I continue to defend Maurice Vellacott in the face of Liberal histrionics. Yikes. Is there valium available in the House of Commons?
Neville said the comments were “vile” and “completely degrading to women” and demanded the Harper Conservatives reject them. “His comments show an odious attitude toward women,” she said, comparing him to a “Reform party extremist.”
At the same time, I will say this: he had to know his comments would be received this way. We live in an abortion-friendly culture. People by and large think abortion is sad but necessary in some circumstances. Coming out guns ablazin’ with the idea that it constitutes a battery (true) and that the mere presence of the choice does women wrong (true) is all well and good but there were probably a couple of steps that could have come first in nurturing old-school feminists like Anita along. She is living in the 60s, and we need to get her to the 70s, even the 80s, before hitting her with the new millenium.
That said, I’m glad when abortion comes up.
by 
Having looked through the contriversial comments… I think either the reporters have butchered them a bit, or he is just really bad at discussing abortion. The views he was trying to express would be suited to a short essay, but they just can’t be expressed in the one-line soundbite format that modern politics demands. He tried, he failed, and the result was making what was potentially a perfectly good argument sound ridiculous.
He also made the mistake of mentioning breast cancer. He got away with it this time, it appears, but the usual response to that claim is the ritualised waving of papers on both sides by people who have no ability to read them followed by accusations flying each way regarding science distorted for political gain.
The Chinese, who are decidedly pro-abortion, have released a study that proposes a link between breast cancer and abortion. Since the issue isn’t as politically-charged there, the study is worth some attention, IMO.