’t find enough good things to say about them only shows that when it comes to individual liberty you’re right up there with the student unions. A mouthy troll with delusions of adequacy. I'm not going to shut my cakehole and you can't make me, in cyberspace or in person. So go cry in your fair-trade coffee, twig boy.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-05-30 11:19:43 PM

Indeed, Goop, it seems like a lot of the most controversial decisions these days are 5-4. And let's not forget that most of these judges are the Natural Governing Party's appointees. From Morgantaler's shameless self-promotion to Mr. Dithers's elevation of complete retards to high places (Larry Campbell, a failed maverick mayor, for the Senate?), they have stacked the deck with their morally vague, free-love-ideology stablemates.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-05-30 11:51:52 PM

True est dear

1. There is more that happened than what has been publicly reported.

2. If the SC banned as unconstitutional a total ban on abortion by the Harper government, it would not show my stupidity. It would show the stupidity of the court.

It would show the stupidity of the court in not recognizing the fundamental biological separateness of the child. Dependence and vulnerability of the child does not argue against this fact recognized in all the college texts.

It would show the stupidity of the court by treating pregnancy as a disease.

It would show the stupiditiy of the court in dismissing the negativity demographic consequences of demographic winter, and sex selection outcomes.

It would show the stupidity of the court if ignored the abortion survival syndrome.

It would show the stupidity of the court if ruled for women's 'health', and ignored the health consequences of abortion: psychological and bodily on the women.

It would show the stupidity of the court it does not recognize the child has a different DNA from the child.

It would show the stupdity of the court it does not recognize the evidence for the excruciating pain an abortion causes the child.

It would show the stupidity of the courts if the judges can pretend they were never fetuses too.

And a final point, the stupidity of the courts and parliament has been well demonstrated in the past as in their treatment of divorce, as every reason used to justify no fault divorce has resulted in the opposite consequence. So now we have sad and unhappy people like you in greater numbers living lives of isolation, greed and consumption, who look for satisfaction and justice in all the wrong places, creating even greater desolation and destruction and unhappy people, the abortion survivors, and one day they will hate you for it. You have bought the delusion that a women's body is the defining right of our time, you have sucked to teat of women's liberation, and you suck desparately harder and harder, but your satisfaction is a dry tongue, and a loveless life. You have followed fad of twenty, a waning fad, a fad that will not last, and found folly.

It will soon become clear soon, the pro choice fad is already fading...the populatioh will not buy. There is too much denial of obvious every day truths to sustain the pro choic myths. Opposition to abortion will never end, and demographic forces are at work that ensure that it cannot be suppressed for very long.

Ciao bella.

Posted by: goop | 2008-05-31 12:33:38 AM

True ewst dear

So with the grand army of unhappy people spawned those your ideological forebears who fought against the 'injustice' of tough divorce laws, there are so many ruined lives among your peers that now sexual assault has exploded in relative recent years!!!!! If it were not so, rape produce pregnancy would indeed be 1 thousandth the rate of being struck by lightning, as it sure was in the 1950's. But it is in the nature of your ideological kin to always deny, ignore, and face away from past consequences, just as it is in the nature of abortion.

Ciao bella

Posted by: goop | 2008-05-31 12:51:03 AM

I went to the University of Alberta from 1986 to 1991. While I was there I participated in the campus pro-life club. I met some of the gentlest people there. We were dedicated to non-violence, and were careful not to even raise our voice too much when we hosted an event and were greeted by "pro-choice" demonstrators.

It is sad that if certain people had their way in Canadian Universities, we would not have been able to have our club, and only "pro-choice" speech would be allowed.

It has been noticed by women with crisis pregnancies, and by those who care about them, that it isn't only pro-life speech that gets stifled in the general society. News about resources for pregnant women that are NOT abortion related also gets stifled, as well as any information that makes abortion look less than glorious.

When only "pro-choice" talk is allowed, the woman who wants the choice of giving life to her baby has her right to choice ignored, as she is told that abortion is her only choice. A hostility towards child bearing arises, as people think, and sometimes say, 'Don't burden me with your baby and your needs as a mother. There is a perfectly good abortion solution for people like you and you chose to reject it. Not just take your lumps for making this burdensome choice.'

