July 13, 2008
Suzanne, on About the strategy:
The point about contacting the GG isn’t just to get her to change her mind. The point is to also create news to show that the abortion issue isn’t dead. We managed to reawaken the abortion debate. If we hadn’t reacted massively, Maclean’s would not have published an article calling for an abortion debate.
I think their PR strategy was a success in their little elitist world. We managed to do what the feminists fear: re-open the abortion debate.
________________________________
Karen Meyer on About the strategy:
I agree that those who decide who is worthy of the Order of Canada don’t care what we think. All this tells me is that the Order of Canada is not worthy of anyone who works to make Canada a better country! The silver lining to this cloud is that it brings abortion to the front pages again. It puts the lie to the assertion that the issue is “settled” and that there is “peace” in Canada over it.
________________________________
Stan Siok on About the strategy:
It is easy to get discouraged by someone’s boasting or by some poll result. David Warren is suffering the same see: http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/opinion/story.html?id=8d8634f7-4b2d-4847-8e5b-be440ce5c2ec
They may boast, but I’m sure they didn’t expect this type of reaction with all these editorials and letters to the editor. Me thinks their Canada Day announcement strategy backfired more than a bit. So only 400 people showed up for a demonstration…how much lead time was there and how many were away on holidays? …BTW did you see those RCMP officers posing with the teens carrying anti “Morgentaler Order” signs (see http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jul/08070901.html). I wonder on whose side they’re on.
Regarding that ipso reed poll…I still have to see the wording of the question.
Unlike your post and David Warren’s article, I see that things are different this time. I believe a lot of people are starting to wake up. I see no reason to be discouraged. As indicated in 4mycanada, we’re in for the long haul.
________________________________
Suzanne, on Hawks and abortion:
The bar for a “just war” is very high. And not only is there a theory about whether a war is justified, there is also a body of beliefs on how wars should be carried out. For instance, if you do not make every effort to win a war as soon as possible, that can be considered immoral. In World War II, western economies were put on a war footing– EVERYTHING was done to win a war. In the early 21st century, we’re not doing everything to win wars– not with the same degree of effort as in World War II. That tells me we’re not doing everything we can to defeat the enemy. We’re allowing conflict to drag on, when we’re perfectly capable of defeating the enemy. We defeated Hitler, and he was far more powerful than the Taliban or the Iraqis.
________________________________
Frank Ruffolo, on Hawks and abortion:
Between 45 million and 50 million abortions have taken place in the U.S. alone since Roe versus Wade legalized abortion in America in 1973.
Take into account all the other countries in the world where abortions are being carried out and the numbers are staggering beyond our wildest imaginations.
It would be very safe to say that there have been far more casualties to abortions in the 20th Century and the beginnings of the 21th Century than there were civilian and armed forces casualties in the first Two World Wars put together.
________________________________
Marysia, on Hawks and abortion:
Standing against all forms of violence is not “extreme”–isn’t that what it means to respect the innate value of all lives? Different forms of violence may pose somewhat different issues, but they are alike in that they justify themselves with quite similar psychological dynamics of dehumanization.
Can a pro-lifer pick and choose which lives are worth protecting from death–*and* (an indispensible “and,” or pro-life means little to nothing)–but from all possible injuries and indignities?
Can a pro-lifer’*ever* sit back and say accurately “my work is done because I have helped protect babies in the womb”? I think not.
I think *never.* A pro-lifer, to be worthy of the name, can never regard their work as done.
Why would, for example the lives of pregnant women be less worthy of respect than those of the children they are carrying?
Why would those same kids’ lives be less worthy of protection when they are already-born and their lives and health are threatened by slashes of necessary social programs?
When they are old enough for the state to treat them as cannon fodder?
When they are young adults like the ones in my neighborhood continually threatened by gang and gun violence that the larger society doesn’t care about because the young people in question are poor people of color?
Does the innate value of a life take some mysterious plunge or depreciation immediately following birth, so that abortion is wrong but some other form of violence becomes acceptable, just because a person isn’t an “innocent little fetus” any more?
How can “reverence for life” and protection from violence really mean anything, and really last, if they are not for everyone?
