June 22, 2008

Loretta Westin, on We’re all pro-choice now: discuss:

Egan is hardly an objective source of information about ‘who is pro-choice’! She makes her living promoting abortion. (You really can’t point to too many anti-abortion people who aren’t making sacrifices, rather than earning by their activism!)
We need to ask people how many of those polled would like to lose a child by abortion, or a grandchild.
‘A woman’s choice’ is remote and impersonal, and Canadian society is very well suited to not caring terribly about others’ grandchildren.
Unfortunately, society tends to put a great deal of value in the opinion of the masses. That’s what pays. Payment is important.
But the masses are indifferent to reality, do not have the intellectual integrity or the strength of character to live by TRUTH. They cannot be the measure of right or wrong. It has been so throughout history.
(masses defined as simply the majority)

 

________________________________

 

Cynthia Millan, on We’re all pro-choice now: discuss:

Can you say, “talking out of both sides of your mouth”!?!
The online poll indicated that 49% of respondents were supportive of abortion under any and all circumstances. (This, my friends, is an overwhelming majority??).
Carolyn Egan states that the pro-choice support is not surprising. Yet when the exact same poll indicates that 44% feel the public health-care system should only pay for abortions that were medical emergencies, and a further 4% think the health-care system should never fund abortions - well, in this case, “Egan said the numbers surprised her, but that they may not truly reflect people’s thoughts on the issue.”
So — The poll is accurate when it suits your purpose (or when you can misrepresent the numbers to state your case). But when you don’t agree, the poll might not actually reflect people’s thoughts. Right. I get it now. I’ll bet you’ve applied for a position to sit on the Human Rights Tribunal, haven’t you Ms. Egan? Your mind-set would indicate you to be uniquely qualified….

 

________________________________

 

Frank Ruffolo, on We’re all pro-choice now: discuss:

Polls and statistics can be manipulated by the types of questions that are asked and the way in which they are asked. I would have to look at the questions that were asked in this Angus Reid Poll and how they were asked.
I have volunteered my time for one hour each year for the past number of years sponsored annually by Campaign Life Coalition in cities right across Canada at very major street intersections to hold a pro life sign from 2PM to 3PM on a Sunday afternoon.
Based on my personal experiences and observations during this annual campaign from the man and woman on the streets I totally disagree with this Angus Reid Online Poll result stating that 91 per cent of Canadians support abortions under certain conditions
The vast majority of motorists and pedestrians at these intersections are in fact very enthusiastically supportive of this annual campaign on behalf of the right to life of unborn baby children. From my personal yearly experiences only a few motorists and pedestrians at these annual Campaign Life Coalition awareness campaigns have been in favour of abortion and against this annual show of support for the sanctity of life of all unborn baby children.
To get the true pulse of the nation on this very important issue one needs to meet people face to face right on the streets of this nation the way Campaign Life Coalition does every year during their annual awareness campaign.
Politicians love saying the only the poll that counts is on election day. With regards to protecting the life of unborn baby children you need to get out on the streets of this nation and talk to people face to face to get the true pulse of this nation on this very important issue.

 

________________________________

 

Cynthia Millan, on You say tomato…:

Kudos to the name change. “Body literacy and fertility awareness is a good thing!” It’s all about labeling and marketing, after all.
The pro-choice faction understood this years ago when they purposefully adopted the pronoun, “pro” in front of their moniker - to give a positive spin to their group. For the same reason, they (and most mainstream newspapers) insist on referring to us as anti-abortion instead of pro-life. “Anti”, after all, conjures up inherently negative impressions. Names *are* important. Ask any modern-day child named Helga.
At any rate, in the interest of “reproductive health” we have been guilty of giving carte blanche to science and medicine to mess around with our fertility. So the all-natural and non-invasive “body literacy and fertility awareness” is a giant step forward in women’s health. Too bad more physicians do not put it forth as at least one of the options when discussing reproductive issues with their patients. But of course, there is no real money in body literacy and no pharmaceutical company willing to get behind this bandwagon.

