It was difficult for me to get through Antonia Zerbisias’ column this morning without retching (Time to batten down the hatches – again):
Pro-life demonstrators have long been on the march in front of Toronto’s abortion clinics.
They pace silently, carrying placards with graphic photos of bloody babies, hoping to dissuade women from entering.
They may be succeeding.
According to Statistics Canada, fewer abortions are being performed and teenage girls are having fewer babies – although in the U.S. the adolescent birth rate is up.
Well, what do you expect in that baby bump-obsessed culture that tracks celebrity girths and births?
The problem is, with the current governments in Washington and Ottawa, which have demonstrably anti-choice elements, the pro-life side now has hope.
That could spell trouble, as a divisive issue such as this could lead, again, to terrorism….
Terrorism? What a pile of shift!
This kind of inflammatory rhetoric is reminiscent of Morgentaler’s comments :
He said he is surprised that the negative reaction to his honour from religious groups "is not more violent that it already is. The negative opinions all come from the usual suspects: the Catholic Church, fundamentalists, women opposed to women’s rights."
Nothing like trying to stir the pot. He almost sounds disappointed.
But back to Antonia.
Her apparent explanation for the current lower abortion rates in Canada is that the pro-life side has somehow influenced young women to either choose to use birth control or have their babies, although she admits that in Canada teenage pregnancies are down too. And this is a bad thing?
And now the pro-life side has ‘hope’ ? And hope could lead to ‘terrorism’ ?
After that she throws in the old "coat hangers and Drano" , which is the pro-choice equivalent of Godwin’s law.
Zerbisias goes on:
..Better we bear our children in shame and poverty than do what many of the men who impregnated us usually do. That is, go on without any consequence to life, womb and independence.
If you think I am kidding check the sorts of comments making the rounds on the blogs – and even on mainstream media sites…
Aha! I thought the Star was sniffing around here yesterday.
Seriously though, this whole argument assumes that women are no better than animals in heat, with no choice but to allow ourselves to be jumped by any fanciful male. The only difference is that animals don’t usually have abortions.
She also assumes that men don’t feel some kind of concern or remorse if an unexpected pregnancy occurs or is terminated. Again, they are just animals.
Zerbisias then tries to discredit Conservative MP Ken Epp’s Bill C-484 which is designed to protect a woman’s right to give birth, by inferring some kind of nefarious scheme to undermine women’s access to abortion:
…He insists that C-484 won’t limit abortion rights, but he might have tipped his true intentions on Tuesday when he questioned the impartiality of Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, who chairs the Order of Canada advisory council. Is he concerned that abortion cases might soon land on her desk, thanks to his bill? You know, the one that – cough, cough – has nothing to do with abortion?
But the Star itself words the quote as follows:
"As far as I’m concerned it is indeed controversial," said Epp, who has a private member’s bill before the House of Commons that would allow criminal charges to be laid in the death or injury of an unborn child when the child’s mother is the victim of a crime.
Epp also questioned the objectivity of Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin as head of the Order of Canada advisory council. "Is she now totally out of impartiality because of the fact she has weighed into this? I am concerned about all of those things," he said.
Sorry, but I fail to see the smoking gun here.
Zerbisias states that C-484 will blow away a "woman’s right to choose". Clearly, she only advocates for women who don’t want to be pregnant.
The women who want to have their babies, but have that right taken away from them by violent crime are the real ones being ‘terrorized’ by the likes of Zerbisias and her myopic view of women’s rights.
* * * *
Update: I think the first comment under Zerbisias’ story makes my point (at 9:11 am) Funny how all the readers seem to agree with Antonia.
Sunday Update: David Warren – How Morgentaler exposed the chasm between elites and the rest of Canada. A column to ponder.
I think this too will fail to do what the liberals have tried, turn people off of PMSH and his govt. Lots of blogs have suggested this was a dirty liberal trick, to again divide and conquer. Ms stmt about more violence ect says it all. Trying to bring back abortion as a wedge issue has instead opened eyes to the fact there is no abortion law in Canada.
However, if libs vote down Epp’s bill, we can then turn it around and say liberals are against pregnant women and their unborn child. We can bring up Green Shift and Jennifer and how they treated her, as evidence liberals hate women. Liberals pick on women etc. The spin works both ways.