I think the burden of proof is not on pro-lifers who take a pacifist/near-pacifist stance, but on those who, for example, think abortion is wrong but war or social darwinist maternal child health policies are acceptable.
________________________________
John R. Sutherland, on Morgentaler never forced a woman to have an abortion:
Watching this video made my blood run cold.
________________________________
Suzanne A., on Morgentaler never forced a woman to have an abortion:
Vicki Green’s story is one of the saddest, most poignant I have heard or seen. People need to hear (and see) the truth about how poorly Morgentaler treated women. I’m sure that Vicki is not the only woman to have suffered with his poor treatment.
I find it hard to believe that his fight to make abortion legal (or really “not illegal”) was because he is kind-hearted and generous in his views towards women. As Andrea said a little while ago, “Show me an abortionist and I’ll show you a misogynist.” Morgentaler is no hero and certainly no champion of “women’s rights”. I wish that chant would be turned off.
________________________________
Suzanne A., on “Boasting” about their PR strategy:
Nope, I didn’t hear anything either…not even an auto-reply. Guess I’ll just have to keep writing til I hear something. Maybe they have all left the country and gone to some remote island that doesn’t have phone or internet access. 
________________________________
C Jones, on Get writing!:
Great point!
I’m getting on it now and will pass on.
________________________________
Elena Repka, on Get writing!:
According to the Canadian Press, “The Chancellery of Honours has a policy that considers terminating appointments to the Order of Canada if that person “has been convicted of a criminal offence.” Does that not mean that the person who has received the OC would have to commit the crime AFTER he received it? In which case, since he’s committed no crime after receipt - yet - will this be taken seriously? This, by the way, is the argument being used to strip Conrad Black of his award.
________________________________
Ian Gunn, on When truth bites the dust, nobody wins:
I hope that i can express the opinion that henry morgentaler [sic] is an extremely honorable man. When he first came to Canada as a refugee and as newly trained physician he opened his practise in the east end of Montreal where there was a great need. I suppose he gravitated to this community partly through necessity and partially as a result of his socialist beliefs. He honestly saw women who weren’t willing to or were unable to cope with another pregnancy. He also the end result of home remedies. I’m sixty four I actually walked in to an attempt to terminate a pregnancy in a university residence. I’m not ” makin this up’ this young women after dehydrating herself had taken a huge dose of quinine sulfate and then proceeded to drink most of a large bottle of gin while lying in a hot bath. Her overdue period started did she terminate a pregnancy —- who knows. I knew several women” who went to montreal. I also have one friend had child and that worked out also. In this day and age there should’nt be a huge demand for abortions. I was shocked that one hundred thousand abortions are performed in Canada on an annual basis. I asked someone I know who’s twenty something and she said—-” condoms don’t always work and pills are expensive___-I’m not certain Dr. Morgentaler had this in mind however he did have and i agree women must have control of their bodies.
________________________________
Ward, on AIDS, hysteria, and bad health policy:
WHO’s AIDS is being very deceptive and before you go using the AIDS epidemic as fodder for your debates you should read up on how the disease spread on that continent.
To that end Stephanie Nolen wrote a book called “28 Stories of AIDS in Africa”. There’s 1 story for every million people that have been killed by the disease. (That’s almost the entire population of Canada BTW.) It’s not all gay-sex and needles. The biggest barrier to fighting the disease in many countries has been the stigma attached to it and now you want to go ahead and bring those prejudices over here.
To stop educating people on the dangers of unprotected sex would be one of the biggest blunders of western civilization. AIDS a fad?!?!? I can’t think of a more ridiculous statement and to say that education efforts were “Needlessly scaring people who were never at risk to begin with” is so irresponsible - guess what: People lie and cheat and if you’re having sex, married or no, you’re at risk of contracting an STD - period
________________________________
Jeff, on A bit discouraging, what:
The 2nd or 3rd of July, there was a poll on the site of CTV News Net, asking readers to vote whether or not they thought the decision to appoint Morgentaler to the order was right. When I saw it, a strong majority had voted against the appointment. And I do not have the impression that CTV News Net or its watchers are particularly pro-life. However, I did not see the final result.
