Fetus Fetishist Watch

[k'in]

Isn't it creepy how many of the Liberal fetus fetishists are located in the Toronto area?

Yes, many of them have been skulking about the HOC before Stockwell "Dinosaur" Day, so they must give good constituency work or imcumbancy has its advantages or something I just don't get...

With tonight's Ipsos-Reid poll showing the NDP polling at 24%/second nationally and building momentum (yes!) I'm wondering about a couple of things:

1)  What if Steve ends up getting a handful of seats short of a majority? Remember that Emerson guy from B.C. that showed up on "swearing in" day elected as a Liberal but got sworn in as a Conservative cabinet minister?  Sure it was constitutionally legal, but it reeked as crass opportunism.  Can't blame the people who voted for him to be really peeved, if not turned off electoral politics forever.

So, what if Steve offers some Liberals the same sort of deal i.e. Dan McTeague - Cabinet of State for Gas Price Monitoring & Panty-Sniffing?  Remember that these 416 area code Liberals have been eternally banished to the back-benches/taken for granted.  Will any of them take the bait?

2) What if the NDP get a higher percentage of the popular vote but less seats than the Liberals in a Conservative minority that can't hold the confidence of the House?  Wouldn't Jack be in a more politically (to the electorate) palatable position to appeal to the GG that he (not Iggy) get a chance to lead government?

[Croghan27]

I went to another blog, one called, Ranting For Sanity, that seemed to me to rather civilized. The blogger is pro-abolution of abortion, but not of the rant and rave variety. That being said, most of the commenters are seriously fetishists.
 
As they were making comments about their position, I slipped in one about controlling women's bodies .....
 
HOLY COWs - the bee's hive has been stepped on .... firey reposnses saying that even if they want to direct the behaviour of women, they do not want to control them.   
 
Such a shame - I thought a sane and unemotional discussion would be helpful.

[Antonia]

Thanks for the link Croggie. I too got in there.

[Toedancer]

And I thought the Age of Political Enlightenment Was Over. Natural Law has finally been observed in India re: abortion

In a significant decision, the Punjab and Haryana High Court last week ruled that the right to abort a pregnancy in a marriage rests with the wife and not husband.

“A woman is not a machine in which raw material is put and a finished product comes out. She should be mentally prepared to conceive, continue the same and give birth to a child. The unwanted pregnancy would naturally affect the mental health of the pregnant woman…” said the court.....http://www.thehindu.com/health/policy-and-issues/article2892441.ece

[Antonia]

 

[Holly Stick]

Government Free VJJ

Let’s make a uterus or VJJ for each male rep in congress!
If they have their own, they can leave ours alone!

http://www.governmentfreevjj.com/ 

[Toedancer]

 

[Toedancer]

Oh good gawd, the extremists are on Parl. Hill with their baby dolls. Ugh.


RAPTURE THEM, MAKE ROOM FOR ALLAN HARDING!!

[Toedancer]

  http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/politics/archives/2012/06/20120605-183408.html


Hmm...this could get interesting.

[Toedancer]

The Lead Now petition is almost @ 58,000 sigs!!!!


http://www.leadnow.ca/defend-our-reproductive-rights


And Laurie Hawn is lying about this motion to go to Committee being non-binding.Well they're all lying about everything to do with Motion 312.

[Toedancer]

By a vote of 203 to 91, MPs defeated the motion by Conservative MP Stephen Woodworth instructing parliamentarians to study whether a fetus is a human being before the moment of birth.
But in a surprise development, the vote revealed the deep split among Tory MPs over the issue. Eighty-seven of the 163 Tory MPs supported the motion.
Rona Ambrose, Minister for the Status of Women supported the motion. And the Liberals who supported the motion were:
John McKay, Lawrence MacAulay, Kevin Lamoureux and Jim Karygiannis

[Toedancer]

Rona Ambrose must resign, NOW!


http://www.arcc-cdac.ca/press/ARCC-CDAC-release-sep27-12-english.pdf

[Toedancer]

The decision whether to terminate a pregnancy is essentially a moral decision, a matter of conscience. I do not think there is or can be any dispute about that. The question is: whose conscience? Is the conscience of the woman to be paramount or the conscience of the state? I believe, for the reasons I gave in discussing the right to liberty, that in a free and democratic society it must be the conscience of the individual.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._v._Morgentaler


R. v. Morgentaler was a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada[/size] which held that the abortion[/color][/size] provision in the Criminal Code of Canada[/color][/size] was unconstitutional, as it violated a woman[/color][/size]'s right under section 7[/color][/size] of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms[/color][/size] to security of person[/color][/size]. [/size] Since this ruling, there have been no criminal laws regulating [/size]abortion in Canada[/color]



That was the court's ruling, so why did this even get to the Motion stage, let alone trying to form a Committee. My question is why haven't the progressive poli's move to recognize reproductive rights as human rights? Then no private members bill that deal with human rights would even be allowed. I'm seeing petitions going after Ambrose etc., but those do not get at the meat of the issue. Perhaps petitioning progressive MP's to make reproductive rights human rights is the way to go?

[Toedancer]

CBC *sigh* headline uses the word 'abortion', but did in fact Woodworth say that? *shaking head* I doubt we'll get clarification.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/09/27/pol-motion312-woodworth-when-life-begins.html

[pookie]

The decision whether to terminate a pregnancy is essentially a moral decision, a matter of conscience. I do not think there is or can be any dispute about that. The question is: whose conscience? Is the conscience of the woman to be paramount or the conscience of the state? I believe, for the reasons I gave in discussing the right to liberty, that in a free and democratic society it must be the conscience of the individual.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._v._Morgentaler


R. v. Morgentaler was a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada which held that the abortion provision in the Criminal Code of Canada was unconstitutional, as it violated a woman's right under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to security of person. Since this ruling, there have been no criminal laws regulating abortion in Canada



That was the court's ruling, so why did this even get to the Motion stage, let alone trying to form a Committee. My question is why haven't the progressive poli's move to recognize reproductive rights as human rights? Then no private members bill that deal with human rights would even be allowed. I'm seeing petitions going after Ambrose etc., but those do not get at the meat of the issue. Perhaps petitioning progressive MP's to make reproductive rights human rights is the way to go?

Unfortunately the Supreme Court of Canada did not recognize an absolute right to terminate.  It said that the law in Morgentaler created an "illusory" defence by putting in place too many obstacles to women who might require a therapeutic abortion.  Now, I think the Court today would probably be closer to Justice Bertha Wilson, who argued less from a procedural p.o.v. and more on the basis of principle.  But even she thought that the state, at some point in the pregnancy, acquires a "legitimate interest" in the well-being of the foetus.

As I said to a reporter just today, the law at issue in the motion actually goes much further than mere anti-choice. We HAD an abortion law even though the Criminal Code excluded a "foetus" from the legal category of "human being". The real end-point of this motion is to make the killing of the foetus a homicide.  If the foetus is a "human being", then the intentional killing of it is murder.