The annual March for Life was in Ottawa today, taking over much of Parliament Hill but while these dedicated people called for politicians to change the law, I have to say that if Scheer and Kenney won’t touch this issue, maybe it is time for a change of tactics with less focus on legislation.
Sadly, most Canadians are evil believing it is OK to kill a person in the womb. That includes Scheer and Kenney and all Liberals. What is the difference between Hitler’s extermination camps and Turdeau’s Liberal abortuaries? Nothing. They both kill unwanted people. If there were different levels of evil, Canadians are worse than Hitler’s gang; Canadians kill defenseless children.
Scheer and Kenney are not Conservatives, they are Progressives.
Since the legalization of Euthanasia was Zoolander’s first signature move, it is safe to say that the Medical Industrial Complex, which has historically been the #1 Industry in which killing people is the opposite of their job description BUT where the serial killing of people is actually the most common activity done so that the Medical Industrial Complex reaps the highest benefits, literally, for themselves by lowering the cost of patient care through eliminating patients by KILLING THEM then……….
I can’t think of a more Conservative issue than conserving people’s lives. Really, I can’t.
Are there any real Conservative leaders out there?
are there any real conservatives out there? yes, just one and it is I. i do not lead however because no one in Canada wants to be led by a conservative.
You’re not alone old man, but conservative values have been twisted by progs and neo Marxists. Fiscal prudence means you hate the voters. Making people on welfare look for a job means you hate poor people. Believing in individual rights and freedoms means you hate groups of people and are a misogynist and racist.
true.
Sheer and Kenney. Compromise your values for the sake of political power.
I’d rather not.
They need to attack the radical fringe abortions – late term (partial birth), sex-based and soon genetic – aborting fetuses with the gene fir homosexuality etc. Banning Those types has massive general public appeal and isolated the lawless far-left proponents from the moderates.
Gord – haven’t heard that they’ve found the gene for homosexuality. But they can determine the sex of the wee one. So maybe THAT should be pushed more. In addition, we need to publicize more freely the wonderful video of the man with Down syndrome who addressed Congress:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQJEoRhkapw
That’s why I said “soon”. The day will come and when it does I expect much of the world will eradicate homosexuality in much the same way some nations are eradicating Down’s syndrome.
I’m afraid that won’t work.
Quite simply, Canadians would support abortion if it meant more beer for them and the pro-abortion politicians (and their sex-selection abortion-happy voters) are happy to ignore this issue.
Various MPs have put forward sensible proposals such as banning sex-selection abortions and considering the unborn baby a third party in violence against pregnant women and all have been rejected because the screeching pro-abortion masses were horrified what it would mean to the abortion debate.
Canadians are happy to go extinct.
They can’t say they haven’t been warned.
https://ipolitics.ca/2016/12/11/lemieux-wants-to-ban-sex-selective-abortion/
http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/toronto-killing-reignites-emotional-debate-can-an-unborn-fetus-be-a-murder-victim
only an immoral society would even have a discussion about killing unborn children. the complete lack of morality is the problem and it is not going away.
That, old white guy, is part of the problem.
Gord is right. When there’s only loose general agreement on a topic, you make at least some progress by finding areas where the opposition isn’t united.There are lots of people in general agreement with some abortion who are not on side with the fringe element who believes that it’s right under just about any circumstances. So you look for the wedge which divides them.
As I pointed out to Gord, the pro-abortion powers-that-be simply don’t want to touch this issue at all, even if such measures would appeal to some segment of the population.
It isn’t going to happen overnight but it can. Just look at the progress in some states recently- it took decades of effort but they did it.
How long has this country been without an abortion law?
How many pro-abortion judges have been appointed to courts?
How many censorship motions/laws have been enacted to silence ANY pro-life opinion?
And let’s not forget how peachy-keen Canadians are to have abortions.
No, Gord, “overnight” has long since passed.
I agree. Gord and you are right. Look for a wedge issue that divides them and brings some sanity back to the abortion issue.
