Are women in danger of losing their abortion rights?

[YEGmann]

Thus we have a fresh example of a fear spreading story completely fabricated by anti-conservative journalists.

As usual, a serial liberal attempt to create a conservative scandal has been busted.

[Molly]

I give full marks for Planned Parenthood trying to kiss ass though.

As do I. It's not their first stroll through the public relations minefield.

[msj]

Thus we have a fresh example of a fear spreading story completely fabricated by anti-conservative journalists.

As usual, a serial liberal attempt to create a conservative scandal has been busted.

Au contraire, mon frere!

We have a story about alleged "fear spreading" completely fabricated by anti-abortion supporters.

As usual, a serial conservative attempt to create a conspiracy has been busted.

Edited April 22, 2011 by msj

[Molly]

Thus we have a fresh example of a fear spreading story completely fabricated by anti-conservative journalists.

As usual, a serial liberal attempt to create a conservative scandal has been busted.

Whoever would have thought that the honourable member from Saskatoon Humboldt was an anti-Conservative journalist.

[Shady]

Sticking your fingers in your ears and pretending it's not happening won't make it go away Shady.

But it's not happening. Now I realize that this desperate attempt to make this into a national issue is about the only thing the Liberal Party has. But describing this as spreading like a wildfire is complete hyperbole. So is the so-called woman's right to choose. Nobody has the right to choose to kill another human being. Especially without any restrictions or regulations. Especially when everyone's tax dollars goes into providing this almost completely elective procedure.

[msj]

But it's not happening. Now I realize that this desperate attempt to make this into a national issue is about the only thing the Liberal Party has. But describing this as spreading like a wildfire is complete hyperbole. So is the so-called woman's right to choose. Nobody has the right to choose to kill another human being. Especially without any restrictions or regulations. Especially when everyone's tax dollars goes into providing this almost completely elective procedure.

Exactly!

So why shouldn't a Harper majority do everything in it's power to reduce a woman's right to this "elective procedure?"

See Yegmann - it's not a conspiracy at all - it's simply the real politics of abortion - be hush about what they are going to do and, once in power, then quietly de-fund abortion groups and then snowball from there.

Edited April 22, 2011 by msj

[Shady]

Exactly!

So why shouldn't a Harper majority do everything in it's power to reduce a woman's right to this "elective procedure?"

Start with de-funding and move on from there.

Nobody has a right to any medical procedure. I certainly don't have a right to say a heart transplant. I think we're confusing rights with priviledges. On abortion, I don' think there's any really strong movement to outlaw the procedure. Only restrictions related to late-term abortions, and possibly parental notification for girls under 16. That's hardly taking away anyone's so-called right. But unfortunately you have the pro-abortion crowd that likes to demagogue the issue in an attempt to silence and real discussion and debate.

[TimG]

See Yegmann - it's not a conspiracy at all - it's simply the real politics of abortion - be hush about what they are going to do and, once in power, then quietly de-fund abortion groups and then snowball from there.

Yikes. What paranoia. I used to buy into this crap when Paul Martin was around but not anymore. Abortion will remain legal and accessible in this country for the foreseeable future. A few activist groups might lose funding but big friggen deal. Last time I checked there is nothing stopping you from donating to these groups directly (you still get a tax deduction) if that is what you want. Why do you expect the government to do your charatiable donations for you?

[msj]

Nobody has a right to any medical procedure. I certainly don't have a right to say a heart transplant.

Well, I certainly wouldn't want to de-fund your heart transplant.

I think we're confusing rights with priviledges.

I don't think you understand the point of a publicly funded healthcare system.

[TimG]

I don't think you understand the point of a publicly funded healthcare system.

The Federal government has no control over what procedures are funded by provincial governments. You are arguing a red herring.

[Molly]

Only restrictions related to late-term abortions, and possibly parental notification for girls under 16. That's hardly taking away anyone's so-called right.

Just... sticking the extremely unwelcome public nose into ^rivate and personal stuff that's absolutely none of your G-D business.

[msj]

The Federal government has no control over what procedures are funded by provincial governments. You are arguing a red herring.

No they don't have direct control.

But they can de-fund some groups and fund other groups to put pressure on provincial governments.

[YEGmann]

See Yegmann - it's not a conspiracy at all - it's simply the real politics of abortion - be hush about what they are going to do and, once in power, then quietly de-fund abortion groups and then snowball from there.

By promtly editing your post you were reading my mind.

This is exactly a conspiracy approach from your side. Using this logics, government cannot stop funding a single organization without being accused of the "hidden agenda". When the opposition is using conspiracy theories, it is very difficult to argue, because more and more conspiracy arguments pop up. It is like trying to speak to a deaf and blind person.

Then analysing someone's action why not to apply the Occam razor principle? Maybe there is a simpler explanation? Economical? Cost/benefit analysis?

In normal logics one should not prove what does not exist. This is an obligation of accuser to prove that something took place.

The pro-liberal, anti-conservative media along with the opposition are acting just opposite. Throw an accusation without evidence and let conservatives clear themselves.

[TimG]

But they can de-fund some groups and fund other groups to put pressure on provincial governments.