And the proverbial village refuses to help her raise the child, in fact is angry with her for "burdening" them with the child.

Pro-choice is a lie. These people who want to eliminate all pro-life talk, do not want choice. They don't want people to have the choice of what to say or express.

And they don't want people to have the choice of whether to continue their pregnancies either. Often they want abortion to be the only choice available to women.
They fight against laws that will protect women from coerced abortion. They fight against laws that protect women from violent attacks for refusing abortion. They fight against Unborn Victims of Violence Acts, so that when a fetus is violently taken from a woman against her will, the attacker gets no charges for removing the baby.

And don't get me started about women who are killed in retaliation for refusing to abort. This is the most common cause of death in pregnant women. It's the pro-choice movement's dirty little secret, and the pro-choicers are completely silent about this issue. They have nothing to say about these killings. Not one peep of protest.

All the things I've mentioned above are what they call defending a woman's right to choose? It sounds more like ramming abortion down women's throats to me.

Posted by: Ceecee | 2008-05-31 1:44:17 AM

Shane and Goop,
You're a fine pair. You both make up facts to suit your arguments and you both prattle on about legal matters you don't understand. (BTW, Shane, in Morgentaler, the split was 5-2 and HRT process was apparently quite useful the Cap College Heart beat pro-life club.)
Prattle away. Keep you cakeholes flapping. Nothing that has come out or is likely to has any credibility at all.
Accordingly, I won't waste my time taking apart your recent responses; it would be as useful as taking a scalpel to a cow pie.

Posted by: truewest | 2008-05-31 7:02:41 AM

Truewest wrote: "You're a fine pair. You both make up facts to suit your arguments and you both prattle on about legal matters you don't understand."

Blah, blah, blah. That's your defence through his whole cycle of posts. "You don't understand, you just don't understand." Well, you're not doing a very good job of explaining it, are you? How knowledgeable can you be, when you had to be force-fed the knowledge that most HRC staffers aren't even trained lawyers? And then, only then, did you think to argue that this shouldn't matter.

Truewest wrote: "(BTW, Shane, in Morgentaler, the split was 5-2 and HRT process was apparently quite useful the Cap College Heart beat pro-life club.)"

I said THESE DAYS, you motherless offal. Morgantaler was 20 years ago. And you have the nerve to criticize Goop's grammar after posting the equivalent of a grand mal sentence like this?

Truewest wrote: "Prattle away. Keep you cakeholes flapping. Nothing that has come out or is likely to has any credibility at all."

See above.

Truewest wrote: "Accordingly, I won't waste my time taking apart your recent responses; it would be as useful as taking a scalpel to a cow pie."

Then why is your mouth open?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-05-31 9:08:33 AM

Truewest wrote: "Accordingly, I won't waste my time taking apart your recent responses; it would be as useful as taking a scalpel to a cow pie."

Accordingly indeed! Your response is precisely according to what I said in my 31-May-08 12:51:03 AM post "deny, ignore, and face away ". It is easy to argue in a vacuum, but when faced with the consequence, you become paralyzed, dumb, incapacitated.

And that is precisely how the pro choice ilk will be defeated, by pointing to the past consequences of what have they done. As the evidence mounts, so will people turn away from your ilk.

Posted by: goop | 2008-05-31 10:22:44 AM

Ceecee wrote: "And don't get me started about women who are killed in retaliation for refusing to abort. This is the most common cause of death in pregnant women. It's the pro-choice movement's dirty little secret, and the pro-choicers are completely silent about this issue. They have nothing to say about these killings. Not one peep of protest."

So secret I didn't even know about it. :-)

Think about it, Ceecee--by killing a pregnant woman, you're also killing her unborn child, so it certainly isn't pro-lifers who are doing this. By the way, can you provide a reference to this plague of murdered expectant mothers? And please, no "studies" or other suchlike opinion pieces.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-05-31 4:13:00 PM

Shane wrote: Think about it, Ceecee--by killing a pregnant woman, you're also killing her unborn child, so it certainly isn't pro-lifers who are doing this.