Partial birth abortion is getting explained and most are horrified by it.
The GG is going to be blasted no matter what she does now, give or take away the award. Bet she never thought of that.
I truly believe that Bev, the GG and others said, hey, by giving M this award, it will put PMSH in the spotlight and we can say, govt will deny you an abortion.
Internal polls must be very scarry for Dion.
The award itself is getting scrutiny like never before, how selections are made and who makes them are being questioned. Announcing this on Canada Day, when more people would be watching was also a deliberate attempt to get maximum exposure.
Outrage re M is coming from a lot of sources, and abortion is getting discussed but I don’t think in the way the liberals intended. This is not the dark ages anymore, and girls and women are getting smarter, and making better choices.
Now, if the true stats re post abortion stress syndrome, breast cancer, infertility and even the number of deaths resulting from abortion were out there, attitudes would really change.
What other elective surgery do women subject themselves to without proper diagnosis or preop councelling.
What’s really an overt hypocrisy for the Left and Females is that Jack Layton allowed a convicted felon run for the NDP in B.C. just because the criminal was a Homosexual ,then Jack Layton tried to exploit the anti-semite/anti-USA hatred in Ottawa by allowing Maher Arar’s anti-Abortion/Anti-Gay Sunni wife to run for the NDP .
How odd that went Dr.Hook does more Abortions on Female babies than male babies and even Toronto opened a Gender-Abortion clinic about 3 years ago that warns a Parent within the first 4 weeks , there is now a deafening silence from the Pro-Choice females .
and even Toronto opened a Gender-Abortion clinic about 3 years ago that warns a Parent within the first 4 weeks..
Roger, if you have any supporting evidence of that, could you please pass it along? Thanks.
I think this too will fail to do what the liberals have tried, turn people off of PMSH and his govt.
you’re not really dialed in are you maryt?
the recent decima poll suggests that conservative support has dropped to 31% and the largest loss of support is coming from women voters.
i know, polls only count when they contain good news for conservatives.
That is some selective editing there Joanne:
“Not that anybody is calling for terrorist attacks, like when Dr. Garson Romalis was shot in the leg in Vancouver in 1994 or when Dr. Hugh Short of Ancaster, Ont., took a bullet in the arm in 1995 or when Dr. Jack Fainman got hit in the shoulder in Winnipeg in 1997.
These ambushes are far more common in the U.S. – and the suspected shooter is a convicted killer from south of the border – where doctors are assassinated. There, so-called “pro-life” groups cite the Bible as justification for violence.”
That is terrorism:
“1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.”
“Lots of blogs have suggested this was a dirty liberal trick, to again divide and conquer. Ms stmt about more violence ect says it all. Trying to bring back abortion as a wedge issue has instead opened eyes to the fact there is no abortion law in Canada.
However, if libs vote down Epp’s bill, we can then turn it around and say liberals are against pregnant women and their unborn child. We can bring up Green Shift and Jennifer and how they treated her, as evidence liberals hate women.”
Yes, because if a BLOG comes up with a conspiracy theory, it must be true, notwithstanding the complete and utter lack of any evidence to support that theory.
Can you tell me how, exactly, abortion is a wedge issue?
The liberals hate women? Really? Oh I hope the CPC goes with that one. Maybe you can suggest it to Harper when you meet with him this summer.
If the abortion rate has gone down, it is because pregnancy before marriage has become accepted in society. Women are no longer looked down upon if a single parent.
Funny, I don’t know anyone who has had (or wanted) an abortion. Maybe it’s because we took the time to get to know the guy and didn’t sleep with just any loser we met. We had many choices to make along the way before we got pregnant. We CHOSE to use contraception, we CHOSE the guy, we CHOSE to have sex. If a woman does not make wise choices and ends up pregnant, that is a consequence of making a poor choice.
Women have many opportunities to choose whether or not to get pregnant. So, if women are having unwanted pregnancies, are they lazy, stupid, both? There are basically NO reasons in this day and age for women to have unwanted pregancies (unless rape or medical issues).
I would not normally include so much of the article, but this one caught my attention this spring.
