February 07, 2018

What happens when young women reject Trudeau’s brand of feminism? (Guest: Dierdre Sprenger, UAlberta Pro-Life)

Sheila Gunn ReidRebel Host | The Gunn Show

 

Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government is avowedly feminist. He literally can’t shut up about it. And with preening third wave feminism comes abortion activism.

This year, Trudeau suddenly announced that to access Canada summer jobs funding, churches, faith groups and religious charities count on for summer programming, they would now have to tow the Liberal party’s official line on support for abortion.

The Liberals even had the audacity to write the bizarre pledge into the grant application.

The new attestation reads:

“...that both the job and the organization’s ‘core mandate’ respect reproductive rights,“ including “the right to access safe and legal abortions.”

This is a direct assault on the conscience rights of pro-life people. Instead of swearing allegiance to their God and country, they now have to swear an attestation of allegiance to Justin Trudeau’s weird brand of gynocentric liberalism.

But what happens when young women reject Trudeau’s brand of feminism rooted in abortion as both healthcare and female empowerment?

Tonight I talk to one of these young women. She staged a protest at one of his town halls to remind Trudeau that conscience rights are in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms but abortion rights are not.

The mainstream media ignored her.

Joining me tonight is Dierdre Sprenger, the president of UAlberta Pro-Life to talk about the Liberal’s attack on freedom of religion, and what it’s like to be a pro-life student on campus.

Comments
You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2018-02-11 15:30:55 -0500
Oh dear….James has been triggered!

My recommendation to Andrew was made in good faith. Doesn’t matter to me if you are offended by it.
commented 2018-02-11 15:20:11 -0500
Tammie Putinski-Zandbelt,

You are pretty much on ever single thread spewing the same bullshit over and over again and attack those who do not fall in line with your brand of logic and ignorance.

You are in no position to comment on anyone’s posts, when all you are is a delivery system for the things that you have been spoonfed – anti-facts, anti-science, fear mongering, conspiracy theories and lies.

Even your warning to Andrew is disingenuous – you don’t give a shit about Andrew. You are trying to give a dig to me, because you laughably think I am dangerous, because I speak the truth and that scares you.
commented 2018-02-11 14:39:52 -0500
Well Andrew, it’s a pretty a strange statement to compare your repetitive/obsessive posts on Rebel Media to someone making societal progress….bloated ego and a lack of personal insight explains much about your reasoning for claiming such a thing.

Be careful with James. Serious recommendation.
commented 2018-02-11 13:54:41 -0500
Andrew Stephenson,

Thank for your answering my question.

Your posts on here are great and I love that you constantly hand everyone their ass.

Keep it up my friend.
commented 2018-02-11 12:30:03 -0500
“Tammie Putinski-Zandbelt commented 2018-02-10 14:30:38 -0500
Andrew,as you know, passion and obsession are not the same thing.
Read the exchange with James.”

Is obsession a bad thing? Societal progress is driven by a few obsessive individuals. The majority prefer to wallow in apathetic mediocrity, sure, and if it works for you, go ahead.

James, the answer to both is “yes”.
“Al Peterson commented 2018-02-10 23:08:58 -0500
Tammie, the problem is that arguing with Andrew is like playing wac-a mole. He just keeps popping up with more BS somewhere else. I am slowly learning that oneness to cut to the chase with e documented evidence from the get go instead of playing argument clinic. "
Thing is, you’re arguing something completely different than what I am. Whether a fetus is human or not is irrelevant – the argument centres around whether it has exclusive rights to a woman’s uterus (something it is completely reliant on for survival) or not. Fundamentally, who owns a woman’s uterus? The law says the woman does. Not the fetus, and the government can’t make decisions pertaining to it on her behalf.

Speaking of whack-a-mole, you’ve never actually addressed that question. Who owns a woman’s uterus? Does the government have the right to force a woman to give up her own bodily autonomy to bear an unwanted pregnancy, which is what anti-abortion laws essentially do?

