Can't really blame the Liberal Party brass for not whipping the vote when a survey of the grass-roots coughs up numbers like these:
In the survey, 52 per cent of Conservative Party voters express strong support for [Bill C-484], while the proportion is lower among New Democratic Party (NDP) voters (47%), Liberals (37%), Greens (34%) and Bloc Québécois supporters (33%).
Got alotta work to do, ladies.
Critics of the bill have stated that it could become a way to restore limits on abortion in Canada because it legally recognizes the existence of the fetus as a victim. However, the survey found that most Canadians disagree with this view.
ReplyDeleteNo kidding most Canadians would disagree because Canadians don't understand the legal definition of personhood.
I don't know if that's the "ladies'" fault or simply our stupid and lazy media not covering the issue properly beyond printing the results of polls that prey on people's ignorance, including the one that prevents them from understanding that this bill WON'T enhance the safety of pregnant women one damn bit.
This is not the proper of use of the law...the fetus fetishists know this, but of course, they continue to lie about that.
Um, that press release is remarkably short on details. When, how many people, who commissioned it, what the question was. You know, like information that could help people assess its credibility.
ReplyDeleteYes, we do have more work to do.
fern hill
http://breadnroses.ca/birthpangs
(Leaving comments at these sorta sites foxes me.)
A lot of work to do ladies. huh
ReplyDeleteSo because it doesn't affect your reproduction personally it doesn't affect you at all?
You have no social perhaps family responsibility to ensure that women are held captive to their reproductive organs?
I'm disappointed.
April, it doesn't effect me nearly as directly as you, right?
ReplyDeleteTell me something. As of today I've seen maybe a half dozen news stories on this, maybe one MSM editorial and exactly two op ed pieces, Zerbs and Kays. Why aren't the many women columnists out there writing on this?
The first words out of the mouth of a Liberal: "You can't blame us ... Ce n'est pas ma faute."
ReplyDeleteBrother. Grow up, eh? Do Liberals have the faintest memory of what it means to lead from the front? Most Canadians appear not to remember them that way, and logic like yours, BCL, would be a big part of the reason.
Skdadl,
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone in the women's movement remember what it means to actually win an argument in the minds of the populace?
C'mon, where have those folks been on this, other than blogging back and forth to one another? Have I missed an uprising or something? They've phoned it in on this issue and it looks like they've been outhustled.
I think this legislation is good for women. Period.
ReplyDeleteGet on board all you sisters out there!
“American homicide victim, Laci Peterson vanished between December 23 and Christmas Eve morning, 2002. She was eight months pregnant at the time. With no clues to go on, police could make no arrest although they kept Scott Peterson, her husband, under surveillance. He had reportedly been having an affair with another woman who herself went public on January 24, 2003. Scott had also taken out a $250,000 insurance policy on his wife prior to her disappearance. Finally, in April 2003, her body and that of her unborn son were washed up on the shore at Richmond, California and Scott was arrested and charged with murder of his wife and child the day the remains were identified, on April 18, 2003.
That's TWO murder counts.
http://diestandard.at/?url=/?id=1204643440723
ReplyDeletextra
and many more. We have been keeping track. You need to get out more.
Perhaps it does affect me more. I have two daughters and any fucker who tries to tell me they have more say over their insides than my daughters do is going to have one hell of a fight on their hands.
Whoopie Scottie got charged with two counts. So that saved Laci how?
And that law protected Cpl. Lauterbach so very well didn't it?
ReplyDeleteMmm hmm, got to get us one of those laws so that pregnant women can be harrassed by the gov't in addition to their regular abusers.
Best not do anything that will actually stem the tide of abuse against pregnant women, but make morons like you - who pay lip service only - feel like something is being done.
Jackass.
There was a recent case in Winnipeg where a young woman's boyfriend had her killed because she didn't want to abort their child. Pregnant women are often at risk of abuse from their partners like the young Winnipeg man and Scott Pederson. These two women and their children to be were specifically targetted because they were pregnant.
ReplyDeleteThat's why we need a law like this. That's the mischief that this law adresses - because pregnant women need to be protected.
The more this bill gets known, the higher public support will become.
This law's not going to prevent that. Sorry, it just won't.
