Anti Abortion Not Dead in Canada

[scribblet]

If you thought the Canadian pro-life movement was all but dead, think again. This isn't going away and gives a new momentum to the MPs who are anti abortion.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/05/08/pol-abortion-march-parliament.html

http://live.cbc.ca/Event/Liveblog_March_for_Life_2013?Page=0

[Guest Kenneth]

Why should it be. Lefties think that when they "win" on an issue the matter is settled and there should be no further challenge to what they consider "right". If that was the case then there should be no "gay rights movement" because Christianity deems it to be a sin, case closed.

[guyser]

If you thought the Canadian pro-life movement was all but dead, think again. This isn't going away and gives a new momentum to the MPs who are anti abortion.

Still dead and will remain so.

They are advocating for a cultural problem, not a rights nor a female thing.

Kind of stupid but they have that right.

[guyser]

If that was the case then there should be no "gay rights movement" because Christianity deems it to be a sin, case closed.

Who gives a flying fig about what christianity thinks?

[Claudius]

It doesn't matter if all the MPs are against abortion. Most were against it or neutral when it went to supreme court - and they ruled a woman has the right.

Nothing's going to change that. We live by rule of law, not rule of democracy believe it or not - and frankly that's the way it should be. Rule of law is why women have the vote and why blacks can vote, why there's no segrigation etc., etc., because the majority (albiet minor) were against these things when they were passed.

Edited May 9, 2013 by Claudius

[The_Squid]

This isn't going away and gives a new momentum to the MPs who are anti abortion.

It certainly won't go away. But momentum? Hardly. Their own leader and PM says that this is a dead issue and shall not be raised. A clear majority still think it should be legal and safe. There is no momentum to change abortion laws in Canada because of a few protestors.

[Guest Kenneth]

Love it when people post these kinds of comments. Do you even understand what you're saying? It was the law to deny blacks and women the right to vote. Some at the time may have thought that it was not fair, but it was the law and it had to be followed. I'm sure there were many at the respective times who thought that "nothing's going to change that". But obviously things did change - and they can change yet again. Public opinion changes for a variety of reason, theoretically Canadians could come to their senses and realize the Marxist post-colonial society that we have now really is unsustainable (which it is) and will seek something new. God knows what Canada will be like in a hundred years - judging by how far we have degenerated in the previous 100 years, I'm glad I'll be dead and gone.

[The_Squid]

Why should it be. Lefties think that when they "win" on an issue the matter is settled and there should be no further challenge to what they consider "right". If that was the case then there should be no "gay rights movement" because Christianity deems it to be a sin, case closed.

You think no one on the "right" of the political spectrum is pro-choice? It is only the social conservative movement that has an issue with abortion being legal.

[The_Squid]

...judging by how far we have degenerated in the previous 100 years...

So what specifically has degenerated this century? Women allowed to vote? Non-Caucasians allowed to vote? You preferred horse-drawn buggies to cars?

Most people think we have progressed in the last century... what is your list of terrible things to have happened?

[Guest Kenneth]

Yeah, social and moral values. And as a matter of fact I do prefer horse-and-buggies to those over-polluting death-machines aka "automobiles". (No, I don't drive, never will.)

[Guest Kenneth]

You think no one on the "right" of the political spectrum is pro-choice? It is only the social conservative movement that has an issue with abortion being legal.

I don't consider libertarians to be "on the right".

[scribblet]

IMO the pro-life movement is using the 'gendercide' issue to gain support as they know most people have a problem with it.

[The_Squid]

I don't consider libertarians to be "on the right".

Fiscal conservatives are not always socially conservative either.

[The_Squid]

IMO the pro-life movement is using the 'gendercide' issue to gain support as they know most people have a problem with it.

They're trying... But it won't work.

[The_Squid]

Yeah, social and moral values. And as a matter of fact I do prefer horse-and-buggies to those over-polluting death-machines aka "automobiles". (No, I don't drive, never will.)

Social and moral values is not specific.

What changes don't you like? Women voting? Women working?