These polls say very little, in my view. The figures differ. Moreover, I think that a lot of people in this country have never seriously thought about issues like this, and that they are not prepared to answer to the questions they are asked to respond. Further, while in the first days after the announcement of Morgentaler’s appointment the pro-life side seemed the most vociferous, since a few days pro-death seems to have recruited its supporters to raise their voice (which in itself is not wrong). Ontario Premier McGuinty has said he supports the Morgentaler appointment; which is no surprise because already before the last Ontario provincial election this prototype of political correctness, who does not care about the truth but only about how to sell himself, shouted that he believed in “a woman’s right to choose.”
The abortion discussion bears little fruit, at the present time, because those who favour abortion consistently refuse to talk about the life of the embryo. They don’t even mention it in their reactions. They only speak about “the women.” As long as people refuse to see the whole picture, rational discussion is impossible.
________________________________
Frank Ruffolo, on Marginalizing us much?:
The crowd the Ottawa Sun describes as geriatric got to be that way because there was no abortion on demand when they were born. Canada’s over one hundred thousand aborted unborn baby children annually should be so lucky.
Mind you if certain Members of Parliament get their way with the so called euthanasia bill being introduced by the Bloc MP even the geriatric crowd has to become concerned in Canada.
That young woman mentioned in your blog is absolutely right because abortion has hurt many Canadians from coast to coast to coast including the close to three million aborted unborn baby children over the past 25 years or so.
God Bless those brave souls who did participate in the protest in front of the GG’s office in Ottawa yesterday. At least some Canadians care enough about the tremendous tragedy of abortions to take time from their personal lives to show their disgust with abortion and the recent Order of Canada award.
________________________________
Amalthea, on Marginalizing us much?:
I don’t know whether to laugh or be frustrated. I will settle on being frustrated, because I know too many people who believe what they read in the media.
________________________________
MJ, on Might you consider revoking the award?:
I was there too. I had thought closer to 1000 myself. Who knows…But it is true you can usually double what the news reports…don’t you find? Chanting something might have been more lively but I guess there was no one there to really hear it anyway. GG being away and all. Though I guess it would have been a sound byte for the news. I know what you mean about the quiet feeling…tho I am not sure that it was lack of passion, for to show up there out of the way for many, you have to have some deal of passion for the fight. A number of people had to take holiday time to be there (I did). I think maybe “most” people just need someone or some few to get them started in chants or whatever…Take care all.
________________________________
Ricky Martin, on Might you consider revoking the award?:
The media’s silence with regard to this protest is deafening. Quite a contrast to the flurry of stories that circulated immediately after the O.C. announcement.
________________________________
Joseph Blain, on A field trip:
Here is my letter to Gazette about DisOrder in Canada.
Same letter was just forwarded to group you suggested.
To all whom this does concern,
I have been following with dismay the sad decision to give honour in Canada to Henry Morgentaler.
I wish to share my disapproval by including the following letter sent to the Montreal Gazette.
Dear Sir,
I appreciated the article by Henry Aubin on Monday July 7 arguing that the small group behind the promotion of the Order does not seem to be as impartial as Canadians ought to expect.
As you have again invited your readers to comment on the nomination of Henry Morgentaler to the Order of Canada, I must again express my strong disagreement. Despite the findings of the Ipsos Reid Poll, purportedly demonstrating that 65% of Canadians are in favour of honouring Dr. Henry Morgentaler as the leading abortion rights advocate in Canada, other news in the media seems to indicate the contrary.
You mentioned in the same article that members of Madonna House travelled to Ottawa to return the Order of Canada granted to their foundress, Catherine Dougherty, a refugee of the Russian Revolution who came to Canada as Baroness de Hueck, and chose to work with the poor in Toronto, then in Harlem and New York with Catholic Worker foundress, Dorothy Day, before she retired to the Masawaska Valley in Ontario to found Madonna House.
The CBC (Radio –Canada) also just reported that Gerald Finn, former Rector of Moncton University and former Lieutenant Governor of New Brunswick will also return his award. Demonstrators have also been reported outside of the Official Residence of the Governor General.