Liberal MP, Ujjal Dosanjh, has strong thoughts on one outcome of lack of any abortion laws in Canada. Female Feticide.
The pro-abortionists wanted to honor it, and the face that represents it. Let the debate continue:
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=1fdf2310-c7b5-4f46-a7f1-e6bd2b9f1d48
“Ujjal Dosanjh, and Raminder Dosanjh, The Ottawa Citizen
Published: Friday, April 11, 2008
Sex selection for the purpose of committing female feticide is one of the most heinous acts of violence and hatred inflicted on women. It is a practice rooted in misogyny, and it is a practice that we have spoken out against both in Canada and during travels in India.
While we firmly support a woman’s right to choose as paramount, there is a clear distinction to be drawn between supporting access to safe abortions, which we vigorously defend, and the abortion of fetuses solely to prevent the births of female babies due to biased socio-cultural norms, which we abhor.
The subject of female feticide has garnered attention recently due to the advent of gender ID kits – home tests that allow expectant mothers to privately draw blood samples and send them to DNA testing labs where gender determination can be made as early as six weeks into a pregnancy.
But we believe that the kits present very serious potential for increasing occurrences of female feticide.
Inequalities of power and control between men and women have long resulted in a preference for male children. This preference has led to extreme methods of guaranteeing the births of boys, including feticide. In some instances, after a female is born, she is mistreated, abused, or – in the most tragic situations – murdered simply on the basis of her sex.
…In certain areas of Canada, such as Surrey, B.C., we are beginning to see statistics of similarly skewed gender imbalances – where, for instance, studies show that for every 108 boys there are only 100 girls being born. If nothing is done to curb the practice of female feticide in Canada, this sort of imbalance could become more widespread.
…still today, a clinic operating in Washington State performs early pregnancy gender determination tests, and many Canadian women have been known to cross the border in search of those services. It can be said with a fair degree of certainty that at least some of the clinic’s patrons end up committing feticide.
….In an editorial on April 4 (“Weeding out little girls”) the Citizen criticized our calls (made by Ujjal in an interview with the CBC) for government involvement or regulation of the home gender ID kit industry. While there will always be people who are able to obtain the kits, it is our contention that government regulation could make it difficult for the ID kits to be purchased with the intention of sex selecting. An outright ban of gender ID kits may be unworkable, but given the potential risks of the kits being widely available – and given that they are being used without the supervision of a medical professional – we believe that regulations are in order.
…
The fact is that the practice of female feticide is deep-seated in certain sections of our society and it would require a major shift in attitude to valuing women as equals to be completely eradicated. Still, establishing regulations for the appropriate use of gender ID kits would be a positive step for our government to take. At a minimum, we would like to see public health officials in Canada speaking on this matter and drawing attention to the many risks and the inherent degradation implicit in sex selection.”
this issue transcends party lines folks. My current Liberal MP is leans further to the right than most conservatives I know, and he’s a pro-lifer.
I’m positive that a division exists in the Liberal ranks on this BIG TIME….just as in most issues.
Perhaps the Liberal secret agenda is not as progressive as the public has seen. What IS their real public agenda? Perhaps the CPC should be turning this whole issue back to the Liberals where it started.
Joanne, You raise an interesting point about Beverley MacLachlan and her impartiality or perceived lack of it. I would have thought that being Chief Justice was quite enough for any one person in terms of workload, but the issue of bias is even more relevant.
We’ve just seen Justice Gomery being rapped over the knuckles for his perceived bias against M. Chretien. In the case of the Supremes, and even more so in the case of the Chief Supreme, they must be seen to be completely impartial. According to the Globe, there were two votes against Dr. Morgentaler, one being Kevin Lynch and the other the Deputy Minister on the Council. Chief Justice MacLachlan therefore must have supported Dr. Morgentaler’s award. Will she then recuse herself from any future cases dealing with the viability of fetuses ? I think not, but she certainly should, since there is of course no appeal possible after a Supreme Court decision.
Does anyone know if previous Supremes have involved themselves so actively, or are we breaking completely new ground here ?
No the Libs don’t hate women, they hate (unwanted) unborn babies. They don’t even want to protect WANTED unborn babies. Hmmmm.