[silver72]

Apparently, there another way for women or couples who don't want to have another child, its called "the angel crib". What it is when the woman goes into hospital to have the child, if for any reason they don't want the child, they can place it in the crib and no questions will be asked. and the child is place in adoption. I've never heard about this before but I was listening to a program and this is done in other countries. The only problem I see is the health records for the child if they do not know the parent or their health issues in their families. Now on the other side of this issue, people who are against abortion aren't really against it because they always say in case of incest or the woman's health they agree with it. Isn't that trying to get it both ways.

[August1991]

Who gives a flying fig about what christianity thinks?

Guyser, Kenneth made a very good point.

The Left - perhaps because it has borrowed the term "progressive" - believes that society only goes in one direction, the direction the Left (currently) believes correct.

----

IMV, the modern, North American, (anglo) atheistic Left is a strange marriage of Lutherans and Irish Catholics. It is surprising that such people believe that systems last forever.

One easily imagines a poster on a forum in 2043 asking: "Who gives a flying fig what Leftist atheists think?"

Edited May 10, 2013 by August1991

[Fletch 27]

Again, its not Anti-Abortion... Its Anti-Sex selection abortion... These objections to this horrible practice, by the Tory backbenchers (I thought these guys were supposed to be muzzled and slapped by Harper..) would be shut down?

We can revert to the Chinese practice of simply drowning the female babies as well.... This is NOT an abortion debate opener... Its simply a moral cause.. Maybe we should allow a darker skinned fetus to be aborted... Hell, Lets let it roll... The cultures we adopted as Canadian must have it right... Heck,, The father should have no say either....

If you thought the Canadian pro-life movement was all but dead, think again. This isn't going away and gives a new momentum to the MPs who are anti abortion.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/05/08/pol-abortion-march-parliament.html

http://live.cbc.ca/Event/Liveblog_March_for_Life_2013?Page=0

[Guest]

If a society gives a woman the right to have an abortion, how can they then tell her that her reasons might cause them to take that right away?

Or, to put it another way, if they can find reasons to force a woman to undergo a pregnancy and medical procedures, how do they find the line where those reasons are no longer valid?

[Fletch 27]

So your ok with sex selective abortion..... Or should there be dialog in parliament on the limitations as proposed by the Tories?

This has NOTHING to do with "Taking away"... Its based on Ethics...

Should we alow the next boat of immigrants to be screened or shot due to intellect or political persuasion? Do we need another Mao-Tse Tung? I thing North America has passed its age of infantsy.. As has Europe...

I have a licence to drive a car.... I have the keys.... Oh please allow me to drive into a school bus stop.... Its my car....

If a society gives a woman the right to have an abortion, how can they then tell her that her reasons might cause them to take that right away?

Or, to put it another way, if they can find reasons to force a woman to undergo a pregnancy and medical procedures, how do they find the line where those reasons are no longer valid?

[BubberMiley]

The Left - perhaps because it has borrowed the term "progressive" - believes that society only goes in one direction, the direction the Left (currently) believes correct.

----

You should come up with more fantastic observations about The Left. They are the most intelligent and insightful posts you've ever made.

[Guest]

So your ok with sex selective abortion..... Or should there be dialog in parliament on the limitations as proposed by the Tories?

This has NOTHING to do with "Taking away"... Its based on Ethics...

Should we alow the next boat of immigrants to be screened or shot due to intellect or political persuasion? Do we need another Mao-Tse Tung? I thing North America has passed its age of infantsy.. As has Europe...

I have a licence to drive a car.... I have the keys.... Oh please allow me to drive into a school bus stop.... Its my car....

Other than your first sentence, you lost me.

As to the first sentence, I'm not okay with denying a woman the right to abort. Her reasons are her own.

Edit> Just to clarify: I have no objections to dialog on any issue.

Edited May 10, 2013 by bcsapper

[Lenny_Bruce]

Anti-Abortion, Not Dead get it?

[Black Dog]

Why should it be. Lefties think that when they "win" on an issue the matter is settled and there should be no further challenge to what they consider "right". If that was the case then there should be no "gay rights movement" because Christianity deems it to be a sin, case closed.

No, leftists think when a wrong is made right, there's no reasons to revisit it. But sure, why not re-open the debate around slavery while we're at it.

[The_Squid]

Someone tell us how anti sex selection legislation would work.... How would it be enforced? Thought-police?