Are you actually arguing that access to abortion in this country depends on federally funded groups? If you are that is absurd. Access to abortion is something controlled entirely by the province.

[Molly]

You say conspiracy theory.... I say clear evidence.

[msj]

By promtly editing your post you were reading my mind.

Nice innuendo there. No, I did not edit my post for any nefarious reason. You sure have a conspiracy filled imagination....

This is exactly a conspiracy approach from your side. Using this logics, government cannot stop funding a single organization without being accused of the "hidden agenda". When the opposition is using conspiracy theories, it is very difficult to argue, because more and more conspiracy arguments pop up. It is like trying to speak to a deaf and blind person.

No, they can scrawl "not" across any funding application they want. However, they have to justify it.

In the Kairos case I actually agree with the government (but not in the method that Oda did it - which was cowardly and clumsy at best). But we do not need to discuss that issue here, now.

We (as in all of us) have been discussing this issue in this thread quite well I think despite people like you trying to shut down discussion with your allegations of people claiming there to be a "hidden agenda."

It's funny how it is you, not me, that tries to deflect, deny and stop debate by crying about such things.

Then analysing someone's action why not to apply the Occam razor principle? Maybe there is a simpler explanation? Economical? Cost/benefit analysis?

In normal logics one should not prove what does not exist. This is an obligation of accuser to prove that something took place.

The pro-liberal, anti-conservative media along with the opposition are acting just opposite. Throw an accusation without evidence and let conservatives clear themselves.

We have already established that PP has not received their funding under normal circumstances (see my response above to keepitsimple about the 3 year contracts).

We have a CPC candidate's own words (Trost's) that have implications.

It's not hard to put 2+2 together when it is all laid out for us.

Edited April 22, 2011 by msj

[YEGmann]

We have a CPC candidate's own words (Trost's) that have implications.

It's not hard to put 2+2 together when it is all laid out for us.

Brad Trost never said his group petitioned the government against the PP funding because of the abortion issue.

There is a first hand evidence that the PP application for funding had nothing to do with the abortion issue. Therefore not providing them with funding (if this is true) has nothing to do with the issue.

Puting 2+2 without looking on the facts on the surface is a clear indication of playing conspiracy game.

[Smallc]

Brad Trost never said his group petitioned the government against the PP funding because of the abortion issue.

Are you serious? That's it, I'm voting NDP.

[YEGmann]

Are you serious? That's it, I'm voting NDP.

If you show the opposite I will change my statement.

[Smallc]

If you show the opposite I will change my statement.

Where was he speaking when he talked about the petition?

Edited April 22, 2011 by Smallc

[msj]

Brad Trost never said his group petitioned the government against the PP funding because of the abortion issue.

There is a first hand evidence that the PP application for funding had nothing to do with the abortion issue. Therefore not providing them with funding (if this is true) has nothing to do with the issue.

Puting 2+2 without looking on the facts on the surface is a clear indication of playing conspiracy game.

We know Brad Trost was bragging about PP not getting the funding.

We know he was bragging about it in the context of abortion.

We know the filing deadline for PP has come and gone.

We know PP is "controversial" primarily because of their abortion stance (as well as birth control).

These are the things we know and these are the things we can interpret as either being very convenient coincidences or a particular direction that some in the government would like to take if a majority is won.

[YEGmann]

Where was he speaking when he talked about the petition?

"Trost spoke at a Saskatchewan Pro-life Association convention in Humboldt on Saturday" April 16.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/trost-under-fire-over-planned-parenthood-remarks-000000423.html

[Keepitsimple]

All the hand-wringers should take their "right to choose" fight to every other Western country - that's right - Sweden, the UK, Germany, France, Italy, etc - where they all have Abortion laws that impose restrictions. Why aren't these countries up in arms about taking away the right to choose? It's because they've all had civilized, adult conversations - they've dealt with it and moved on. We're not allowed to do that here in Canada. The question is not whether the Conservatives will take away a woman's right to abortion.....it's whether Canada will ever join the rest of the civilized world in putting some legislated guidelines in place. Or are we the only "enlightened" country in the free world?

Edited April 22, 2011 by Keepitsimple

[Smallc]

"Trost spoke at a Saskatchewan Pro-life Association convention in Humboldt on Saturday" April 16.

That's right...and you don't think it was in the context of abortion?

[YEGmann]

We know Brad Trost was bragging about PP not getting the funding.

Sure. The guy is happy he's achived his goal. Where is the "abortion issue" here?

We know he was bragging about it in the context of abortion.

No. His own words:

"we used to defund Planned Parenthood, because it has been absolute disgrace that this organization and several others like it have been receiving one penny of Canadian taxpayers' dollars," Trost said.

Where is the "abortion issue" here?

We know the filing deadline for PP has come and gone.

Where is the "abortion issue" here?

We know PP is "controversial" primarily because of their abortion stance (as well as birth control).

We have words of the PP representative from London, Mr. Bell. The PP asked for funding for the business not related the "abortion issue".

These are the things we know and these are the things we can interpret as either being very convenient coincidences or a particular direction that some in the government would like to take if a majority is won.

Every event has many facets. Interpretation based on assumptions that contardict known facts is conspiracy.