“louise leborgne commented 2018-02-11 11:49:03 -0500
A woman’s right to control over her uterus does not mean free abortions, it means DO NOT get pregnant in the first place.” Great in principle, but the real world isn’t quite so simple.
commented 2018-02-11 11:49:03 -0500
A woman’s right to control over her uterus does not mean free abortions, it means DO NOT get pregnant in the first place. I have heard young women refer to it as a method of birth control. It is not that, other methods ( the shots, pills, condoms etc . . .) are for birth control. The fact that the debate continues with the PM thrusting it in our faces by condemning (without trial or inquiry) groups who do not share the political flavour of the day is ridiculous. Government funding for programs that refuses groups who don’t share the view of government newspeak is the same as communism or the book, “1984.” When that book was forced upon me as part of school curriculum, I knew then, that it was bizarre and just plain wrong. Now it’s here and the PM is the new author. The story above was about political exclusion and infringement on our rights and freedoms. We still have freedom in this country and no government has the right to force their own will upon us.
commented 2018-02-11 08:04:06 -0500
Al Peterson, I saw that vid some time ago….yes, I think you summed it up well using it.
The wac-a-mole reference is is quite funny, thanks for the laugh!
commented 2018-02-10 23:08:58 -0500
Tammie, the problem is that arguing with Andrew is like playing wac-a mole. He just keeps popping up with more BS somewhere else. I am slowly learning that oneness to cut to the chase with e documented evidence from the get go instead of playing argument clinic.
This is what it is like with Andrew and James:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxrbOVeRonQ
commented 2018-02-10 14:56:42 -0500
Andrew, I just read the second part of your post. I can see you have abandoned the “parasite argument” which is a good thing, Al had a very productive effect.
commented 2018-02-10 14:30:38 -0500
Andrew,as you know, passion and obsession are not the same thing.
Read the exchange with James.

I think the second part of your post is directed at Al.
commented 2018-02-10 14:09:27 -0500
“Tammie Putinski-Zandbelt commented 2018-02-10 12:27:12 -0500
So you say. Here’s a hint. There are a few topics which Andrew typically obsesses about. Think back and search the site. " Your implication being … passion is a bad thing? Yes, I tend towards typical Aspie monomania, but at least I am doing so productively. Why do you feel this is something worth bringing up? That obsessiveness would suggest a certain depth of expertise, would it not?

“Your argument is a logical fallacy of equivocation. To wit: "

Your argument entirely focuses upon semantic objections with that one term. Which is to say, that you’re using that objection to deflect from the more important contents of my argument, presumably because you can’t actually address them. I acknowledge it’s not 100% precise (in my original post I even used the term “de facto” which infers that it’s not a strictly literal definition) – but you’re just using that as an excuse to evade actual rebuttals.

“Why don’t you stop the BS arguments and admit
1. that babies are human
2. that babies are persons”

I admit that. It was never in question. My opinion, and those of the law, is that the mother’s right to control her uterus exceed those of the fetus. The baby, person it may be, does not have exclusive right to the mother’s uterus. It’s really that simple.

“3. that you are self absorbed and heartless and don’t give a damn about anyone but yourself and”
I am approaching this from a logical perspective, not an emotional one (your arguments are highly emotive). Sometimes the law can appear heartless, but it’s also based upon logic not emotion. I do strongly empathize with women in difficult situations, it’s hard to argue that supporting general reproductive rights is a purely narcissistic endeavour, especially as this is not a personally applicable situation.

“4. You, like ISIS,NAZIs and Commies get some perverse kick out of destroying the innocent and defenceless. "
Ad-absurdum, perhaps? Appeal to extremes? I can’t decide. Hmm. Again, needlessly emotional.

I don’t get a “kick” out of it. I am simply defending reproductive rights. You may not like it, but women have a right to their own body, and it is up to them to decide if the “innocent and defenseless” are their priority, or not. Heartless? Maybe. That’s their prerogative, not mine.
commented 2018-02-10 13:12:55 -0500
Andrew,

Are you a cis-genered femaile and have Asperger’s Syndrome?
commented 2018-02-10 12:59:15 -0500
Yes. Cis-gendered female is how she described herself. She said she uses a pseudonym due to “casual misogyny on the internet”.
Yes, Andrew confirmed she has Asperger’s.