The liberals hate women? Really? Oh I hope the CPC goes with that one. Maybe you can suggest it to Harper when you meet with him this summer.
You may dream on. The CPC has accepted that the abortion debate is effectively over. They may not be too happy with it, but the next election will be about carbon taxes.
I think any suggestion of any kind of restriction regarding abortion would have to come from the Pro-life faction of the Liberal party.
Oh, I am with you on that one Moebius.
I just think you need to tell some of Harper’s so-con supporters.
I also think it is funny, and not a little hypocritical, that some of the people who claim there is no “hidden agenda” are also hoping for a majority so that Harper can enact that non-existent agenda. Someone better set them straight on that.
Sure you do Joanne. You complain about the use of abortion as a “wedge issue” against the CPC, but you have no problem with trying to use it as a wedge issue with the LPC.
Somehow I think Moebius’ advice to me applies to you…”you can dream on”.
Sure you do Joanne
Sure I do what?
“I also think it is funny, and not a little hypocritical, that some of the people who claim there is no “hidden agenda” are also hoping for a majority so that Harper can enact that non-existent agenda. Someone better set them straight on that.”
Oh Gayle…yep – get the old “hidden agenda” out – what we hope for with a majority is that the Harper Government can actually get on with the business of running this country instead of having to continually swat the annoying socialist agenda’s of the Left wing opposition parties.
The setting straight is happening right now as Canadians continue to see what a dolt Dion is for suggesting that somehow a carbon tax will be “good for the country”.
And to even suggest that “abortion” is somehow part of a “hidden agenda” is ludicrious Gayle. That boat has floated; that horse has run and the barn door is shut.
You would LOVE to see it brought up again and you and your ilk are trying desperately, once again, to smear the Harper gov’t with your idiotic suggestions that somehow if the Tories get a majority, abortions are part of some dark hidden agenda. Nice try Gayle.
Regardless of what side of the issue you stand on, the fact so much contreversy has occurred over Morgentaler is all the proof need that it was not appropriate for him to be given the Order of Canada.
It was reported today that Maclachlan circumvented the rules in place, that being it must be a unanimous decision, it must be a non-contreversial person, and that person should not have been turned down before.
We know for sure that at least two members voted against, and that Maclachlan took it upon herself to bestow the award anyways.
“Sure I do what?”
“I think any suggestion of any kind of restriction regarding abortion would have to come from the Pro-life faction of the Liberal party.”
I just think you need to tell some of Harper’s so-con supporters.
His “so-con” supporters have every right to be that, as far as I’m concerned. Only the Lib party would prefer all of their “other-opinioned” to disappear. Whether they can influence the type of change they want is another story. The CPC relies enough on non-so-con centre-right votes that it’s unlikely.
I’m hoping the next election will be on carbon taxes AND “the nefarious hidden agenda”. I once voted for a Liberal party that promised to reverse the GST, fix the environment, and end the CP corruption, and look what I got.
AG -And to even suggest that “abortion” is somehow part of a “hidden agenda” is ludicrious Gayle. That boat has floated; that horse has run and the barn door is shut.
Sure AG – and I guess you think no one who votes for Harper wants that issue re-addressed. That must be why people over here have been complaining about how this whole thing is a conspiracy by the liberals to create a “wedge issue”. If there is no disagreement amongst the CPC and their supporters, why would it be a wedge issue?
“His “so-con” supporters have every right to be that, as far as I’m concerned.”
Sigh…when did I say otherwise?
Perhaps it would help if you considered that my first comment, that you quoted, was directed towards someone who claimed the CPC could campaign on a “liberals hate women” platform.
I would also point out that it is not the liberals, or their supporters, who are making hay out of the abortion debate. It is the CPC, and THEIR supporters who are all up in arms. If that fact happens to reflect negatively on the CPC’s position on women’s issues/rights, that is not my fault.
I think they would be crazy to bring up abortion during the election, but if you think there are not some CPC supporters who wish it to be otherwise, or who hope that should Harper win a majority he will not legislate against abortion, you are dreaming.
It is the CPC, and THEIR supporters who are all up in arms.