ReplyDeleteYou don't use legislation this way...to lie about what you're really doing by pretending you're doing something else.
The more this bill gets known, the higher public support will become.
Sure...that'll happen when everyone finds out how its supporters are a bunch of dishonest, women-hating, homophobic religious fanatics.
You know what really gets me is that this Big City Liberal man about town can purport to really care that women's voices are not being heard in the media and that women's organizations are not marching in the streets over this.
ReplyDeleteHow convenient to forget that it was the Liberals who began the slaughter of women's organizations in Canada when his Liberal government was in power. How easy to ignore that the Liberal government refused to acknowledge the need for pay equity in the federal civil service, eliminated the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women, and cut the Status of Women Canada's Women's Program by 40 percent.
So now, after Dion's buddy, Harper, has finished the job and removed equality from the mandate of the federal government, taken on that neo-liberal agenda set in place by Mulroney and followed obediently by Chretien and Martin, this Big City mucky-muck needs someone to blame. It might as well be women, eh?
There's some kind of logic in there, I suppose. After all, we all know that white men with power won't assume responsibility when things go wrong.
Now, really, women, it should not surprise any of us that Dion and his ilk are supporters of C-484. They, too, would rather have women pregnant, barefoot, and in the kitchen. They've proven that much over the years. Besides, with women out of the way, they can focus on training the young men to become old boys.
And that's good for Canada, eh?
ROFL!
Yer gettin' Bread 'n Rose'd, BCL.
ReplyDeleteAh, serves you right.
They're all welcome here, TG.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Regina Mom that for the better part of a year what we're witnessing under Dion's watch is a de facto Conservative-Liberal coalition. They call each other names and make faces at each other but the Conservatives could not push their agenda as they have without Liberal support.
ReplyDeleteBill C-484 is a good example. Without Liberal support it could not have passed the first vote in the House of Commons. The Liberals have allowed this thing to become an issue. While a number of the Liberal caucus supported Bill C-484 Dion abstained, probably from force of habit.
Regina Mom: Brava!
ReplyDeleteI remember real Liberals. These guys ... wow. Flaccid, y'know? Mama! It's not my fault! The Conservatives back me into corners! Waaah.
Tawsome group. And the young men among them seem not to have grasped yet that reproduction is an issue for both sexes, not just women.
I believe in women having the right to decide whether to have an abortion. At the same time, I have no difficulty with this law. It will target men like Scott Peterson who was anti-choice. The Winnipeg murder(does anybody know the name of the murdered woman?) sounds like an even more clear-cut case of a psychotic anti-choice mentality.
ReplyDeleteI think we have to be consistent here. Choice means allowing the woman to decide to have or not to have the baby. Many times it's the men who pressure their partners to abort. When they resort to violence they should be dealt with harshly. Scott Pederson is rightly reviled for his outrageous and loathsome actions.
You don't use legislation this way...to lie about what you're really doing by pretending you're doing something else.
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree, the problem is that explaining it cannot be done in a 30 second sound byte.
While I've heard good arguments why this Bill is a piece of crap, the common counter answer is "no it won't" - and people seem satisfied with that..
Ti-guy says "I don't know if that's the "ladies'" fault or simply our stupid and lazy media not covering the issue properly beyond printing the results of polls that prey on people's ignorance..."
ReplyDeleteAs Regina Mom, Reg and Skdadl have pointed out it's the Liberal Party's fault for having allowed this thing to pass first reading in Parliament in the first place.
That's your party ti-guy, in case you forgot.
While I agree, the problem is that explaining it cannot be done in a 30 second sound byte.
ReplyDeleteNo worries. It's in committee now, and we can be thankful that our elected officials understand the purpose of law and have minds that can sustain an argument that takes longer than 30 seconds to elaborate.
...heh. Did I fool anyone?
That's your party ti-guy, in case you forgot.
ReplyDeleteI haven't, since my Liberal MP voted "nay."
What'd your MP do?
Please, people, learn more about this bill.
ReplyDeleteIt does nothing to punish offenders. In Canada, we have concurrent sentencing. We don't sentence someone to two or twenty life sentences.
It does nothing to protect women or fetuses.
All it does is create a weird legal status for fetuses that you can bet your bottom dollar the fetus fetishists will exploit.