These actions are not the same as an anonymous poll; anonymous polls are the instruments that have allowed too many Canadian politicians and judges to timidly avoid divisive questions and allow social contradictions to fester and ferment. For unlike some of your readers and reporters who claim that the reproductive rights of women take precedence over all other rights, a well ordered country cannot tolerate a hierarchy or sliding scale of rights. It is fallacy for pro-choice advocates to say that they recognize the importance of inter-uterine life but only in a subsidiary way to the paramount right to choose. This goes back to pre-civil rights logic in the segregation era of Rosa Parks in the United States.
I hope that soon we will soon see a generation of courageous Canadians who do not lack the courage to stand up to the “tough” questions.
________________________________
Suzanne A., on There would be orphanages:
When I read this letter to the editor in yesterday’s Ottawa Citizen, I shook my head in disbelief. It seems that those in favour of abortion can find any reason to think that it is a good thing, or as columnist Barbara Yaffe indicates in her column, a “pragmatic reality”. In what way is doing away with human life “pragmatic”?
To deny children the opportunity to make it out of the womb alive because they might be raised in poverty is a ridiculous idea. How many so-called “wanted” children end up living in poverty through unfortunate life circumstances of their parents, long after those children are conceived and born? We never know what life will throw our way.
This line of thinking ranks up there with Steve Levitt’s legalized-abortion/reduced-crime rate theory put forth in his book “Freakonomics”. (Yes it is ridiculous too.) The thought goes something like “More babies are bad for society, especially those whose futures might be compromised. Let’s not give them a future.”
________________________________
michael vickers, on There would be orphanages:
If you think that forcing women to carry unplanned pregnancies to term and then stockpiling the resulting children in orphanages is better than allowing them to have safe medical abortions, I think you might want to remember how well orphanages worked out for kids in saaaay: Ceauşescu’s Romania, Duplessis’ Quebec, or the various countries in Asia and Latin America today where western couples go shopping for a baby of their own, rather than adopt an older, more challenging-to-adopt child in their home countries.
________________________________
Elizabeth, on There would be orphanages:
This has to be one of the most disgusting arguments around. It is on par with Morgentaler’s contention that abortion is responsible for reducing crime rates.
What message does it send to the children of parents who, while letting them live, treat them as if they are unwanted? Having worked in child welfare (in the sole province that thankfully does not have abortion on demand - please show this link if you get a chance: http://thechronicleherald.ca/Canada/1066148.html), this type of attitude affects children. Social workers, academics, teachers etc. treat them as a statistic who will inevitably end up addicted, a criminal, a future client and with their own children in care (unless they are “smart” enough to get an abortion). There are many exceptions, but the dominant theories of practice all speak of “cycles”. I believe it is this type of condescending attitude that helps in validating abortion.
I would have suggested to this woman that she research some of the amazing and talented individuals that grew up in orphanages, foster homes or on the streets. Can we not afford to care for these “unwanted” children? Do we not have the moral stamina as a society to say that all children should feel wanted and our abortion legislation and child welfare policy should reflect this reality?
________________________________
Frank Ruffolo, on There would be orphanages:
With all due respect to this woman’s comments the alternative to an abortion in a clinic she runs is the life of the unborn baby child in an orphanage versus death in an abortion clinic.
The late founder of Wendy’s Hamburger Chain Dave Thomas was an orphan who built a hamburger empire that even ended up buying a Canadian institution and donut empire by the name of Tim Horton’s Donuts at the cost of $550,000,000.
Dave Thomas wrote a wonderful simple insightful account of his life story in a book that I would highly recommend and encourage to all in the pro abortion and pro life movement to read very carefully.
Dave humbly and simply wrote about the secrets of his success in life which included giving back to the community. Dave you see was a great supporter of orphans and orphanages throughout his entire life.
Life gives endless opportunities and possibilities that an abortion will never give to an unborn baby child in his or her mother’s womb.
A more recent story that bears repeating is about Toronto Maple Leaf Justin Pogge who won a world junior hockey championship as the goalie for Team Canada Juniors a few years ago posting a 7-0 record as the winning netminder in that world championship.
Justin Pogge’s life story wasn’t all peaches and roses. Press accounts from a few years ago tell the story of Justin’s mother who was abandoned by the father while pregnant with Justin just before she was to marry him.
In desperation she had climbed on a bridge and was ready to jump to give up her life over the situation she was in. While she was on that bridge something compelled her not to jump off that bridge that fateful night.