Interesting. I don’t find myself “all up in arms” about it at all.
I state my opinion, and it’s shared by many conservatives. We are not a collective.
if you think there are not some CPC supporters who wish it to be otherwise, or who hope that should Harper win a majority he will not legislate against abortion, you are dreaming.
Gosh, and some Lib or NDP or Green supporters might wish it to be otherwise as well. A Liberal friend of mine is vehemently anti-abortion, but she still votes for the LPC. A character flaw, I guess.
I hope that when he wins a majority he’ll behave more fiscally responsible than the last two budgets. So what? CPC supporters have brains and varied opinions. Some hope that abortions will be banned, some don’t. The odds of abortion being banned in Canada are less than nil.
I’m mainly annoyed that some people don’t think it’s a legitimate topic of discussion.
Sorry Gayle. I’m not getting your point.
“Sure AG – and I guess you think no one who votes for Harper wants that issue re-addressed”
That would be stupid Gayle – just as I am sure there are some members of the Liberal party (Tom Wappell??) who would also want it.
My point – if you had bothered to understand the context of what I wrote (something that is VERY important to you) you would realize that I was insinuating that you would love if it became a wedge issue – after all, nothing else has worked – might as well raise the old “abortion will be illegal if Harper gets a majority” schtick.
My point – sigh – to make it VERY clear for you – is that the issue WILL NOT be brought back under Harper’s government; as much as you would love it to. Just as there are people who vote conservative that are pro life; there are also people who are pro-choice; as their are in the liberal party.
My point – sigh – to make it VERY clear for you – is that the issue WILL NOT be brought back under Harper’s government; as much as you would love it to.
Thank you, Alberta Girl. That was my point too. Harper would never be that stupid.
Oh I have no doubt it will not be brought back while Harper is in government. I do not believe I suggested otherwise.
I have just been reading here, and elsewhere, about the people who do want it to come back.
I also do not have any doubt that so-cons make up a large part of the CPC base – much larger than any other party.
In any event, this entire discussion began with a comment I made to someone who wants to make the treatment of women an issue in the next election. I was mocking her for that.
Apparently that skipped your collective notice.
Yep – when you lose an arguement – change the channel – that’s our Gayle!!!
Oh dear – AG perhaps you should just read what was written, instead of creating an argument that actually never existed.
I stated from the outset I agreed with Moebius. I never changed that position.
Stop being so desperate.
“Oh, I am with you on that one Moebius.”
“Sigh…when did I say otherwise?”
And Gayle totally misses the point – AGAIN! What you changed from Gayle was your silly theory that Harper is going to revisit the abortion issue because their are supporters who want him too…… silly girl.
“I also do not have any doubt that so-cons make up a large part of the CPC base – much larger than any other party.”
link?
“What you changed from Gayle was your silly theory that Harper is going to revisit the abortion issue because their are supporters who want him too”
Could you quote me, because I am really not sure where you get the idea I said that.
“link?’
I do not have links to my beliefs, thoughts or doubts.
If I had suggested it was a fact, I would link to it.
“I also do not have any doubt that so-cons make up a large part of the CPC base – much larger than any other party.”
comes across as pretty factual to me
so come on gayle, let’s see the break down in numbers…I’m curious.
I personally would suggest that all parties have a rather normal distribution, with extreme members on either side…
That is nice Tori. Perhaps you can take a look at the BT bloggers and the Libloggers and make a comparison.
Whatever you think, I have my thoughts. Believe what you like and I will believe what I like.
come on gayle…whatever happened to backing up your opinion with facts?
or don’t you “do” that anymore?
“That is nice Tori. Perhaps you can take a look at the BT bloggers and the Libloggers and make a comparison.”
I’d certainly do that before making a stupid statement like the one you did above…
“I also do not have any doubt that so-cons make up a large part of the CPC base – much larger than any other party.”
much larger than any other party? that must mean you have some solid numbers, right? Are you going to share them with us, or are you going to pull a dion and defer, saying that we will not trust you?
I have no trouble defending what I say, but I am tired of your little games of “you don’t mean what you say, you mean what I say you say” again Tori.
Have fun playing with yourself.
“Could you quote me, because I am really not sure where you get the idea I said that.”
