Bill C484 - Abortions

Alexandra · February 20, 2008

And I hope it opened a few peoples eyes on just how sneakiy this gov't is. Women in particular need to pay attention.,

Which sneaky government are you referring to Margrace, Liberal or Conservative. Which Bill have you read, Steckle's or Epps? Or, did you again just repeat the hyerbolic-manic rantings of your friend, Rita-Remind, the fanatical feminist from that 'other' conservative - liberal hating site?

Read Steckles' and Epp's Bills and then comment on what and who women need to pay attention to. Better yet, ask Rita-Remind for her opinion on BOTH Bills then post her-your comments here. Ignorance is never an excuse is it.

`

scribblet · February 20, 2008

Which sneaky government are you referring to Margrace, Liberal or Conservative. Which Bill have you read, Steckle's or Epps? Or, did you again just repeat the hyerbolic-manic rantings of your friend, Rita-Remind, the fanatical feminist from that 'other' conservative - liberal hating site?
Read Steckles' and Epp's Bills and then comment on what and who women need to pay attention to. Better yet, ask Rita-Remind for her opinion on BOTH Bills then post her-your comments here. Ignorance is never an excuse is it.

`

LOL I just went over there and had a look, couldn't read much without barfing

However, it would behoove people who make such hyberbolic rantings to read Epps website http://www.kenepp.com/issues/insidepage.asp?ID=86 it's quite clear

2. Isn’t this just a backdoor attempt to re-criminalize abortion?
The Unborn Victims of Crime Act has nothing to do with elective abortion. This Bill is totally focused on protecting the choice of a pregnant woman to carry her baby to term and to give her child life. Elective abortion is explicitly excluded. The Bill uses terminology that describes the injury or death of the unborn child during the commission of a crime against the mother. Elective abortion is not a crime in Canada. The Bill goes on with explicit language: excludes consensual abortion. This legislation honors a woman’s ‘right to choose’ to give birth to her baby.

Having commented on that I don't believe it should be a crime unless it is proven that the killer actually did intend to kill the fetus.... I wonder how many pregnant women are killed simply because they are pregnant !

Slim MacSquinty · February 20, 2008

[

QUOTE(Borg @ Feb 19 2008, 11:16 AM)

I see margrace has successfully tossed a grenade in the room and walked away.

Surprized or not - no one has taken her to task - instead they have started blathering about past and present practise and theory.

Well done margrace you have showed your true colours again.

Borg

And I hope it opened a few peoples eyes on just how sneakiy this gov't is. Women in particular need to pay attention.,

The only eye opener is the sneaky way Liberals like you twist the facts to scaremonger! Despite all the skeptical monster theories about Harper from the last two elections, the monster has never materialised. He ain't perfect but he sure isn't scary.

Harper has explicitly stated that he does not beleive in abortion, but he would not impose his beliefs on others. That seems perfectly honest and logical, many folks probably feel exactly the same way.

In the US they have similar laws which allow a perpetrator to be charged for killing both Mother and unborn child, it is well supported by both sides of the abortion argument.

As for abortions they should not be legal beyond the point where the fetus is viable, don't you see it as hypocritical as a society where we spend huge dollars saving premees at the same time we are willing to abort up to the time of birth? I read a comment once that said the fetus is a parasitic virus up to the point of birth, what kind of human being could actually feel that way, it frightens me. I sure could not imagine making the decision to abort a child myself, but I also couldn't imagine telling someone else they could not (within reasonable bounds).

Doctors and health care professionals should be able to serve their patients according to their own beliefs, and many will not perform abortions or not perform late term abortions, that I believe is their right.

myata · February 20, 2008

The monster didn't materialize thanks to the bunch being in a deep minority. Any wrong step and they aren't only defeated by the rest of the parties but will have to kiss goodbye to majority for a long long time.

Even then, they just can't resist kicking the policies they don't like behind the door, when they think nobody's watching (e..g. in Friday afternoon releases), whether death penalty, or gun control.

I'd still like Liberals to state a clear position on the issue to close it once and for all and move forward. Let Harper's bunch play their games, Canadians are smart people and will see through it (they actually do see through it, refusing to hand Conservatives anything but a very narrow minority. The bunch simply can't be trusted).

margrace · February 20, 2008

Which sneaky government are you referring to Margrace, Liberal or Conservative. Which Bill have you read, Steckle's or Epps? Or, did you again just repeat the hyerbolic-manic rantings of your friend, Rita-Remind, the fanatical feminist from that 'other' conservative - liberal hating site?
Read Steckles' and Epp's Bills and then comment on what and who women need to pay attention to. Better yet, ask Rita-Remind for her opinion on BOTH Bills then post her-your comments here. Ignorance is never an excuse is it.