Although she did have a very difficult life raising Justin he went on to become one of the top draft picks in the annual NHL hockey draft held each June, and now has a very bright future with the Toronto Maple Leaf Hockey Club.
Abortion not only kills that unborn baby child but it also kills all the future possibilities of that human baby child who turn out to be a future Prime Minister or a future doctor or researcher that finds the cure to cancer or endless other incurable diseases.
Or as this story points out that unborn baby child or orphan can become a future hamburger and donut empire owner and philanthropist or a future NHL player who won a World Junior Hockey Champion for Team Canada as the winning netminder posting a perfect 7-0 record that’s never been down before.
And of course didn’t Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta who knew a thing or two about suffering in this world had orphanages who took care of abandoned children once even telling the world media if someone wants to abort their child she said, “Give it to me I will take care of it.”
________________________________
michael vickers, on For the record…:
You say that Dr. Morgentaler should have been fighting for a new law regulating abortion.
But I would imagine that his response, and really the response of any doctor, is that apart from the general regulations requiring a demonstration of basic competence for physicians, our society accepts that doctors have the knowledge, experience and right to treat their patients in what they deem to be the most appropriate manner, and that it would be unacceptable for governments to dictate what procedures they can or cannot perform.
Besides, who are you trying to kid, you don’t want a law to regulate abortion — not after so many weeks, or only in the event the mother’s life is in danger, etc. — you simply want to outlaw it.
So, if it’s a new law you want, it’s not up to Henry Morgentaler and the pro-choice community to get it for you.
And you’re wrong about what Canadians want. The latest Angus Reid poll (June 2008) shows that just shy of a majority of Canadians (49%) think abortion should be legal under any circumstances, while only 5% think, like you presumably, that abortion should be illegal in all circumstances.
________________________________
michael vickers, on A callous sort of Canada:
For once I can agree with you on something. Yes, Canada is a callous place, and growing ever more callous with each passing day.
But it’s not the people like Henry Morgentaler, who have risked their lives and dedicated their careers to providing women with a necessary medical service who are the misogynists, it’s the right-wingers, dare I say, the Western Standard-readin’ and writin’ cabal who are tearing at the social safety net for women, children and families as fast as they can, for the sake of cheap political points, who are the TRUE misogynists.
It is a tired old refrain, I know, but still true, that it seems like you anti-choice folks, who are so quick to stand up for the rights of a fetus are nowhere to be seen once the CHILD is born.
Instead you and your ilk are cutting social assistance benefits that many of these mothers and their children rely on, forcing them into dubious work for welfare schemes that don’t pay enough to cover their childcare and work expenses, and cutting support for organized non-profit childcare providers so instead they have to leave their kids with the lady up the street who may be as likely as anything else to plunk the kids in front of the TV all day.
As for the poor, befuddled 20-somethings, StatsCan’s own data show that the rates of abortion for them, and all of the age groups for that matter, continue to fall each year.
http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/82-223-XIE/2008000/t008_en.htm
Interestingly enough, almost a third of abortions in 2005 were performed on women 30 and over. Are they foolish, addled wee things too? No, more than likely they already have one or more kids and just don’t want to have any more.
Just as the 20-something who later finds that she cannot have a child may regret having an abortion, in retrospect, so might the 20-something who goes ahead and has the child, only to have to abandon her education, or find that her career gets mommy-tracked, or she has to give up her dream of traveling the world.
In both instances the woman made a choice, and has to deal with the future implications of their choice. But they should be able to have a choice!
Would you really have been able to flit about pursuing your education, living in Berlin and Prague, working as a journalist (I’m gonna guess that Ezra Levant is none too keen on women taking maternity leave), if some old-boy from UCC had gotten you “up the spout” at 15? I think not!
I know several women who ended up in that situation, essentially through date rapes, and though they love their kids dearly, raising a child at that age was certainly not a path they would have freely chosen. And we’re talking 25 years ago now, back then abortion was barely legal, certainly not widely acceptable, so they really had little choice.
Anti-choice propaganda seems to assume that young women are too irresponsible to be allowed to make that choice for themselves. That they cannot know how they will feel in the future if they find they cannot have another pregnancy, or if they have regrets about the pregnancy they ended. But that seems to be selling these young women rather short, doesn’t it?
