Out the PPLC!

March For Jesus

Does anyone have a current list of members from all parties that make up the “Parliamentary Pro-Life Caucus” (PPLC) that Conservative MP Rod Bruinooge (Winnipeg South) was recently “elected” to head up?

If almost half of Canadians (42 per cent, according to a recent Angus Reid poll) apparently want abortion to be subject to greater restrictions, then why is this group of MPs (reputed to be as many as 70 or as few as 25 in number) so deeply shrouded in secrecy? Illustrative of how absurd this situation is, in a story this morning ostensibly about whether the new Liberal Leader will allow MPs to continue to advocate openly for reduced access to publicly funded abortions, Ignatieff spokesthingee Jill Fairbrother states that it’s “impossible to know if the committee mentioned by Mr. Bruinooge even exists.”

Huh… really?

Well, presuming for the sake of argument that it does actually exist, then isn’t it reasonable to demand that the members of the PPLC be forthright about their participation in this group rather than furtively advancing their religious “anti-choice” agenda in secret?

44 Comments

Filed under Activism, Religion

44 responses to “Out the PPLC!

  1. It doesn’t exist. It is a fevered figment of Bruinooge’s imagination. Count on the usual suspects, Liberal and Conservative alike, to claim it exists, but keep its membership secret in order to make it seem it is big.

    More disinformation and propaganda from the fascists.

  2. Mike — Perhaps you’re right.

    But if not, I’d like to know how this fits in with Harper’s promised “accountability” and “transparency”…
    Does it exist, or doesn’t it?

    If it does, then don’t we have a right to know who makes up this “caucus” and what their guiding principles are?

  3. jay

    If I remember correctly, there were a number of liberal MPs and almost the entire Con caucus that supported the unborn victim legislation. I don’t know all of their names but some are McTeague, Karrigyannis, Derek Lee, Szabo, Steckle, Scarpallegio, Guarneiri)

    There was one NDP member, Peter Stoffer who voted for it on first reading. Stoffer clarified that he voted for it because it is his policy to vote for all private member legislation on the first vote so that they can go to committee. I have respect for Stoffer generally but I think he didn’t think this one through but I do believe him when he said that he supports NDP policy which is that women have the right to reproductive freedom.

    I don’t know if any Bloc MPs voted for this legislation.

    This list would be a good start to know who might be part of this alleged caucus.

  4. Kevin

    I found this,

    http://www.canadianchristianity.com/cgi-bin/na.cgi?nationalupdates/041014ottawa

    The following list, provided by the writer, is partial and representative. Members involved in the PPLC might have a ranges of reasons. They may support it from their own budgets because they are committed to it, or simply attend meetings regularly or periodically for information purposes. Or they may do both.

    This list is based on members’ known voting records on life or family issues, or their public statements of affinity for some or all of the objectives of the pro-life movement.

    We apologize to anyone who wanted to be on this list but was left off. You will just have to speak up more.

    Liberals

    David Anderson (Victoria)
    Raymond Chan (Richmond)
    Roger Gallaway (Sarnia-Lambton)
    Charles Hubbard (Miramichi)
    David Kilgour (Edmonton-Mill Woods-Beaumont)
    Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan)
    Paul Martin (LaSalle-Emard)
    John McKay (Scarborough-Guildwood)
    Dan McTeague (Pickering-Scarborough East)
    Patrick O’Brien (London-Fanshawe)
    Paul Steckle (Huron-Bruce)
    Andy Savoy (Tobique-Mactaquac)
    Paul Szabo (Mississauga South)
    Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex)
    Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest)
    Paul Zed (Saint John)

    Conservatives

    Jim Abbott (Kootenay-Columbia)
    Diane Ablonczy (Calgary Nose Hill)
    Rob Anders (Calgary West)
    David Anderson (Cypress Hills-Grassland)
    Leon Benoit (Vegreville-Wainwright)
    Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
    John Cummins (Delta-Richmond-East)
    Stockwell Day (Okanagan-Coquihalla)
    Ken Epp (Edmonton-Sherwood Park)
    Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert)
    Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast)
    Stephen Harper (Calgary Southwest)
    Russ Hieberts (South Surrey-White Rock)
    Randy Kamp (Dewdney-Alouette)
    Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast)
    Ed Komarnicki (Souris-Moose Mountain)
    James Lunney (Nanaimo-Alberni)
    Peter MacKay (Central Nova)
    Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead)
    Jim Prentice (Calgary North Centre)
    Carol Skelton (Saskatoon-Rosetown-Biggar)
    Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat)
    Chuck Strahl (Chilliwack-Fraser Canyon)
    Vic Toews (Provencher)
    Myron Thompson (Wild Rose)
    Peter Van Loan (York-Simcoe)
    Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon-Wanuskewin)
    Mark Warawa (Langley)
    Randy White (Abbotsford)
    Jeff Watson (Essex)