Just ask her.
commented 2018-02-10 12:53:41 -0500
Tammie Putinski-Zandbelt,

You are the one that always says to back up your posts with proof, links, etc. Your own posting demands don’t apply to you?

So to clarify – Andrew is a woman and has Asperger’s Syndrome – that is what he would tell me?
commented 2018-02-10 12:49:41 -0500
Al Peterson,

Change is not coming – it’s a fact, but feel free to continue to be delusional in thinking that a woman’s choice will be taken away. You seem oblivious to the fact of what would happen if choice was taken away – women would declare war and it would be a revolution.
commented 2018-02-10 12:48:31 -0500
Wrong again James.
You either don’t know how use the search tool or you are too lazy. Whichever it is, not my problem.
Ask Andrew, she will confirm.
I was explaining to Al she is not a psychopath.
commented 2018-02-10 12:43:33 -0500
Tammie Putinski-Zandbelt,

If such a quote existed, you would love nothing more than to put it in my face.
commented 2018-02-10 12:40:07 -0500
JAMES CROCKETT commented 2018-02-10 12:10:04 -0500
Al Peterson,

Facts don’t care about your feelings.

People on the right are pro-choice as well. I have said this repeatedly, but you just want to pretend that this is a liberal issue, because that is the agenda you have been fed by The Rebel, etc.

The debate is over. Change is not coming. Women MUST have the right to choose. You will die having lived in a pro-choice country.
________________________________________________________________________________
Feelings don’t enter into it. Facts do. It is the Left who use feeIings and emotions to garner support for the indisputable facts.

I have held this view long before there was a Rebel.

Change is not coming.That is your wish and your opinion. You are not a prophet and cannot foretell the future. You still haven’t figured out that there is a God and you are not him.
commented 2018-02-10 12:34:25 -0500
Andrew here is what a medical encyclopedia says about parasites:
“Parasites of animals show a high degree of specialization, and reproduce at a faster rate than their hosts.” Do babies reproduce within the mother NOPE.

“Parasites reduce host biological fitness by general or specialized pathology, from parasitic castration and impairment of secondary sex characteristics, to the modification of host behavior. "
Do babies do this?
NOPE.

“Parasites increase their own fitness by exploiting hosts for resources necessary for their survival, in particular transmission.”
Do babies transmit themselves? NOPE

“…it is part of a continuum of types of interactions between species…”
Is a baby a different species? NOPE

“The Fetal Care Centre (FCC) is the nerve centre under the Division of Maternal Fetal Medicine. It provides a comprehensive range of services for screening, diagnosis, counselling and management of fetal abnormalities during pregnancy.”
Are the unborn relegated to gastroenterologists? NOPE
Do parasites have special renters to care for them?
NOPE.

Your Term- Endoparasites:
“Endoparasites can exist in one of two forms: intercellular parasites (inhabiting spaces in the host’s body) or intracellular parasites (inhabiting cells in the host’s body). Coinfection by multiple parasites is common. A baby would presumably be an intercellular parasite under your “reasoning”.

Do endoparasites have special organs in the host that serve no other purpose than to bring them to a healthy birth?
NOPE.

Intracellular parasites, such as pathogenic (disease-causing) protozoa, bacteria or viruses, tend to rely on a third organism, the carrier or vector, to transmit them to a host.

Do babies get “transmitted” from one host to another? NOPE. They are created within the mother by her own eggs.

“In human culture, parasitism has negative connotations.”
Hence your use to the word.

So as we see your argument is specious at best and does not in any way conform to reality. I would like to see you present a scholarly paper that attempts to show that human babies are parasites. You would be laughed to scorn. So much for your pseudo-science.

Your argument is a logical fallacy of equivocation. To wit:

“The fallacy of equivocation occurs when a key term or phrase in an argument is used in an ambiguous way, with one meaning in one portion of the argument and then another meaning in another portion of the argument.”
Texas State University Department of Philosophy

So we see you spend a lot of time
1. desperately seeking comforting lies.
2.uphiolding the Third Pillar of Leftiedom- the refusal to exercise discernment.