Yeah, I know it. Read my post a little more carefully and you will see that I wasn't blaming pro-lifers. I was blaming the pro-aborts, and hard core pro-aborts at that, so hard core that they don't really believe in choice.

The reason the hard core pro-aborts don't really believe in a woman's right to choose, is because she might choose life, no abortion, nada. She might choose to have the baby. That could be an inconvenience to the hard core pro-abort. Maybe he is a bio sperm donor who fears a baby will tie him down or cost him money. Maybe the hard core pro-abort doesn't want to be a grandparent. Maybe it's an employer who doesn't want to worry about an employee's maternity leave. Maybe it's mom's roommate who doesn't want to hear a crying baby in her apartment at 3 am. Maybe it's just a worker at an abortion clinic who gets a commission for every abortion they sell.

Whatever, they don't want the woman to choose life. When too many women choose life, they want to take away her right to choose, or at least punish her for making a choice they don't like.

As for the real cases of murdered pregnant women, haven't you been watching CNN, or the Nancy Grace show? They have real cases on there. The Lacy Peterson case and a bunch of other cases. It is mentioned on there about how pregnancy makes a woman more vulnerable to violence. It is also mentioned in true crime books.
And you're right, it's not the pro-lifers who are doing this. It's usually the woman's husband or boyfriend who doesn't want to be a father. He kills the woman, who refuses to abort, for two reasons.
1. She refuses to have the abortion that he wants her to have. Killing her is his way of making sure that the baby is never born.
2. The woman is in his way. She's an inconvenience to him. It's a whole throw-away culture that pro-abortion ideas are based on. Only it's extended to the mothers who refuse to abort babies that others fear will get in their way.

"by killing a pregnant woman, you're also killing her unborn child,"

DUH, I know, that's why these creeps do it. They want the glorious right to choose that feminists have been happily crowing about for years. But his girlfriend stands in the way, so she has to go.

"so it certainly isn't pro-lifers who are doing this."

DUH again. I know it certainly isn't pro-lifers. Please read my posting a little more carefully next time.
God bless you and I hope this clears things up.

Posted by: Ceecee | 2008-05-31 6:12:05 PM

So Ceecee, your answer when asked for evidence, is to direct me to...a talk show?

I don't doubt that the murder of pregnant women happens, but usually it's at the hands of a man who doesn't want to pay child support. I have never seen any indication that "pro-aborts," even radical splinter groups, have ever been involved in offing pregnant women. It would turn other feminist groups against them.

And keep in mind, this is coming from someone who believes that the natural order of things consists of God, Jesus, Mary, all the angels and saints, the Queen, aristocracy, upper class, middle class, working class, dumb animals, welfare chiselers, creeping things, head lice, nurses and teachers, people who vote for the NDP, and then pro-aborts.

Sorry, I don't buy it.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-05-31 6:46:44 PM

Shane: The Journal of the American Medical Association states that murder is the most common cause of death in pregnant women. Sometimes it is in retaliation for refusing to abort. Sometimes it is a power thing (oh, boy, two victims in one). Sometimes it is some nut case woman who wants to cut the baby out of the mother and pretend the baby is her own. Either way, we as a society need to circle the wagons around our pregnant women, and really crack down on crimes against pregnant women, and their babies.

Posted by: Ceecee | 2008-07-22 12:27:14 AM

Ceecee wrote: "The Journal of the American Medical Association states that murder is the most common cause of death in pregnant women."

And the most common cause of death of unborn infants is abortion, to the tune of 1.2 million a year in Canada and the U.S. alone. This fact, in and of itself, proves no link to radical pro-choicers bumping off women who choose to keep their babies, especially since most murderers of women are men.

A pregnant woman's life is more precious than a non-pregnant one's only inasmuch as to kill her, kills two rather than one. Both are precious, of course. But I reiterate, your fact above does not prove conspiracy.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-07-22 7:24:43 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.