    Senators (all Conservative)

    Anne Cools
    Leonard Gustafson
    Noel Kinsella
    Gerry St. Germain

  5. Kevin — If you click on the link under the word “does” in the post it leads to the same thing. It’s out of date and a bit dodgy but does indicate that the PPLC actually exists. (Contrary to the assertions of Mike and others…)

  6. It’s a _hidden_ agenda! With the Conservatives openly committed to incrementalism, what other transparency do you need?

    Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’ve got to go eBay my kids…

  7. Kevin

    Sorry about that RT. I didn’t notice that in your post.

  8. Kevin — I’m horribly lazy, so if there’s a link in a post it’s usually there to make a point. ;)

  9. sharonapple88

    The conspiracy heads straight to the top

    Paul Martin (LaSalle-Emard)
    Stephen Harper (Calgary Southwest)
    ;)

    It’s out of date and a bit dodgy but does indicate that the PPLC actually exists.

    Out of date all right. Scanning the names and Raymond Chan, Myron Thompson, Paul Martin, and Tom Wappel are not sitting MPs.

    David Kilgour and Rose-Marie Margaret Ur haven’t been in the House of Commons since 2005 (neither ran in 2006). And Kilgour left the Liberal party in 2005.

    Interesting to note that the majority in this group are men — there appears to be just four women associated with this group.

  10. I’ve never quite understood why men seem to get a whole lot more worked up over this issue than do women…

    Rather odd that.

    Can anyone explain this phenomenom?

  11. Kevin

    Most pro-life people seem to be for the death penalty, And most pro choice people tend to be anti death penalty. Why is that?

  12. Tomm

    RT,

    Cool!

    So you are outing those members that are pro-life.

    Great stuff. Your purpose either isn’t clear or perhaps too obvious.

    Are you hoping that the media, the JOURNALISTS of this nation, to take up the cause and embarrass these members for their neaderthal views on conception, fetus’s, babies, stem cells, and perhaps even their own religious habits and views? Looking for some hypocrisy?

    Are you just curious? Still looking for the hidden agenda’s of the morally right (wing)? The conspiracy of the intolerant?

    If that’s what you are doing, than look no further than the hypocrisy of the pro-choice, and their views on war, the death penalty, and who should sit in judgement in our courts, on these and other issues of morality?

    I think that argument is equally compelling, don’t you?

  13. southernquebec

    Red, I think the reason that there are mostly men on these “pro-life” groups is because it is all about control. If they can’t control ‘their women’, then they have lost control completely. Just a thought…

  14. Tomm

    southernquebec,

    You think its about control?

    You mean like a man keeping a woman barefoot and pregnant (maybe not to that extreme) kind of thinking?

  15. “If that’s what you are doing, than look no further than the hypocrisy of the pro-choice, and their views on war, the death penalty, and who should sit in judgement in our courts, on these and other issues of morality?”

    or…

    If that’s what you are doing, than look no further than the hypocrisy of the pro-life, and their views on war, the death penalty, and who should sit in judgement in our courts, on these and other issues of morality?

    funny how these things are subjective to the commenter.

  16. “You mean like a man keeping a woman barefoot and pregnant (maybe not to that extreme) kind of thinking?”

    or it could be something as simple as a religious group trying to impose their values on others in a secular society.

    Women can do far more than get pregnant. Maybe that’s what scares the old duffers.

  17. “Does it exist, or doesn’t it?”

    they’re like nambla that way…

    KEvron

  18. “So you are outing those members that are pro-life.”

    did they form a caucus, too?

    KEvron

  19. “Most pro-life people seem to be for the death penalty, And most pro choice people tend to be anti death penalty. Why is that?”

    because “pro-life” is an intentionally misleading misnomer.

    somebody gimme a tough one.

    KEvron

  20. “funny how these things are subjective to the commenter.”

    bam!

    KEvron

  21. I’d be pretty surprised if Paul Martin voted that way, ever, regardless of what he thinks personally. There are a number of prominent Liberals who have said that they are personally pro-life but would never vote for a law restricting abortion.

