Why it’s Rebecca Walberg, ProWomanProLifer and media superstar. I wondered why Rebecca was not as active blogging, and found out it’s because she’s been writing for multiple Canadian dailies, here, here and here. Remember the little people, Rebecca, remember the little people… and by that I mean us, of course.
Archives for 2008
“Abortion Man”
I’d say this clip is definitely satire. I did not find it funny, but I don’t think it was meant to be. Join the debate. And yes, as Michelle Malkin warns–if you are easily offended, don’t watch.
______________________________
Brigitte adds: Yikes! I, too, think it’s meant to be satire. Awfully bad satire, mind. But they can’t be serious.
Right?
Reuters gets in on pro-life conspiracy
When Life Canada posted billboards that said this: “9 months. The length of time an abortion is allowed in Canada” the pro-abortion extremists went apoplectic. Ads were taken down in some cities, angry letters to editors were written claiming inaccuracy.
Now Reuters is in on that same crazy notion. The conspiracy widens.
CANADA – Abortion has been legal, for any reason at any time up to delivery, since the Supreme Court struck down an anti-abortion law in 1988.
No grazie
The April Italian election featured abortion. The media analysis did not. Read about that here.
Looks like the public can stomach that divisive abortion debate. Is it the pundits who can’t?
Status of Women versus women
There’s women’s views, and then there’s the Status of Women view. If there’s one agency that needs to be defunded pronto it’d be them. I’d argue this by starting simple, with their name. “Status of Women.” Whose status? Which women? And we could move on from there.
(Cross-posted to The Shotgun)
A special kind of biased reporting
Women don’t earn less than men, access to abortion is not about women’s rights, and Bill C-484 is not about abortion. Other than that, I suppose this article is just fine.
________________________
Véronique adds: There is an interesting dichotomy here. In 1928, the Supreme Court decided that women were not “qualified persons” and we look back with righteous indignation: How can “personhood” be so arbitrarily determined? Yet, in the same breath, we condemn Bill C-484 thus reaffirming our right to arbitrarily determine the non-personhood of the fetus. Pushing the irony even further, we can see that the same court — although differently made-up — declared women and fetuses non-persons.
I would like to know what is the moral basis of that argument. What makes arbitrary determinations of personhood and humanity wrong when it comes to women yet right when it comes to fetuses? Is it just that excluding fetuses is easier? More convenient? That’s not much of a moral argument.
Are food and water extraordinary?
Samuel Golubchuk was, as per this piece in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, “at the threshold of multiple organ failure in a Winnipeg intensive care unit.”
The piece describes how “fundamentalist religious beliefs” are propping up his life at the expense of giving the bed to a more needy patient.
An obligation to provide extraordinary care to dying patients, including patients who are minimally responsive, forces one to breach the everyday duty of care, which is to provide the best balance between probable harms and foreseeable benefits. That is why an approach that excludes the option to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining care is unworkable.
I’m not a doctor, but I never thought of food and water as “extraordinary measures.”
_______________________________
Tanya adds: I’m not sure I follow their point about “exploiting the dubious distinction between acts and omissions.”
If withholding food and water (in this case by removing a feeding tube) is simply an omission for which no one can be held liable, why is it called neglect when it is done to a child? It is inevitable that anyone who cannot feed himself will die if no one else feeds him. Seems like a pretty deliberate act to me. But I’m no doctor either.
No decay of the human family here
Quebec is only meeting the increased demand for daycare by half. We have the coveted $7 a day daycare system in place here in this province, and, apparently, we can’t get enough of it. Essentially, we’ve created a monster that can never be quenched. Daycare here is the norm. It’s so normal, that everything else is abnormal. Attempting to illustrate:
Mary to Doris: I’m sending my son to the Big Daycare down the road. Where are you sending your daughter?
Doris to Mary: Oh, I’ll be staying home with her. (or My mother will be watching her 5 days a week.)
Mary to Doris (gasping for breath): What? Aren’t you terrified that she won’t be socialized?
Yes, that’s right. Many in Quebec believe that, if you don’t send your child to daycare, they will be that weird kid who sits in the corner and talks to himself. A fallacious stigma once reserved only for homeschooled children has now attached itself to those kids who spend their early formative years with (brace yourselves) family.
I’d like to be sure my money goes to a black baby, please
That was one donation Planned Parenthood has to regret. Don’t know how much it was for, but will it cover the cost of legal defence in a congressional audit?
I don’t get it
So is she saying that “One Body. One Person. One Count” is not accurate? And where does that leave “My Body, My Choice”? I’m so confused.
_________________________
Tanya adds: In the above link:
Raymond Gravel, a Bloc MP and a priest said he was “uncomfortable” with the bill “because the member putting it forward is part of a pro-life group, the Campaign Life Coalition”
To paraphrase:
Let’s not vote for a bill based on what it is. That would be far too reasonable. Instead, let’s say words like “backdoor attempt” and “conspiracy” and “dangerous” until we’ve sufficiently confused people on a simple issue like C-484.
- « Previous Page
- 1
- …
- 57
- 58
- 59
- 60
- 61
- …
- 93
- Next Page »