`

Boy ladies another one, this bill must be very dear to someone's heart. Are we getting to close to home

maldon_road · February 20, 2008

Harper has explicitly stated that he does not beleive in abortion, but he would not impose his beliefs on others. That seems perfectly honest and logical, many folks probably feel exactly the same way.
In the US they have similar laws which allow a perpetrator to be charged for killing both Mother and unborn child, it is well supported by both sides of the abortion argument.

As for abortions they should not be legal beyond the point where the fetus is viable, don't you see it as hypocritical as a society where we spend huge dollars saving premees at the same time we are willing to abort up to the time of birth? I read a comment once that said the fetus is a parasitic virus up to the point of birth, what kind of human being could actually feel that way, it frightens me. I sure could not imagine making the decision to abort a child myself, but I also couldn't imagine telling someone else they could not (within reasonable bounds).

Doctors and health care professionals should be able to serve their patients according to their own beliefs, and many will not perform abortions or not perform late term abortions, that I believe is their right.

Good points but not radical enough for the abortion debate. Middle of the roaders get pissed on by both sides.

scribblet · February 20, 2008

Boy ladies another one, this bill must be very dear to someone's heart. Are we getting to close to home

I imagine it would be dear to the heart of families who have lost someone in such a crime.

myata · February 20, 2008

Their personal views on death penalty have already triggerred a change in policy, without any public discussion or parliamentary debate (talk about openness and transparency). Why would we expect anything different from their views on abortion?

scribblet · February 20, 2008

Their personal views on death penalty have already triggerred a change in policy, without any public discussion or parliamentary debate (talk about openness and transparency). Why would we expect anything different from their views on abortion?

By 'they' I assume you mean conservatives. 'They' also include many Liberals who feel the same way. in fact Paul Steckle introduced Bill C-338 last June, a private members bill that, if passed into law, would make abortion illegal after the 20th week of pregnancy. What about Tom Wappel , Joe Comuzzi. Joe Volpe, Pat O'Brien ,Jim Karygiannis for starters.

Any back-bencher can put forward a bill, that's democracy, and many people including the oppositions

maldon_road · February 20, 2008

Any back-bencher can put forward a bill, that's democracy, and many people including the oppositions

And there is nothing sneaky about it as some seem to suggest. Anybody with a web browser can keep track of PMBs.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/common/index.asp?Language=E

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HouseBills/BillsPri...rl=39&Ses=2

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/P...p;DocId=3282003

scribblet · February 20, 2008

And there is nothing sneaky about it as some seem to suggest. Anybody with a web browser can keep track of PMBs.
http://www.parl.gc.ca/common/index.asp?Language=E

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HouseBills/BillsPri...rl=39&Ses=2

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/P...p;DocId=3282003

Yeah, guess it's only 'sneaky' when a conservative does it LOL

margrace · February 20, 2008

Which sneaky government are you referring to Margrace, Liberal or Conservative. Which Bill have you read, Steckle's or Epps? Or, did you again just repeat the hyerbolic-manic rantings of your friend, Rita-Remind, the fanatical feminist from that 'other' conservative - liberal hating site?
Read Steckles' and Epp's Bills and then comment on what and who women need to pay attention to. Better yet, ask Rita-Remind for her opinion on BOTH Bills then post her-your comments here. Ignorance is never an excuse is it.

`

Hi Kathy, old friend, long time no hear, still as disagreable as ever aye. Are you still on CARP?

scribblet · February 21, 2008

Hi Kathy, old friend, long time no hear, still as disagreable as ever aye. Are you still on CARP?

????

just wondering if the only people who are disagreeable are people who have different opinions, or who don't like the idea of all people being equally poor LOL

Edited February 21, 2008 by scriblett

M.Dancer · February 21, 2008

????

Canadian Association of Retired People...

scribblet · February 21, 2008

Canadian Association of Retired People...

Thanks, I knew that, and I think she means this site the 50plus forums. I was just wonder why the personal attack on someone.... :lol:

Edited February 21, 2008 by scriblett

Alexandra · February 21, 2008

Hi Kathy, old friend, long time no hear, still as disagreable as ever aye. Are you still on CARP?