    Which, IMO, makes them pro-choice, but unwilling to say it out loud, because I really don’t care what they do personally, as long as they don’t pass a law, kwim?

    Anyway, I never understand what the fuss is on this. Tremblay v Daigle is the law on point on this one, and quite definitively, the Supreme Court ruled that a fetus is not a life, period. It wouldn’t matter what law Parliament passed, the Court made it crystal clear and unanimous, not even the mushy Roe V Wade or Morgentaler decision.

    And by the way, the only time a late second trimester abortion, or any third trimester abortions ever occur in this country, are after a fatal or disastrous prenatal diagnosis so I’m not sure why it becomes such an issue. The majority of these babies are stillborn and the rest die shortly after birth, and a termination is just a shorter and more controlled end. Certainly less painful than a NICU stay.

    But then again, I would never expect an MP to know anything about laws….God knows they rarely if ever read the bills they vote on.

  22. Tomm

    Aurelia just called Harper pro-choice.

    I don’t think you did that intentionally but you wanted to somehow clean the sin of association from paul Martin so ultimately did it also for the other PM that is refusing to put this to a vote.

    A little (small l) liberal double standard.

  23. Aurelia — I’ve often tried to nail down these “pro-life” folks on the matter of when “life” begins exactly, and they either waffle hopelessly or retrench in the security of Catholic dogma — i.e., the “moment of conception”… a concept that is, by any measure, completely absurd.

  24. Tomm — Harper isn’t “pro-Choice”… he’s “pro-GETTING ELECTED”… It’s all about the POWER. I know that runs contrary to the treacle-sodden narrative touted by the Blogging Tory HIVEMIND that contends the Dear Leader is motivated by the purest, most noble and fabulously aspirational motives (as opposed to the EVIL, ROTTEN, MORALLY DEPRAVED, MISERABLE “LIEberals” that are spawned from HELL, apparently — “AdScam!!!!!!”).

  25. Tomm

    jsrothwell,

    you’ve made my point, and thought you were criticizing me.

    The search to “out” morality, be it left, right, or Martian, is a pointless exercise in asking who is the bigger hypocrite, without ever recognizing the hypocrisy of the self.

    It is this unique little feature of left wing bloggers that they appear to not understand as well as their right wing counterparts.

    Are you blind to your own hypocrisy?

    In regards to “old duffers” and their interest in imposing their views on the rest of society, you are absolutely right, but you should not stop there. You should continue and discuss the York or Carleton Student Union’s, the politician’s from downtown Toronto who insist long guns in Melfort, Saskatchewan be strictly controlled, and registered, and those who want us to remember Marc Lepine as representative of Canadian men and not as the result of a very un-Canadian chauvinist and controlling childhood inherited from his father’s Algerian roots.

  26. “Are you blind to your own hypocrisy?”

    i’m blind to yours, you’re that good.

    KEvron

  27. Just for the sake of curiosity, let’s parse this…

    The search to “out” morality, be it left, right, or Martian, is a pointless exercise in asking who is the bigger hypocrite, without ever recognizing the hypocrisy of the self.

    1) The attempt to “out” morality is simply a matter of seeking to obtain full disclosure — accountability, transparency, etc.

    2) This is a “pointless exercise” because why? Because YOU say so? (In the absence of anything backing up this fatuous assertion I have to assume that it’s just a fleeting whim of your imagination.)

    3) Precisely who is asking about “who is the bigger hypocrite”? Not me. But apparently YOU are. Why… I have no idea? Seemed clever at the time you wrote it one presumes.

    4) Guns!!!! Entirely irrelevant to the matter at hand, but always fun to introduce into any debate. Plus… it has the added bonus of gratuitously providing an opportunity to bash those wretched LIBERAL ELITES at York, Carleton, and other rotten, EVIL, horrid institutions festering with awful non-conservative thoughts that will surely lead to the complete ruination of absolutely everything under the sun.

  28. sharonapple88

    Can anyone explain this phenomenom?

    There was an article on antiabortionist men.

    One guy stood out

    “Chris Aubert, a Houston lawyer, felt only indifference in 1985 when a girlfriend told him she was pregnant and planned on an abortion. When she asked if he wanted to come to the clinic, he said he couldn’t; he played softball on Saturdays. He stuck a check for $200 in her door and never talked to her again.

    Aubert, 50, was equally untroubled when another girlfriend had an abortion in 1991. “It was a complete irrelevancy,” he said. But years later, Aubert felt a rising sense of unease. He and his wife were cooing at an ultrasound of their first baby when it struck him — “from the depths of my belly,” he said — that abortion was wrong.