Why don’t you stop the BS arguments and admit
1. that babies are human
2. that babies are persons
3. that you are self absorbed and heartless and don’t give a damn about anyone but yourself and
4. You, like ISIS,NAZIs and Commies get some perverse kick out of destroying the innocent and defenceless.

Scripture is so right when it says:
“The heart is deceitful above all else and desperately wicked. Who can understand it”.

You are one sick puppy. Get the help you desperately need.
commented 2018-02-10 12:27:12 -0500
So you say. Here’s a hint. There are a few topics which Andrew typically obsesses about. Think back and search the site.
commented 2018-02-10 12:24:25 -0500
Tammie Putinski-Zandbelt,

The onus is on you to back up what you say.

You should have included the supposed quote in your initial post.
commented 2018-02-10 12:22:07 -0500
James, look for it using the wonderful search tool on this site. It is there!
commented 2018-02-10 12:10:04 -0500
Al Peterson,

Facts don’t care about your feelings.

People on the right are pro-choice as well. I have said this repeatedly, but you just want to pretend that this is a liberal issue, because that is the agenda you have been fed by The Rebel, etc.

The debate is over. Change is not coming. Women MUST have the right to choose. You will die having lived in a pro-choice country.
commented 2018-02-10 12:00:15 -0500
JAMES CROCKETT commented 2018-02-10 01:51:00 -0500
Al Peterson,

You don’t get – the fact that abortion is legal now is the equivalent of ending slavery. We have already had our revolution on abortion – it was to give women the right to choose. What you want to happen is the equivalent of making black people slaves again.

We are moving forward – not backwards.
________________________________________________________________________________
Exactly backwards. We are moving backwards. We are enslaving the unborn and relegating them to a a status of non-person. Funny how you lefties can’t get your comparisons right.
Nazis = Anti-islam. Muslims = WWII Jews. Wrong. Nazis = Muslims because they both want to l kill Jews. Anti-ilam = anti Nazi because they both want to protect us from those who hate us and wan to enslave us.
commented 2018-02-10 12:00:09 -0500
Tammie Putinski-Zandbelt,

Can you please post Andrew’s quote about having Asperger’s Syndrome.

Thanks!
commented 2018-02-10 11:50:23 -0500
Al Peterson commented 2018-02-10 01:28:58 -0500
Andrew your comments are loaded with emotion and are written to deceive the lazy thinkers. To call a baby a parasite is to try to put the baby into the worst possible light so that people will see them as disgusting as a leech, fluke or tick. For your professed biology you have a fairly loose way with definitions. Logicians call this equivocation. You are master of it. The law of non-contradiction states that something cannot both be and not be at the same time and in the same sense. You fudge around with both of these endlessly. But that’s what lefties are famed for." For it to be equivocation the inferred state has to be wrong. A parasite is an organism that is reliant on its host for nutritional support at some phase of its life cycle. (fetus: check). This is distinct from a commensal relationship in that commensals are mutualistic, in which each participant confer some benefit to the other while parasites are entirely one-directional. Arguably pregnancy is distinctly one-sided, with the fetus garnering all the benefits and the mother bearing the entire burden. You could argue some degree of mutualism if the pregnancy is wanted, but abortions are typically applicable to those that are not. Meaning, once you remove your emotional objections to the term, it becomes reasonably biologically accurate.

“So when exactly does a parasite become a non parasite? I don’t mean when do they go into a dormancy but when do they become a different life form? When does a leech become a bird or whatever? No more of your equivocations, please. " Not all parasites are obligate parasites as you suggest with your leach example. Some are parasitic at only certain phases of their lifecycle (eg, moscquitoes); if you categorize anything that exhibits parasitism at any phase of its lifecycle as a parasite then yes, most viviparous (live-bearing) organisms fall into that category. Some parasites are opportunistic – things like free living amoeba that are mostly free living environmental organisms, but if given the chance have some possibility of becoming parasitic. In some cases commensals become parasitic if they get too far off-balance. As in most things biology, it defies hard categories – which is again why your “equivocation” argument is meaningless in that you’re arguing against an incorrectly strict definition of the term. Which is to say, it’s a strawman.

