scribblet

El Toro Poo Poo better known as B.ll s.it

Exactly! This initiative has the potention to benefit millions, yet the opposition is attempting to deflect that fact turning into a non issue of abortion rights. They should be ashamed of themselves.

Exactly where did I say I want to roll back changes? Please don't impute words to me, that I never said and don't make assumptions based on your lack of knowledge.

Just adding a letter to the editor from the National Post: Re: A Selective Sense of Morality, Don Martin, April 28. Don Martin points out that in Africa, seven women die for every 1,000 abortions (700/100,000). I lived for 18 months in the sub-Saharan country of Niger, and can attest that safe abortions are the very least of the population's worries. It is unconscionable that anyone would dare stall on health aid when there is so much to do. The latest UNICEF statistics show that one in seven women suffer a maternal death, 167/1,000 children die before reaching the age of five, 27% of infants have low birth weight, and 67% of births lack a skilled attendant. These are much bigger concerns, and abortion would address precious few of them. The low-hanging fruit in saving lives can be obtained by addressing the 36% of children requiring polio vaccine, 93% of children sleeping without malaria protection, and 58% of the population without safe water. In light of these dismal numbers, PM Harper's statement that, frankly, there is not enough money to do all the things we want to do is indisputable and the government's position is rationally sound. +++++ Ottawa.

Obviously I disagree with that. The reason about 50% of the Canadian public disagree with abortion is because they see it as murder, as that of destroying a life therefore it is more important to save that life than giving a woman freedom of choice - choice they see as snuffing out a life. That's a big argument and not one we will likely ever resolve to everyone's satisfaction, we can try and strike a balance by limiting abortion to late term, one I can agree with - IMO 24 weeks maybe 20, but it wouldn't satisfy the right to life crowd. Having said that, it is obviously a wedge issue, one promoted by the opposition, when really IMO it's hard to believe that Canadian electors and taxpayers are up in arms over a generous foreign aid package that doesn't include abortion funding. One would think that reasonable thinking people would be happy with such largesse even if it is only for food and education. In fact, I'd say that this wouldn't even be an issue if the opposition weren't promoting it in order to score political points. Personally, if I were inclined, I'd be on the offensive asking the Liberals why they are so anxious to kill so many kids in Africa. Never mind, over the last 12 months, Ignatieff and company received $7.3 millions in taxpayer funds to promote sending off much more taxpayer money to third world sewers to promote their wedge issues. Maybe they would be better off using that 7.3 million for food, education and birth control.

Not that I'm aware of, not being ' social conservative' I wouldn't really know, but it's not my understanding of the term. However, the issue is of course a political wedge issue, as abortion isn't the main object of funding,but is being used and blown out of proportion by the opposition to score political points. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/In_what_countries_is_abortion_illegal Abortion illegal in all circumstances or permitted only to save a woman's life. South America: Brazil, Colombia, Chile, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Venezuela, Sub-Saharan Africa: Angola, Benin, Central African Rep.Chad, Congo, C�te d'Ivoire, Dem. Rep. of Congo, Gabon, Guinea- Bissau, Kenya, Lesotho, Madagascar, Mali, Mauretania, Mauritius, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Somalia, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda. Middle East and North Africa: Afghanistan, Egypt, Iran, Lebanon, Libya, Oman, Sudan ®, Syria, United Arab Emirates, Yemen. Asia and Pacific: Bangladesh, Indonesia, Laos, Myanmar, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Sri Lanka. Europe: Ireland, Malta.

It is still controversial in Canada, the very reason the Liberals took Frank Graves at his word about getting busy making wedges. If you look back you'll see that I am pro-choice, but in many 3rd world countries it is illegal, and neither is it out of step with the U.N. although the Liberals and media try frame it that way. It is logical to concentrate on feeding and educating the people first, with education on family planning and contraception, there will be less of a need for abortion - hopefully. The United Nations Population Fund - paragraph 8.25 states: “In no case should abortion be promoted as a method of family planning. All Governments and relevant intergovernmental and non governmental organizations are urged to strengthen their commitment to women’s health, to deal with the health impact of unsafe abortion as a major public health concern and to reduce the recourse to abortion through expanded and improved family planning services. Prevention of unwanted pregnancies must always be given the highest priority and all attempts should be made to eliminate the need for abortion. Women who have unwanted pregnancies should have ready access to reliable information and compassionate counselling. Any measures or changes related to abortion within the health system can only be determined at the national or local level according to the national legislative process. In circumstances in which abortion is not against the law, such abortion should be safe. In all cases women should have access to quality services for the management of complications arising from abortion. Post abortion counselling, education and family planning services should be offered promptly which will also help to avoid repeat abortions.” and----- Does the UN provide funding for abortion? No. The United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), the main United Nations body involved in population issues, does not support or promote abortion in any country, nor does it provide assistance for abortion services or abortion-related equipment and supplies. It strictly abides by the Programme of Action of the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development, which states that “in no case should abortion be promoted as a method of family planning”. UNFPA works to prevent abortion through family planning, and helps countries to provide services for women suffering from the complications of unsafe abortions.