    ***

    But would his long-ago girlfriends agree? Or might they also consider the abortions a choice that set them on a better path?

    Aubert looks startled. “I never really thought about it for the woman,” he says slowly.”

    (I’m not saying all anti-abortionist men are like this… just this one.)

  29. To be clear, I will refer to anyone who refuses to vote to pass a law restricting abortion as pro-choice.

    Including Harper, if that’s how he really would vote.

    He has only said that he has no intention of opening up the debate, which is not quite the same thing.

    The fact remains that we cannot know what someone believes, really deep down. We can only judge them on their actions. Or in this case, their votes.

    Marching, chanting, yipping, caucusing, blah, blah blah blah, none of it matters. Only what they actually do. If you perform abortions, have an abortion, drive your girlfriend to a clinic, pay with your visa and hold her hand, or just plain vote to keep abortion a matter between a woman and her doctor, then you are pro-choice. And all the public crap otherwise means nothing.

    If the shoe fits, Harper should squeeze his unethical toes into it. The only question is, which shoe?

  30. Tomm

    RT,

    I’m just not appreciated. I feel it. I really do. Its like I’m writing this stuff for myself.

    Let’s “parse” out your stuff.

    Firstly, in regards to Harper being “pro-getting elected”. I’m with you all the way. Same as Paul Martin. No different. They both have personal views that differ from Canada’s non-statute on the subject, but refusing to act on their personal views. In Harper’s circumstance it is even more noble (in my skewed and sick little head), because he also has to reign in his party on this issue. Paul Martin’s views to duck and run were consistent with his party’s noble position.

    Secondly, “outing” right wing morality to obtain open-ness and accountability is a smoke screen for shooting ducks in a barrel. The media is salivating just waiting for the day they can quote Cheryl Gallant, Rob Anders, or even better a cabinet minister saying something morally right wing enough to paste to the wall. This isn’t accountability, its attack politics and gutter level journalism. The Liberal Party of Canada must be happily goading their friends and relatives in the media in plumping this up (re: Gloria Galloway & Mark Dunn). The issue of abortion is death by media. The media will chew up and spit out any top end politician that dares to build a moral case against abortion, or even a law to manage/control it.

    If you truly want to know who is in this little PPLC “club” why don’t you also ask which MPs are Freemasons; members of the Knights of Columbus; and, don’t forget fraternity memberships. I want to know if Ruby Dhalla is a Tri-Delt, don’t you?

    They all share secret handshakes and specific ethical/moral oaths.

    In regards to hyposcrisy, I’m more than happy to catch my share, but don’t load me down to the extent you have none left for the left wing moralists in this country. Because we are truly a nation of hypocrites.

    And your fourth point on guns is just facile. My point is clear, there is enough moral duplicity on both the left and right to share. Don’t tell me you wish to defend the left wing moralizing I identified?

  31. Oh and Tomm, a double standard in this case, happens when we have pro-lifers saying that no-one should terminate a pregnancy, but refusing to sponsor any other alternatives.

    Like–palliative care for dying newborns, or complete round the clock care for extremely disabled children, or bereavement care for the parents after those babies die. How come they won’t pay for better maternal-fetal-newborn research so more moms and babies can live long and healthy lives?

    How come Health Canada under the Harper Tories recently decided not to increase folic acid levels in food, even though the SOGC and Motherisk proved that childhood cancers would drop by 47% and cranio-facial birth defects would virtually disappear? The entire medical community has called folic acid the greatest pregnancy related public health advance of the decade, maybe in the last 30 years. And they refuse to touch it.

    Maybe cause pro-lifers don’t actually give a shit about saving lives, perhaps?

  32. Tomm

    Aurelia,

    You have me at a disadvantage. I know nothing about your examples, and if accurate and true represent a government that is apparently too slow to react to something important in the health of newborns.

    However, before you finish the final tarring of the present government, I would remind you of FASD, and crack and meth pregnancies as huge issues in our health and social services areas as well for preganant mom’s and babies and their care givers. These issues are cross-political and represent major problems that are also getting larger all the time.

    I think you are right off base by saying that “Maybe cause pro-lifers don’t actually give a shit about saving lives, perhaps?”.

    I think all political Canadian’s, whatever their stripe, care deeply. Pro-Lifers, Pro-Choicers, everybody wants the circumstance to be better for mothers, babies, and families, than it is right now. To suggest pro-lifers don’t care about saving lives in the face of a pro-choice alternative is just a little goofy.