Just as you might argue that she cannot fully appreciate the regrets she might have in the future about her decision to have an abortion, it’s just as likely that if she carries the pregnancy to term she may later have regrets about all the things that she might have been able to do, but were precluded because of her parenting responsibilities.
________________________________
Suzanne A., on A bit discouraging, what:
Let’s do the math here…there were 1,023 Canadians polled. If they were polled equally among the ten provinces and three territories, that means that fewer than 100 people were polled in each area. That hardly seems significant to me. Maybe I’ll go knocking on doors on my street and take a poll.
Here’s a thought - how many people outside of those who actually give a hoot about the issue of abortion (on both sides of the issue) even know who Henry Morgentaler is? Kind, understanding, tolerant Canadians could hardly think that someone who has actually been nominated for an award could in actual fact be undeserving of said award. I mean, why would we ever want to take something away from someone? We Canadians aren’t like that. (Sorry for the sarcasm but it’s getting wearing…)
________________________________
Ricardo Di Cecca, on She’s lying alone, with her head on the phone…:
For what it is worth, the following is a reply from my MP:
“Hi Ricardo,
There are provisions in the Constitution of the Order of Canada for the Governor General to rescind the award.
http://www.gg.ca/honours/nat-ord/oc/oc-con_e.asp
Other than that, I guess changes to the original legislation that set-up the Order of Canada.”
________________________________
norma, on She’s lying alone, with her head on the phone…:
I saw a rerun of the Steve Paikin interview with Andrea and Professor Somerville. Ladies, you made us proud. I have called the PMO as well as the Gov. General to express my dissatisfaction. I think people need to stop being politically correct and actually own and articulate their truth. Keep up the great work.
________________________________
pearl, on Worrying about a vaccine:
The term crank is vague, but I guess I’m one, since I don’t believe that every shot the man says to should be cheerfully taken.
I won’t bother to go find links to all the cases where people experienced the whole gamut of negatives because the government or industry said something was safe, but it’s even worse when it appears that many of these are very low percentage illness risks to catch or suffer permanent serious effects.
Besides, anything the left are soooo universally gung-ho for is usually bad for individual rights and freedoms, no? I ain’t no friggin’ herd animal, and I’ll decide when to take my own medicine, thx very much.
________________________________
Cynthia Millan, on Worrying about a vaccine:
Cervical cancer is not a contagious disease! Nor is it an epidemic. So why the rush to vaccinate thousands of schoolgirls?
Here are some interesting facts:
1) Merck likes to advertise that Gardasil is necessary since cervical cancer is the 2nd leading cause of deaths from cancer in women, *world-wide*. But in developed countries, the CDC only ranked cervical cancer as 13th in prevalence for all cancers, and 12th in terms of cancer mortalities (2002). In fact, cervical cancer is NOT an epidemic in our country. Largely because we have highly effective screening programs (Pap testing) to detect and treat it early. So exactly why is everyone so hell-bent on pushing the vaccination of little schoolgirls, specifically in the *developed* world?!?
2) Gardasil does not prevent cervical cancer. It does prevent infection from about 70% of the HPV viruses that are thought to be involved in cervical cancer. And, of course, 75% of sexually active women will be infected with HPV “at some time in their lives”. But 91% of these are cleared by the woman’s own immune system within 2 years of infection! So less than 10% of women infected with HPV ever develop persistent infections. And only a fraction of these persistent infections ever go on to become cervical cancer. Last year the CDC reported that, “fewer than one-100th of 1% of the 108 million US women older than 18 (that’s 0.009%) get cervical cancer. And even fewer die from it.” And this was without an available vaccine!!
3) Pap screening is *highly* effective in detecting cervical cancer. And the disease itself tends to be slow to progress so detection is effective in allowing for the cancer to be treated.
4) The adverse side effects from vaccination should not be shrugged off lightly. They number almost 9000 reports to date, and include not only pain, fever, nausea, dizziness, itching, but also paralysis, Bell’s Palsy, Guillain-Barre Syndrome, seizures, miscarriages and even death. In fact, ONE DEATH PER MONTH is being attributed to the Gardasil vaccine (but not, of course, by Merck).