Yeah pro-lifers just shut up and stop talking about this issue in public. Surrender immediately because the left has said talking about this is wrong or something. That’s a great plan.
No go for a partial ban – something that can get enough support for legislation to happen. (Divide and conquer)
Likely the toughest issue I’ve discussed with my own daughters…24 – 27.
Seems to me though there would be some apetite to see abortions limited to a set amount of time. 12 weeks seems reasonable.
Personally, I’m pro life. I see ZERO reason with the exception of rape causing conception, for aborting a healthy child…particularly given the numerous couples that cannot conceive & looking to adopt.
Its sheer LAZINESS in my opinion – given the alternatives to becoming pregnant… Yes its your body, but in saying so, you have an obligation to treat said body with respect…that includes not going in for a dust n clean cause you forgot to take your pill. And kindly don’t start with the “guys” should always wear a condom…YOU don’t like it – neither do we.
If not then go buy a dildo…
now: cue the radical feminists.
Media media media. That’s what establishes most Canadians opinions.
If media argued as hard for pro life as they currently do abortion, and vilified abortion like they do pro life, polls would change rather dramatically, and gutless pols like Scheer could pretend to grow a spine.
So maybe Mr Lilley should grow a pair, and castigate the grossly biased media instead.
Ward, that WAS what established essentially all Canadian opinions. But it’s breaking down; the monolith has cracks in it. The clearest evidence are things like SDA and thousands of other such websites. Twenty years ago, would anyone have ever heard of Brian LIlley et. al. if they weren’t working for a major network or national newspaper? No. It’s no longer the only way that news is disseminated en masse. This I suspect is most of the reason why it has become so shrill and doctrinaire. The old MSM is now threatened as never before. That’s what happens to all elites when they first sense they’re losing their grip. It’s happened throughout history; sooner or later La Bastille gets burned to the ground.
And it’s getting shattered on the left as well, as no one who pretends to serious journalism can take something like Daily Kos seriously.
These things take time, as all of the new media have only emerged in any significant way in less than 15 years. I will make a bet right now that the major North American television networks will no longer exist in their current form in less than 20 years. We already see signs of how weak they are. Even now, at least half their weekday programming hours are now devoted to paid programming sales pitches.
Or perhaps not instead, but also. What he wrote in the article wasn’t wrong. “Politics is downstream of culture.” Progressives have influenced our culture to view abortion as not wrong because it’s not killing a human being. Lilley says you can’t counter that politically until you have repaired the culture so that people admit that unborn human beings are human beings and that abortion is a sanitized technical term for killing them.
Osumashi Kinyobe, I respectfully disagree.
My opinion is, that if/when a gene is found that indicates the likelihood of homosexuality, and individuals decide to abort that or those babies, it will galvanise the gay community against this.
Which may bring about legislation not allowing this test to take place, or that restricts abortion based on this test, but that outcome could be 30 years from now, and everything may change by then.
*not a supporter of abortion, not even remotely.
Thanks for putting it better than I did.
There is no gay gene. Homosexuality is caused by sexual abuse in childhood. Nobody is “born that way.”
Besides, Indian and Chinese men routinely force their wives to murder their daughters in the womb. Even knowing that hasn’t changed the minds of the feminists.
They don’t actually care about the welfare of other women. They hate God and hate Christianity, and want His Name blotted out and His Church destroyed at any cost.
And they hate men, whom they believe to all be like the fathers who raped them in childhood. Feminist beliefs are symptoms of sexual abuse of little girls by adult sexual perverts.
Marc, how many imams are freely allowed to spew their hatred against homosexuals because they comprise a valuable voters block?
And there is no gay gene.
Besides, if people can abort their children because they are girls and because having children is exactly like being raped, why would a junk science gene make any difference to Big Abortion, an industry and a religion to the left?
I can’t explain the *hierarchy of rights in Canada, I disagree with the concept entirely, and I did say, “if/when” the gene is discovered, I don’t have a horse in that race, or an opinion on this “science”.