Isn't this a duplicate thread.. see my response here http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=16286 except that there's nothing bizarre about not funding abortions in countries where it's illegal anyway, and what agenda - oh gee - the one that aims to feed and educate the worst off people who's last thought is about procuring abortions.

LOL and this is an issue that has nothing to do with George Galloway, it's another red herring, and an erroneous one at that LOL Bigoted rhetoric notwithstanding, the bill was opposed, not because of any 'hate' towards gays, but because it would seriously infringe on the rights of freedom of speech and religion.

Guess what again? In many if not most third world countries abortion is illegal and it's controversial everywhere. Were we to fund it in such countries we would be introducing that debate into every country we went with the result that many countries wouldn't participate in the program at all.

Touche

How is a $1.95 per vot subsidy a choice

They need to get rid of the $1.95 voter subsidy, now that`ll put the final nail in the Liberal`s coffin LOL

And this is different to when the Liberals where in power - how LOL

Sounds like a plan to me, but I'm sure the opposition won't vote for it. http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Tories+reintroducing+legislation+limit+political+loans/2961779/story.html cont...

I guess it could be, but I thought it was more along the lines of education and health care for the general population.

And then some, but it does show an inordinate amount of bigotry and incorrect assumptions when describing certain 'friends'. Couching the response (an others) in such distortive Christaphobic terms might make some liberals feel better as they attempt to write off differing opinions or thought patterns as belonging only to 'religious nuts' so I suppose it's easier that than giving serious thought to accurate commentary. Actually, the distortive rhetoric used is more dogma like fanaticism then any I've ever seen used by any religious people. LOL

Nice try, but no cigar, but here we go with the usual one issue homosexual rants which has nothing to do with this subject. It revolves around the border people deeming Galloway to be in contravention of our laws so acted according to the law. Maybe they were wrong, I don't know, but either way it has nothing to do with homosexuality.

I doubt that they were testing anything, maybe they just feel that the money, repulsive as it may be, might be better spent on medical care and nutrition, (you know – actual food ) medical training, sanitation and drug supplies rather than fund abortions, or maybe that’s better than a well fed child. Surely with medical care, contraceptives and family planning education, the need for abortions will be less. The women we are talking about don’t care about the ‘right to choose’ Or various nuanced concerns or what someone elses’s ideology says about their health, they are not western women having numerous options to consider, I kind of think that their main concern is food and medical aid. The U.S. has no reason to be outraged as they avoid funding abortions at home so cannot repudiate us for not wanting to abort as many third-world kids as possible. The optics aren’t good on that one. I’d also bet that even though western women want pro choice for themselves, do you think that Canadians actually believe that abortions for these poverty stricken women are some how going to magically cure their problems !! I’d bet that clean drinking water, basic food and medical care would be what most of us envision as helping these women.

There does seem to be a double standard though, do those who think Anne Coulter should not be allowed to speak, believe that Galloway should be allowed to speak hmmm

LOL another one who thinks free speech is only for him and his opinions

To forward an agenda and political power, for a province which is known for wanting to destroy Canada.

There's an interesting piece this morning. Considering how this all came about, I think the media reporting, at least from one particular source has been pretty disgusting. As a cousin said "She's already paid the piper and she's not been convicted or charged with anything," he said Friday during an emotional interview. excerpted: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/04/18/derrick-snowdy-interview.html

Agreed !!!

"partial birth abortion" does not exist, the D & X procedure is not performed in Canada unless the life of the mother is at stake, even at that, I don't think it is done here at all. Late term abortions are very hard to get too in Canada, if at all. Why would anyone take the right to life away from a mother who might have other children to care for, and want to go on living? A life and death medical decision is between the woman and her doctor !!!