  33. “I think all political Canadian’s, whatever their stripe, care deeply. Pro-Lifers, Pro-Choicers, everybody wants the circumstance to be better for mothers, babies, and families, than it is right now. To suggest pro-lifers don’t care about saving lives in the face of a pro-choice alternative is just a little goofy.”

    Dear Tomm,

    I wish it was goofy. I wish I was making it up. I wish that every MP, MPP, leadership candidate and politician I have pitched on these issues had done something.

    But they do nothing.

    I have been professional, I have had powerpoints, and reference books, and presentations. I have begged, cried, pleaded, blackmailed, sold my soul, and gone to the media. For years and years and years.

    My best latest one? A new progesterone shot that prevents preterm labour and could save money and lives needs to be approved by Health Canada. It’s been called the silver bullet in the US by the March of Dimes. I begged Health Canada to bring it in, to pay for it, to promote it.

    And they have done nothing.

    Some politicians hang up on me, run away when they see me, some of them just recoil in horror, and change the subject like I’m not even standing in front of them.

    I am at a loss Tomm.

    The only explanation I can come up with is that no one gives a shit. Not just from your party, by the way, although they are the most recent offenders, but my own party as well.

    If you can come up with another reason why no one would give a damn when children are dying in front of them, hell, bring it on. I’m too discouraged to figure it out.

  34. Tomm

    I’m sorry to hear that you have put forth significant effort and had it ignored by politicians and public servants.

    I live in the north and we had a service club meeting with our MLA last year and I was shocked at how deep the issues with FASD were and how informed and worried she was about them. Some politician’s do know and are working to improve our circumstances.

    I think the larger the bureaucracy the greater the resistance to change.

    I wife is in the health care field and I know that you most certainly have many allies.

  35. Thanks Tomm, I still have some hope, but my cynicism is kind of catching. Run away before it gets you!

    And I owe you an apology RT for getting the conversation off track. I usually keep this stuff on my own blog, and try to be a little less depressing here and on other political blogs. Anyway, it’s late here in the east, time to sleep. See you tomorrow.

  36. sharonapple88

    Hey, it was interesting exchange.

  37. Phillip Huggan

    Courts (USA or Canada I forget) have ruled when a fetus can’t survive independantly it isn’t a person. Around 6 months. This happily coincides with the point at a fetus’s development where brain activity begins. Before this period, no trace of consciousness, thus no murder when aborted. This argument can be swayed but not by 300AD thinkers that thought the physical heart was the seat of mind.
    This is reflexive conservative longing for a nuclear family societal model and given their disdain for universal daycare and gay marriage, it doesn’t seem a healthy attitude for childhood development.

  38. Alberta Girl

    Aurelia “How come Health Canada under the Harper Tories recently decided not to increase folic acid levels in food, even though the SOGC and Motherisk proved that childhood cancers would drop by 47% and cranio-facial birth defects would virtually disappear? The entire medical community has called folic acid the greatest pregnancy related public health advance of the decade, maybe in the last 30 years. And they refuse to touch it.”

    Maybe because increasing it would lead to this

    “To her surprise she found that folate levels were increasing continuously over the eight years of her study. In fact, by the end of the study, 100 per cent of the people she tracked had folate levels that were considered “higher than normal.” There was no sign of a plateau in folate levels. Yet doctors have long thought that excess folate was secreted from the body. They were wrong. We retain it and levels build up and it circulates through our bodies.

    I spoke to Garcia, a physician in Kingston and researcher at Queens University.

    “There is so much we do not know about folic acid that we cannot assume things will be fine,” she said.

    Research shows that folic acid can saturate the liver, causing excess amounts to move into the blood, which in turn may cause health problems. Recent studies have linked higher folate levels in the blood to an increased risk of colon cancer. In Canada researchers have watched colorectal cancer rates rise since the introduction of folic acid supplementation, suggesting there may be a link.

    Still other studies suggest that too much folic acid can speed up cognitive decline in older people who have low levels of vitamin B-12.”

    Read the whole article here.

    http://healthblog.ctv.ca/blog/_archives/2008/10/13/3928749.html

    Sometimes there are reasons things don’t get done.

  39. Alberta Girl,

    Folic Acid is NOT folate. Two completely and utterly different chemicals.