Suppose some enterprising soul could start posting on leftist’s blogs that they want to abort their baby because they’re certain it’ll be gay, but those reactions wouldn’t be scientific either. Only that it may test the resolve of the gays to group together to oppose this. Or it may not. Who knows…
I have no answers to your rhetorical questions, I don’t know how it’ll shake out. Only that I’m certain I’ll disagree with the outcome, and it’ll be the worst outcome for unborn children.
*all the imams are allowed to spew their hatred as they wish. They’re at the top of the heap of gov’t sanctioned rights in Canada.
Why is there a “hierarchy of rights”?
As old white guy put it, it is immoral to dither the fate of those who cannot fight back.
I think both the Parliament and courts approve of the hierarchy of rights, some people are more important or have more valid claims to rights than others, based upon color, race, religion or sexual orientation…
It isn’t only my observation. And I certainly don’t agree with this, nor disagree with “old white guy” observations. Those that cannot fight back, need the most protection.
see also:
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/2017/08/shhh-not-here.html
Where does the abortion issue rank for you vs other issues.
Would you support a candidate that was anti abortion but had a view counter yours on the following issues.
man made climate change, gun rights, and / or migration?
1.8 billion defenceless, innocent unborn have been murdered.
Who’s responsible: Muslims or non-Muslims?
1.8 Billion?! With a B?!
Where did that stat come from?
I00,00 a year in Canada alone…you do the math.
Yay another number without a source or citation!
http://www.numberofabortions.com
Thanks Rizwan
Lone Ranger is also right in the sense that the kill bar is being lowered yet again with the euthanasia issue.
I have read how native Hawaiians and Aztecs and Celts all practised human sacrifice to appease their gods. And of course we are all shocked and appalled at this cruelty and cold bloodedness and congratulate ourselves at how civilized we are now.
ABORTION IS HUMAN SACRIFICE.
Ask a pro-choicer if they are in favour of human sacrifice!
immoral people do immoral acts.
Pro-lifers have to improve their communications strategy. Being “anti” anything is not persuasive. “Progressives” use the mantra “a woman’s right to choose”. Who can oppose or counter that notion? Can one successfully argue that a woman should not have “the right to choose”? Why not counter that with “Agreed! Women have the right to choose bringing their baby to term rather than terminating it”.
The phrase “respect people’s reproductive rights” is heard more frequently. A possible retort: People are free to reproduce if they so wish; pro-lifers are not impeding the exercise of anyone’s “reproductive rights”. Actually, pro-lifers encourage women to exercise their right to reproduce, if they so wish.
Communications, nothing.
Who controls the narrative?
Pro-abortionists are not “pro-choice” nor are they “progressive”. They also cannot construct any argument without tired and inflammatory rhetoric that makes no sense. Because Canadians have no critical thinking skills, they believe in anything Big Abortion tells them.
We have transitioned.
It used to be rule of law.
Now? It is rule of man.
Under the rule of man, laws are irrelevant; any effort to get a law changed, or enacted, or repealed… is simply wasted effort. It is like imagining you are throwing a baseball and striking out Babe Ruth.
It only who the ruler is matters; nothing else.
Trouble with that narrative,is that conservative persons do not believe they have the right to dictate how others shall live their lives.
Choosing to kill a unborn infant, is an ugly decision.
Odious to most people.
But is it odious enough to justify us,society,committing more such acts,in retribution?
How shall we seek to prevent abortion?
Do we imprison, sentence to death,financially punish women who have an abortion?
Do we weave a fog of fear and dread over the whole subject? Such that young women dread an unwanted pregnancy?
Better we mind our own business.
Those who favour killing their children will have few descendants.
However life does call for some real ugly choices.
Infanticide has a long history, as old as civil society.
The only cultural solution I see is for pro-life people to live pro-life lives.
Happy women do not fear a future child.
Of course we might have to destroy the parasitic state to live those lives, it is very hard to feed and cloth dependants while The State steals 50% of your income.