5) The FDA has published evidence that suggests that getting vaccinated with Gardasil, if you already have the HPV infection, may INCREASE your chances of developing high-grade precancerous lesions by almost 45% !!!! This little fact does not seem to be well-advertised.
6) There is limited data to suggest how long the vaccine is effective, but predictions now are suggesting boosters every 5 years. Can’t you just see the $$ signs floating in the eyes of the Merck shareholders, Planned Parenthood, etc, etc? Especially if they can convince us to start the vaccination program on girls as early/young as possible.
Besides all of these cold, hard facts, there is something decidedly fishy and underhanded about the way the Gardasil vaccine has been bulldozered into our health care system. In Ontario, Dalton McGuinty’s Liberal government has received large cash donations from Merck (the vaccine’s maker). And has it escaped everyone’s notice that Merck is a huge financial supporter for Planned Parenthood, who in turn are promoting the vaccine out the wazoo?
So why has Gardasil been rammed down our throats as a panacea (it’s not - it is only expected to prevent up to 70% of relevant HPV viruses so you still must have routine Pap tests) for a non-existent epidemic? Could it be because it is a drug with a social agenda? Women will now be free to have indiscriminate sex without having to worry about the consequences. Yet another opportunity for the feminists to “free” women from a patriarchal society where it was only men who had this sex-without-strings advantage.
With Gardasil, the pill and abortion, women are free to behave every bit as debased as the low-life men that feminists like to vilify.
________________________________
Julie, on The weekend just can’t come fast enough:
I have seen a few references on your blog about your community’s opposition to transgendered people. I have looked through the categories and past posts and I cannot seem to find a post that explains why.
If you have, could you please direct me towards it? I am curious about your position on this issue and why a transgendered male, for instance, is really just a “manly” woman.
________________________________
Mary Leland MacDonald, on A man always finds a reason:
Abortion is always ugly. Having said that I have to say that I have never personally seen so much traffic on my e-mail inbox as has happened post this abortion provider’s new award. Folks who have never written or called the PM for example are writing and calling the GG. Then reporting it to friends.
To add to the debate over Fr Larre who had the courage to send back his Order of Canada I would like to add this note. A retired Mounted Policeman often writes to us from out west so I plucked up the courage to ask him what he thought of Morgentaler. He said he was a criminal. He did not want to get into the debate as both sides beat each other to death (well the preborn baby gets death for sure) but he did not believe Henry Morgentaler should get the Order of Canada. Strong words to call him a criminal to which he wrote back “To the best of my Knowledge, he has two Criminal Convictions re: the abortion issue. Therefore a Criminal..”
Anyone remember these convictions? Or the time he spent in prison?
________________________________
John R. Sutherland, on Are we starved for leadership?:
What claptrap. If what she said about herself is true, how could she continue to dump on anything that the government proposes by way of change from long-held (and mostly Liberal-initiated) ways of doing things in Ottawa?
________________________________
Rachel, on Whatever you do, never say you’re sorry:
My condolences to you and your favorite aunt for the loss of your beloved uncle. Time is truly a healer.
As far as time and distance go: there are many women who choose abortion when they would love to have kept their babies instead. Many of these women experience regret and sorrow in waves for their entire lives. I believe we as communities should be providing support, health care, child care, housing assistance, educational assistance, and much love to enable any woman who wishes to be a mother, to be one.
I also know many women who are eternally grateful for the option to terminate their pregnancies — women who, years and even decades later, find themselves still glad to have made the choices they did.
Like this woman: Sharon “Ever since, I have been nothing but relieved. I was married another 10 years after the abortion. I’ve never regretted the abortion.”
And this one: Stacey “It was just about four years ago…”
And this one: Stacy “I made peace with my decision 14 years ago and have never felt ashamed.”
And this one: Stef “I’m a Caucasian professional-class woman in my early 40s… I was in my early 20s when I got pregnant…I have never regretted having an abortion and I have never felt that I made a mistake.”
And this one: Stephanie “To this day, several years later, there has not been one single, solitary day that I’ve regretted my decision.”
Those are just a few stories in a row begun at random.