“Another equivocation. The mother gives nothing like a body part. She passes on nourishment at no detriment to herself. " She is giving her uterus.

Pregnancy is an incredible physiological burden to the mother, has a very high complication rate. Without advanced medical care available, it’s frankly dangerous. Bipedalism and large brains are one of the best known examples of evolutionary tradeoffs – even though infants are born grossly underdeveloped, and women grow pelvises about as large as they can while still being able to walk (biomechanically, the female gait is ridiculous), they still barely fit.

I’m not asking about the medical considerations anyway. I’m asking about consent. If you want to reduce it to that, then let’s compare it to say if the government decided to solve blood shortages by putting out a fleet of trucks, nicking people off the street, strapping them down, and draining them of a pint, because the sanctity of life is all that matters and the government has decreed that saving Billy’s life is a bigger issue than your personal autonomy. Blood donation is physiologically trivial for most individuals, so let’s set aside the “scale” question and make it purely about consent.

who has ultimate rights to decisions about your body? Which is to say, who owns your body?

Your equivocation argument is itself a strawman. Answer a question instead of finding excuses not to.
commented 2018-02-10 11:13:19 -0500
Al Peterson, in case you are wondering if Andrew is a psychopath….
She is an adult with Asperger’s Syndrome, she confirmed this when I asked some time ago.
Asperger’s Syndrome has been described as a zero empathy disorder.
Here is a key feature to remember, Dr. Kenneth Roberson PhD
Intellectualization:
Because adults with Aspergers tend to be cut off from their feelings, they acquire facts and information without understanding how those facts can be applied to real-world situations.

They are detail oriented, often missing the overall picture, and they apply the same level of detail to every situation whether appropriate or not.

Individuals with Aspergers often have an intense interest in one or two narrow topics, bordering on obsession.

It is a complex disorder with criteria which overlap with Narcissistic Personality Disorder.
Samantha Rodman PhD sums it up well and wrote, "The difference is that while all people with Aspergers are narcissistic (not NPD, but self-centered; it’s a central trait), all people with Narcissistic Personality Disorder are definitely not aspergers, and can be the total opposite: super smooth and charming.”
commented 2018-02-10 01:51:00 -0500
Al Peterson,

You don’t get – the fact that abortion is legal now is the equivalent of ending slavery. We have already had our revolution on abortion – it was to give women the right to choose. What you want to happen is the equivalent of making black people slaves again.

We are moving forward – not backwards.
commented 2018-02-10 01:32:48 -0500
Andrew your comments are loaded with emotion and are written to deceive the lazy thinkers. To call a baby a parasite is to try to put the baby into the worst possible light so that people will see them as disgusting as a leech, fluke or tick. For your professed biology you have a fairly loose way with definitions. Logicians call this equivocation. You are master of it. The law of non-contradiction states that something cannot both be and not be at the same time and in the same sense. You fudge around with both of these endlessly. But that’s what lefties are famed for.

So when exactly does a parasite become a non parasite? I don’t mean when do they go into a dormancy but when do they become a different life form? When does a leech become a bird or whatever? No more of your equivocations, please.

If the government says, “Billy the (fetus/adult) requires your (uterus/kidney) to survive. We don’t care if you object or not, by government dictate all life is sacred, and we are forcing you to donate the use of your (uterus/kidney) to achieve that ends.
________________________________________________________________________________

Another equivocation. The mother gives nothing like a body part. She passes on nourishment at no detriment to herself.
commented 2018-02-10 01:28:58 -0500
Andrew your comments are loaded with emotion and are written to deceive the lazy thinkers. To call a baby a parasite is to try to put the baby into the worst possible light so that people will see them as disgusting as a leech, fluke or tick. For your professed biology you have a fairly loose way with definitions. Logicians call this equivocation. You are master of it. The law of non-contradiction states that something cannot both be and not be at the same time and in the same sense. You fudge around with both of these endlessly. But that’s what lefties are famed for.

So when exactly does a parasite become a non parasite? I don’t mean when do they go into a dormancy but when do they become a different life form? When does a leech become a bird or whatever? No more of your equivocations, please.