 

________________________________

 

Tracey, on I liked Juno too:

I work with many teens who have become pregnant and I believe that we simply this issue way too much. We live in a culture where pregnancy has become separate from marriage and I believe our teens are reflecting this in their decisions to “become pregnant.” I read a good article on this issue by the Institute for American Values which echoed a lot of what I have been thinking about regarding teen pregnancy. Teens will often get pregnant for the same reasons 20-somethings get pregnant. More condoms and/or abstinence education will not change our young people as they need to have real reasons to delay childbearing - reasons such as marriage.

 

________________________________

 

C Jones, on Alice Walker’s daughter writes:

Sorry, that slipped out. Can this be verified? Is this some monstrous hoax? No only was “The Color Purple” a misandrist rework of “fictional history”, but it’s author appears to have abused her daughter? (or are such “Mommy Dearest” confessionals normal among democrat elite’s?). But could that last line be attributed to And the coup de grace?
“Feminism has betrayed an entire generation of women…”

 

________________________________

 

Dena Leichnitz, on England’s abortion rate rises:

Yeah, great going Dawn! Because when you are going to kill your baby, you want to do it as fast as possible. Of course, most women would benefit from a waiting period since most abortions are forced (up to 64%), so by having a longer waiting period women would able to buy time before being forced into doing something against her will. And if a man has to wait so many weeks, he might give up on the whole idea and leave her alone. But let’s not talk about how domestic violence rises when a woman is pregnant. Let’s not talk about the truth about abortionists and how the continually maim women. Yeah, abortion is just so fantastic. A dead baby and a wounded woman.

 

________________________________

 

Cynthia Millan, on The Broad Street pump:

I’ve always wondered how the government (mostly the Liberals and the NDP) could be so hypocritical when it comes to ramming the idea of daycare down our throats. Many years ago the federal government instituted a 5-year “Care and Nurturing Leave” for mothers. This means that mothers can take up to 5 years away from their job (unpaid) when they have children, but can later re-enter the work-force at a job level and pay scale equal to that at which they left. Essentially, it is intended that they don’t suffer (career-wise) from staying home with their kids. It may not be a financial incentive to stay home. But with the guarantee of job re-entry, it is enough to induce many women to take advantage of the benefit.
Ok. So this government-sponsored Care and Nurturing Leave would seem to imply that, 1) the government recognizes that many (most??) women WANT to stay home with their children and be the primary care-giver and, 2) the government does NOT believe that mothers, as primary care-givers for their children, are detrimental to those children.
Well - if the government can specifically aid its *own* workforce of women to stay home with their kids, and it does not believe this is a disservice to those children, then why wouldn’t the government do more to help any and all mothers stay at home if they so choose, rather than to try to make it easier for the children to be farmed out to inexpensive day-care? At least with the $100/month child care benefit, the Conservatives have made overtures. But the opposition parties seem determined to wrench children from their homes (unless, as I mentioned, those homes have a mother who works for the federal government).
Yes - there are women who feel that it is necessary for them to work, either for financial or other reasons. But given a bit of help in the non-daycare direction (income-splitting, dependent children as tax-deductions) a great many more women would choose to be the primary care-giver for their children for as long as possible.
Stay-at-home Moms are not the “Broad Street Pump”. And universal daycare is not the “Dr. John Snow”. Wouldn’t it be nice if our society and our government could see and recognize this truth too? But I suppose telling women it is okay for them to revel in the idea of being a “mom” and supporting them in this role is not considered politically correct. And that’s a shame.

 

________________________________

 

Blaise Alleyne, on Uh-oh:

Lots of people have ripped into this article already. Here’s my take:
http://techdirt.com/articles/20080610/0146101362.shtml

 

________________________________

 

Val T, on AIDS, hysteria, and bad health policy:

Umm… The CDC says HIV is the LEADING cause of death for African-American men ages 35-44.
“Blacks at higher risk for HIV are those
* who are unaware of their partner’s risk factors
* with other STDs (which affect more blacks than any other racial or ethnic group)
* who live in poverty (which is about one quarter [25%] of all blacks) ”
What counts as an epidemic, and why does it matter? This disease is killing my brothers and sisters; So are countless other diseases. I have no answers for how to handle health care, but lets please not re stigmatize this disease as one that only affects high-risk groups, like it’s always someone’s choice to be high risk!