    UK researchers keep bringing this up, but the issue with the colerectal cancer is causation, not correlation, so it’s irrelevant. The UK, the EU and US researchers have thoroughly researched this, and feel there is no risk whatsoever.

    And frankly, even if there ever is a proven correlation, (something credible researchers have never shown), a B12 blood test every 5 years for all seniors, and an annual FOBT will cover that risk. Oh, and those are already funded for all seniors over the age of 65.

    If we prevent childhood cancers, prevent miscarriages & stillbirths, and premature births, as well as neural tube birth defects, we are looking at a minimum savings of $300 million per year.

    Yeah, it’s a little bit worth it to me.

    And if you don’t think so, try asking if there is a grandparent alive who wouldn’t agree to take a b12 blood test every 5 years, in exchange for never ever having to bury a grandchild. Grandparents of cancer victims might line up first, ya think?

  40. I believe they’re both Vitamin B9, no?

  41. Yes RT, but not when processed in the body. Folate does not change because it is created by the body itself. Folic acid levels vary based on consumption levels. The majority of Western civilization has very very low folic acid levels because we consume almost no green leafy veg anymore.

    Anti-supplement people are sort of like the vitamin equivalent of anti-bank regulation people. Small govt, etc….

  42. “I’m just not appreciated. I feel it. I really do. Its like I’m writing this stuff for myself.”

    You are. Nice to see you admit it. Now do something appropriate about it. And I don’t mean giving us more of your fatuous whining.

  43. Back to the REAL topic at hand…if they are a caucus, they should come forward as such and make their numbers, members, process and agenda clear. Otherwise, this has the smell of sneak all over it. And why, I wonder, would anyone try to sneak an anti-choice law onto the books? Perhaps because more than three-quarters of Canadians, regardless of whether or not they’d have an abortion, simply don’t appreciate governmental intrusion into the uteri of women?

    If they have the courage of their convictions, they should have nothing to hide. And if they feel the need to operate in secret and sneak around behind the backs of the nation, they are not fit to be in Parliament.

    Out ‘em. It’s yer democratic duty, soldier!

  44. Tomm

    Bini,

    Thanks for your thoughts.

    However I don’t consider MY thoughts to be fatuous whining, just unappreciated.

    However let’s talk about your thoughts. There are hundreds of countries and we may be very lonely as one without any legislation at all respecting abortion. As you are probably aware it is outlawed in many countries and regulated in almost all of the others that have rule of law in place.

    What does this tell you? Perhaps we are a nation of immoral people who just don’t care? Perhaps it means that we govern by committee and “The Committee” couldn’t come up with a consensus?

    Whatever it means is just wrong headed. Our country has a moral foundation. No law at all; does not lead us into the future.

    Also, related issues include fetal stem cells and animal and human cloning.

    Your comment:

    “…Perhaps because more than three-quarters of Canadians, regardless of whether or not they’d have an abortion, simply don’t appreciate governmental intrusion into the uteri of women?”

    …shows a real lack of understanding of this problem. Perhaps we have been asking the wrong questions in the polls you wish to cite. Maybe we should ask whether Canadian’s expect that our physicians are following nationally mandated bioethical rulesets in their decisions on abortion, fetal stem cells and human cloning?

    The following is part of what Barak Obama is purported to have said about abortion:

    BUT LET ME JUST SPEAK MORE GENERALLY ABOUT THE ISSUE OF ABORTION BECAUSE THIS IS SOMETHING OBVIOUSLY THE COUNTRY WRESTLES WITH. ONE THING THAT I’M ABSOLUTELY CONVINCED OF IS THERE IS A MORAL AND ETHICAL CONTENT TO THIS ISSUE. SO I THINK THAT ANYBODY WHO TRIES TO DENY THE MORAL DIFFICULTIES AND GRAVITY OF THE ABORTION ISSUE I THINK IS NOT PAYING ATTENTION. SO THAT WOULD BE POINT NUMBER ONE.”

    So even though Obama is pro-choice, he does not see this as a free for all the way you seem to. I tend to agree with Obama on this.

    You also said:

    “…If they have the courage of their convictions, they should have nothing to hide. And if they feel the need to operate in secret and sneak around behind the backs of the nation, they are not fit to be in Parliament.

    Out ‘em. It’s yer democratic duty, soldier!”

    Quite frankly, your final comment reminds me of mob rule, and ultimately the reason why we shouldn’t “out” anybody. We would be destroying any progress we have made toward a national discussion on this issue. Unlike you, I think we have to build some Canadian values into how we proceed.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s