CARP? For Retired Persons? Sorry to disappoint Margrace. There is at least 35 years before retirement in my case. If you choose to ignore the fact that your good buddy, R-Remind is notorious throughout the blogosphere for being more than slightly mad, fine. The woman has been booted from every board except for that liberal-conservative hate site she rants on where even the most militant feminist posters at times take offence at her anti-man vitriol, etc.

Back to the topic. What is your opinion of the Steckle Bill C-338? And, your opinion of the difference between the Steckle and the Epp Bills. Have you read these Bills? If so, which Bill do you think would be more harmful to women with respect to their freedom of choice re abortion? Instead of the one-liner jabs how about discussing why you think the Epp Bill is more 'sneaky' than the Steckle Bill? Will be waiting for your discussion.

`

Drea · February 21, 2008

Isn't Rita on Rabble? She booted ME because I couldn't agree with squeegie kids having a "union". LOL. She said I was too rightwing. :blink: Haven't been on Rabble for yeaars.

50 plus is a nice site but they closed down the political forums because it got too heated for the mods to handle. They weren't as toughskinned as Greg I guess.

The first site I ever visited was Freedominion but they were insanely rightwing. Then I found Rabble, and they were insanely leftwing. Then I found 50 plus but they were too sensitive. Then I found MLW and it's great!

Alexandra... you newbie... have some patience please.

Gawd I hate it when newbies come along and start throwing insults at us oldtimers! Sheesh.

Edited February 22, 2008 by Drea

Alexandra · February 22, 2008

Alexandra... you newbie... have some patience please.
Gawd I hate it when newbies come along and start throwing insults at us oldtimers! Sheesh.

Newbie? July 2006 is considered by you to be a new poster? Speaking of insults. I agree. Insulting one's intelligence should be considered a grievous assault on one's intelligence quotient. Happens quite frequently though when those who claim I.Q.'s of 146 or so appear to lack the necessary means to back up their claim and resort to below average, pedestrian, nattering.

`

Drea · February 22, 2008

left hand side of your post reads "New Member"....

:lol:

Edited February 22, 2008 by Drea

scribblet · February 22, 2008

left hand side of your post reads "New Member"....

errr.... Margrace attacked first and got it wrong LOL

can't believe you're too left wing for rabble, they hate Christians, rita's on rabble too as remind, she was the reason they closed down...

I'd like to hear what the difference is between the two bills, and why only the conservative one is sneaky

margrace · February 22, 2008

Which sneaky government are you referring to Margrace, Liberal or Conservative. Which Bill have you read, Steckle's or Epps? Or, did you again just repeat the hyerbolic-manic rantings of your friend, Rita-Remind, the fanatical feminist from that 'other' conservative - liberal hating site?
Read Steckles' and Epp's Bills and then comment on what and who women need to pay attention to. Better yet, ask Rita-Remind for her opinion on BOTH Bills then post her-your comments here. Ignorance is never an excuse is it.

`

and I believe this was Alexandra's first post on this one

scribblet · February 22, 2008

and I believe this was Alexandra's first post on this one

Okay - so what's your answer to the question on the two bills?

myata · February 23, 2008

My answer would be: both belong in the trash can; but if you ask which one is more dangerous to women's right to control their life, it's definitely the Epp's. Because of the sneaky premise to pull in "fetus life"; because we have no idea (although can make educated guess) where Harper's Conservatives, majority of them, stand on this issue; and finally because they've shown that they won't hesitate to pull through their ideology into policies whenever they have chance, and preferrably without public knowing anything about it.

I do strongly urge Liberal party to hold a vote and state their official position.

scribblet · February 23, 2008

My answer would be: both belong in the trash can; but if you ask which one is more dangerous to women's right to control their life, it's definitely the Epp's. Because of the sneaky premise to pull in "fetus life"; because we have no idea (although can make educated guess) where Harper's Conservatives, majority of them, stand on this issue; and finally because they've shown that they won't hesitate to pull through their ideology into policies whenever they have chance, and preferrably without public knowing anything about it.
I do strongly urge Liberal party to hold a vote and state their official position.

Hardly 'sneaky' when the bill clearly states that abortion is protected, the other bill is trying to stop abortion.

myata · February 23, 2008

You've got it! The other bill states its position very clearly and therefore stands no chance of success. Epp's bill is trying to muddle waters by setting special rules around fetus life. And to exacerbate the matter, Harper's crowd are known to use hidden out of public eye (aka sneaky) tactics to get in their ideology. Two reasons to be more concerned about Epp's bill.

Edited February 23, 2008 by myata