 

________________________________

 

Cynthia Millan, on The next domestic terror threat:

Does anybody else here see the irony in all of this? If Krieber’s statements were published with a single change, referring to Muslims instead of abortion advocates, then you can bet that some Muslim, somewhere, would bring her up on charges to the Human Rights Commission. Or change the subject of her missive, instead, to homosexuals, and once again, someone would successfully bring her up on charges to the HRC. But because her remarks are made with reference to abortion (and presumably against pro-abortion activists), we can expect there to be no fall-out from her comments.
Unfortunate, isn’t it?
Can you imagine what it might do to Dion’s political career if his own wife were the defendant in an ongoing Human Rights Complaint?
Better yet - perhaps this would motivate the government to overhaul the entire Human Rights Commission.
Hmmmm….anyone know the best way to lodge an official human rights complaint?

 

________________________________

 

SUZANNE, on I am woman, watch me spend?:

I have to warn you all: this is part of Status of Women’s agenda to implement obligatory feminism. The plan is to make it legally binding to make all laws and policies in the government comply with feminism. And if they don’t, the “gender equality commissioner” will be legally authorized to force the government to make them feminism-compliant. It’s all part of “gender-based analysis”. We must fight it tooth-and-nail. It’s grossly undemocratic.

 

________________________________

 

Frank Ruffolo, on Abortion survivor will not support Obama:

Although an unbelieving world has great difficulties believing in miracles I would classify what happened to Gianna Jennsen as a miracle that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Gianna Jennsen was a living person. Her life proves that she was and still is a person that has every right to be called a person right from the moment of conception.
It wasn’t a make believe person that was born but a real living human person. The proof is in the pudding as they say. Gianna Jennson is that proof. Thank God the abortionist was not there to abort a living person that has every right in the world to be born in a country whose constitution states every one of its citizens has the right to pursuit of life, liberty and I might add the pursuit of happiness.
If Obama were to revoke the personhood of these types of babies whose personhood would he revoke in the near future. Once political leaders with lots of power to yield go down the slippery slope that the Obama’s of this world even dare to tread let alone seem to be taking more and more these days with reckless abandon it becomes a slippery road of literal black ice as they call it in the winter that will be difficult to stop once this process begins.
Political leaders of all stripes need to start looking at the long term survivability of their nations. Killing the unborn is an incredibly short sighted so called solution that will have drastic and dire future consequences and effects for the growth of populations and future viability of entire societies and countries.
Europe and Canada have very serious declining population demographic problems because of these types of short sighted immoral solutions that have decimated close to 115,000 unborn baby children in their mother’s wombs each year in Canada alone making close to three million since this all began on a more full scale over 20-30 years ago.
The only solution these politicians and political leaders seem to have is to increase the number of immigrants to our countries because we are simply not going to produce enough future doctors, nurses, teachers and all kinds of labourers both skilled and unskilled to do what needs to be done especially to provide all the care and services that the baby boomer generation will require who the oldest in that generation are just now at the oldest end of that boom starting to reach the age of retirement.
The right mix of and numbers of yearly immigration from all over the world is essential to the future well being and growth of the population and employment base for each nation. But Canadians and western nations must encourage their citizens to have more children not less if the future viability of Canada and all these other nations are going to continue to grow and prosper.
When there aren’t enough workers with right type of skills to take care of our future elderly populations which will constitute a rising 30-40 percent in the next ten or so years, what will the solutions that the Obama’s and all future Obama’s and other political leaders of this world going to come up with.
It all starts in the womb where a living breathing human being is born right at conception. It doesn’t get any more personhood than that. Just ask Gianna Jennson.