Gayle – you said – “I also think it is funny, and not a little hypocritical, that some of the people who claim there is no “hidden agenda” are also hoping for a majority so that Harper can enact that non-existent agenda. Someone better set them straight on that.”
And I too would like to see those numbers because I would question that the numbers are all that much larger??
Come one Gayle – Facts and links – after all you can’t demand what you can’t produce.
Yes, well, that is not the same thing as saying
“Harper is going to revisit the abortion issue because their are supporters who want him too…”
In fact, it is not even close. Suggesting supporters want him to revisit this issue is hardly the same thing as saying he will do so.
Nice try though. A stretch, but then that is all you had…
Maybe you need to take another reading comprehension course.
Or, maybe you just need to grow up.
Either works for me, so long as it “works” for you.
Oh Gayle – it’s just kind of laughable seeing you twist things around. Nice try though….
It is obvious that you have twisted yourself into a knot and once again cannot get out so you tell me to “grow up”.
IOW,
gayle can’t.
no big surprise there.
AG – since you are now taking lessons from Tori in the logic department, you deserve the same response:
I have no trouble defending what I say, but I am tired of your little games of “you don’t mean what you say, you mean what I say you say”.
Have fun playing with yourself.
Here’s an Order of Canada I can applaud enthusiastically:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080705/aznavour_oc_080705/20080705?hub=Canada
To choose or not to choose that is the question.
To choose to give life or take life that is the question facing a terrorist. The modern terrorist straps a suicide belt around him with the intent to end as many lives as possible, including his or her own.
The pro life movement has been labeled a terrorist movement by the far left leaning liberals and other left leaning politicians.
Morgentaler has been labeled a hero, deserving the Canada Medal of Honor by the far left and have labeled those in favor of life terrorists.
We live in a confusing world where we label people who don’t agree with us as terrororists. But do they fit the label? The question is to choose life or not to choose life that is the question!
Hamlet had the same kind of question, to be or not to be, that is the question facing each and every human being.
Choice is to choose life or not to choose life when we have that power over another human life, be it our own or another human being. The great and profound question really is, to be or not to be.
Am I going to do away with another human being or am I going to allow this life to continue to live. So many of our decisions are driven by our political decisions and by our belief systems, but when it comes down to the core of it we make choices to enhance our way of thinking and politics.
Morgentaler genuinely believes he is doing a good and noble thing to enhance poor female lives, to be a hero for them he has chosen to do away with human lives that have no value to him or to society at this time.
Pro choice applauds his choice to choose to end lives because of their stubborn belief that he is right on in is his choices.
So do terrorists choose to end innocent lives because they think that they are ending lives that have no value as the lives that they are ending are unbelievers in Islam and worse yet believers in Judaism or Christianity that they believe are of less value than their own belief systems therefore of no consequence to be done away with.
I have seen very few terrorist events in the pro life movement and the ones that have happened have been dealt with by imprisonment.
Comparable is the death toll piled up by a revered abortionist who was recently given his country’s highest medal of honor and the death pile of people that died on 911 by those who made choices to end lives including their own because of their belief systems.
So we are right back at the same old question right at the beginning, to choose life or not to choose life that is the question facing everyone politically ……To be or not to be given choice to live that is the big question facing everyone in this world right now.
Could you quote me, because I am really not sure where you get the idea I said that.
You’re either being willfully dim, or are actually dim.
I’m not sure which. You’re an obvious Liberal apologist, but if that works for you, go for it.
Once again, I’m a CPC supporter, and am not interested in bringing back controls on abortion.
I have seen very few terrorist events in the pro life movement and the ones that have happened have been dealt with by imprisonment.
Sure, if you don’t count shouting abusive language at women entering clinics, and shooting at doctors as terrorism.
“You’re either being willfully dim, or are actually dim.”
Weren’t you the one who complained about ad hominem arguments?
Rather than find a quote where I allegedly said something (that I actually never said), you decided to attack me personally.
You do know that actually proves that I never said that, right?
Thanks for the help.
“Weren’t you the one who complained about ad hominem arguments?”
No, that wasn’t me. I actually enjoy them. I should join the LPC.