Tuesday, December 30, 2008

Abortion Debate Returns To Parliament

The pro-life caucus in the House of Commons, led by a Conservative MP from Winnipeg Rod Bruinooge, is getting ready for the new session.
The all-party caucus will publicize what it views as inadequate abortion regulation, and push for legislation to restrict abortions, Winnipeg MP Rod Bruinooge said in an interview.
...
Mr. Bruinooge declined to provide details about the membership of the caucus – which he described as “sizable” – on the basis that MPs from other parties fear internal repercussions if their activism is known.

However, Mr. Bruinooge said that his party leader, Prime Minister Stephen Harper, is well aware that he is involved in a campaign to advocate for precisely what Mr. Harper does not want to see – the reopening of the abortion debate.
Actually, the Prime Minister's Office has already responded and its response is typical. The government took the chance to distance itself from the abortion debate, pledging not to support any legislation on abortion. But Stephen Harper shouldn't forget that it's unlikely for him to win yet another election with nearly 170,000 less votes. That radical pro-aborts will never trust him, even if he drags his own wife to the abortion clinic, kicking and screaming. And - that Canada already has a "fis-con" political party leader; his name is Michael Ignatieff and he's far more attractive to all the moderates out there because he doesn't have a Reform/Alliance/NCC past. So he better starts listening to the pro-life, socially Conservative wing of his party.

The Globe And Mail concludes its article by quoting a radical pro-abort Joyce Arthur who claims that "People are happy with the status quo. It's working well." Well, if people are that happy with the status-quo, then I wonder how come Globe And Mail allowed no comments on the story? And, when it comes to the "working well" part - here's how "well" the system actually works:
In Canada in 2008, our citizens have no legal value while in the wombs of their mothers. We are completely alone in the world in this regard.

Most Canadians would agree that you should not be able to remove your kidney and sell it on eBay to the highest bidder. Although it's your body and your kidney, this would not only be a poor bioethical choice, but it is in fact illegal under our laws.

Most Canadians would also agree that an unborn child in the ninth month of gestation, moments away from delivery, should not be eligible for an elective abortion. However, regardless of the fact that this would be an extremely poor bioethical choice, it is in fact legal. As such, Canada has far greater protections for human kidneys than we do for human fetuses.
I understand that radical pro-aborts themselves may be very happy with the status-quo. But, as the polls show - even those Canadians who favor legal abortions believe there should be some legal restrictions to protect the unborn at later stage of the pregnancy.

1 comment:

Clairvaux said...

I have a group on Team Sarah that is payed for by the Susan B. Anthony List. My group is about 1700 people, Catholics for Sarah. As well we have a subgroup named "Team Sarah Pro-Life Coalition." We are action oriented. If you need someone to write emails, we are there for ya. Whatever we can do to help, come on, join, and let us know! My blog here is http://prolifecoalition.blogspot.com