Ontarians: Vote Pro-life

[Epiphany]

This is a reminder that the right to life is the most basic right and we should all vote pro-life.

Pro-Life Group Qualifying Ontario Election Candidates

TORONTO, September 3, 2003 (LifeSiteNews.com) - With the Ontario Election called, Campaign Life Coalition (CLC) Ontario has been busy qualifying candidates on their stand on pro-life issues. CLC Ontario President Mary-Ellen Douglas told LifeSite today that candidate responses to pro-life questionnaires have been coming in steadily for some weeks already.

Douglas encouraged Ontario residents to remember that the right to life is the most important issue in any election since it is the most basic right and needed by the most dependent and helpless members of our society - the unborn. "Vote only for pro-life candidates," said Douglas.

She noted that none of the main three provincial political parties were pro-life and the only pro-life Party is the Family Coalition Party, which was not yet won a seat in the legislature. CLC's election strategy is to encourage voters to vote for the candidate in their riding who is pro-life, regardless of party affiliation.

Check back with LifeSite and The Interim newspaper for updates as to the responses from candidates

[westcoast99]

Keep religious fanaticism out of our politics.

Edited August 11, 2015 by Gugsy

[SirRiff]

a cell does not have a 'right' to develop at the expense of human. i dont like abortion at all, but if done humanely, the embryo doesnt even have a nervous system yet or anything that even resembles sentient thought.

thus when you balance all the rights and risks, it would be unethical to force a women to carry to term a child. the fetus cannot be given the same rights as a full human, because it is not a human. it would only endanger women to force them to illegally stop thier pregnancy.

thus the right to control your own body is a necessary right for all humans and am imperfect solution to unwanted pregnancies.

SirRiff

[westcoast99]

It's a never ending debate.

Edited August 11, 2015 by Gugsy

[Neal.F.]

Gugsy, I'm going to make the point here that though it is the religious community that is in the forefront of the pro-life movement, it is NOT a religious issue. It comes down to the most basic of all human rights, the right to life.

By allowing people to arbitrarily take the lives of the unborn, you have opened the door for the decision to be made that others lives can also be arbitrarily ended. I think the next target of this utilitarian society will be the disabled or the elderly. Euthanasia is the beginning. It is packaged in "humane" sounding window dressing, but the case of Terri Schiavo down in Florida is just one case in point that shows the direction this could take.

Your position, frankly, is one that advocates irresponsibility, and making others pay the consequences of one's actions. With fatal consequnces to the innocent victim.

But as I said, by allowing abortion we have cut out the underpinnings of the basic right to life, a right, which , because of the permissability of abortion, we no longer have.

SirRiff, your statement is the most vulgar and repulsive one on abortion I've ever seen on the subject.

You argue that there is a HUMANE way to murder someone? The Nazis would probably argue that the gas chambers were a quick and humane way to dispatch Jews and Poles. The life begins at the moment of conception, and people need to take responsibility for their actions. Abortion is the ultimate form of abdication of responsibility.

Look when two people jump in the sack, they know the risk of pregnancy is there, and both should be prepared to take responsibility for their actions. They know in advance the possible outcome. Maybe people would think twice, and we'd have a less promiscuous (and the diseases that go with promiscuity) society.

Epiphany is absolutely correct in posting what she did. For many people, knowing their candidates position on abortion is very important, and she pointed out where we can get that information.