Come to http://breadnroses.ca/birthpangs for lots of great links to smart bloggers and other resources.
fern hill
"because pregnant women need to be protected. "
ReplyDeleteAnd how will it do that Craig? If this law existed, that girl in Winnipeg would still be dead. And the two charges would still result in the SAME amount of jail time. In other words, it would have done, and will do, nothing.
Why the bill itself states another crime must have been committed (and proved) before this charge can even be laid.
Ask any of the anti-choice blogger, the real reason for this is a back-door attempt at bestowing legal personhood on a fetus, as a first step in an attempt to re-criminalize abortion.
You are simply wrong, or dishonest. which is it.
"And how will it do that Craig? If this law existed, that girl in Winnipeg would still be dead."
ReplyDeleteThat's what they said about the hate crimes bill. There's already a law on assault, murder, why do we need this bill etc. The answer there and the answer here are the same. Like homosexuals, pregnant women need extra protection from our laws because they are sometimes targetted because of who they are. In the examples I gave, the fact that the woman was targetted was BECAUSE SHE WAS PREGNANT.
That's what they said about the hate crimes bill.
ReplyDeleteThe usual...veer off into a ridiculous comparison to avoid addressing the question.
Like homosexuals, pregnant women need extra protection...
Funny. I've never thought that the people supporting this bill are all that concerned about the safety of the minorities who are targets of hate....most of them in fact are the ones generating the hate to begin with.
Those who are generally concerned about the safety and well-being of pregnant women would do well to stay very far away from the anti-life ('life' here meaning something a bit broader than time spent in the uterus) reactionaries rallying around the issue of the legal status of abortion in Canada.
"I haven't, since my Liberal MP voted "nay.""
ReplyDeleteTi-guy the fact that "your" MP voted nay is neither here nor there. The fact that the Liberal support allowed this Bill to proceed is what matters. Your leader abstained, yet again.
Neither you nor BCL can hide that fact. You can't blame the reactionnaries without blaming a significant portion of the Liberal caucus.
"While a number of the Liberal caucus supported Bill C-484 Dion abstained, probably from force of habit."
ReplyDeleteThat one's good for a laugh.
Tomm
Ti-guy the fact that "your" MP voted nay is neither here nor there. The fact that the Liberal support allowed this Bill to proceed is what matters. Your leader abstained, yet again.
ReplyDeleteIt's very much *here* in terms of how much blame I'm going to take personally from a bunch of Liberal-bashers. The last time I took any direct action that influenced the Liberal party was when I voted.
Who'd you vote for?
Neither you nor BCL can hide that fact. You can't blame the reactionnaries without blaming a significant portion of the Liberal caucus.
So what? Are the reactionaries going woefully under-condemned? If so, I'd say you're slacking off.
Ladies, time to get off your collective behinds - there's work to be done, stop powdering your noses or otherwise wasting precious time. BCL has a point.
ReplyDeleteOnce the fetus has a heartbeat it's a live baby.
ReplyDeleteIf you don't want a baby, don't get pregnant. Here's how ...
Keep your panties on or
Use birth control
I know that for the oh-so weak of flesh liberals the No 1 solution is pretty tough to deal with.
However, even an idiot can take a pill or insist on a condom.
The alternative is ... get pregnant and have a baby. Love and raise or give it to someone who will.
If you happen to have become pregnant due to rape, fine, get the abortion early in the first trimester.
The slightest bit self control and thought can eliminate this insane desire for the right to choose to kill a baby. I believe that all you lefties out there can learn this too.
No ladies here. And women don't need anonymous advice. However, is something preventing the men here from stomping all over an idiot like John West?
ReplyDeleteAh, I see that he just posted shortly before I came along. However, surely all you smart men who are so good at giving advice could explain what is wrong with John West's comment?
ReplyDeleteJohn's right. There's no excuse nowadays to use abortion as back-up birth control.
ReplyDeleteZap, I'm not sure there's any reason a woman should have to give for what the abortion is for.
ReplyDeleteQuestion 1. Do you think Canada's abortion laws need to be changed?
ReplyDeleteQuestion 2. What are Canada's abortion laws?
If you have an opinion on question 1, you should know the answer to question 2.
Do you?