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 2018-02-10 01:21:26 -0500
The debate is settled in regards to CHANGE.
_______________________________________________________________________________
That’s what they told Wilberforce about slavery and yet it changed.
Even if it doesn’t I will continue to call evil what it is. All the mental gymnastics and word games don’t change that.

You live in a country that gives the woman control of her own body.
________________________________________________________________________________
Around we go again. It isn’t her body she is damaging it is another human body with a separate DNA. If she wants to cut out her spleen she a can be my guest.
commented 2018-02-09 23:43:52 -0500
Al,

The debate is settled in regards to CHANGE.

There will always be Pro-Choice vs. Pro-Life, but it doesn’t mean anything. There is no way the government, the courts or the medical community will allow for the removal of choice.

No Canadian conservative politician is going to campaign on making abortion illegal – they know that such a campaign promise would end their political career.

So complain all you want about abortion, but it’s never going to go your way. You live in a country that gives the woman control of her own body.
commented 2018-02-09 20:00:20 -0500
“The caregiver is the mother in 99.99999999999% of the cases either by birth or adoption. Any baby left without care will die no matter who doesn’t provide it. A fine smokescreen, though. As I noted in other times societies killed “viable” babies and infants by neglect. "

For various reasons I doubt it’s that high, but its’ by convention, not biological necessity.
“Parasites kill the host or cause lasting damage” Not necessarily. Evolution tends to attenuate them to minimize damage – it does you no good if your home dies. A parasite is an organism that takes something from its host while providing nothing in return – and an unwanted pregnancy would likely meet that basic criteria. You’re getting lost in the emotional connotations rather than the hard biology I’m trying to invoke.

" Parasites remain parasite throughout their existence" Not necessarily. Many are purely opportunistic, or only exibit parasitism at one stage of their lifecycle. This is not a rebuttal.

My use of the term “parasite” is purely biological, since that’s what is pertinent to the abortion debate. Old people in nursing homes aren’t directly comparable. Taxes to pay for nursing homes aren’t at all comparable to being forced to violate one’s bodily integrity while carrying an unwanted pregnancy.

“I’ll hold the position that is empirically verifiable that babies remain babies from conception until birth. " That’s fine. The mother still isn’t obligated to carry an unwanted one. it’s her body, her choice.

By the way, you didn’t respond to my forced kidney donation scenario.
commented 2018-02-09 19:07:15 -0500
" And yet we are aborting babies right up to the point of birth. So they are “viable” but it matters not. We abort them anyway. So viability is, as usual, a red herring. We destroy “viable” human lives with no real distinction right to the last second and even partial birth abortions. Such is the state of morality in Soviet Canuckistan. "

1) Define “partial birth” abortion. I mean, the actual official definition that is used to track them.

2) How prevalent is it, actually? In how many cases would the infant actually have a reasonable chance of surviving more than briefly if left to term? Late term abortions are very rare (~500/yr in Canada after 20 weeks) and usually for lethal birth defects. If the infant is missing vital organs (eg, neural tube defects like anencephaly) will die within an hour of birth whether delivered early at 22wk, or at term, what is the point of bringing it to term vs inducing labour and delivering it early?
commented 2018-02-09 19:01:06 -0500
ANDREW STEPHENSON
The baby is NOT reliant on its mother, but rather a caregiver that need not be related. At birth, it ceases to be a de-facto endoparasite and becomes a free living, albeit needy, organism.
________________________________________________________________________________
And here we see more of the deceitfulness that Andrew is famous for. You will notice that the lefties get around difficulties by redefining the terms. They make the emotional or clinical sounding to suit the need of the moment. Here we have a display of sophistry its finest.

The caregiver is the mother in 99.99999999999% of the cases either by birth or adoption. Any baby left without care will die no matter who doesn’t provide it. A fine smokescreen, though. As I noted in other times societies killed “viable” babies and infants by neglect.

Now he resorts to pseudo clinical terminology to make the unborn child a “parasite” in order to make it seem reprehensible and worthy death. Kinda Nazi-like, no? We can just do some mental gymnastics and define the baby as a parasite. So if the unborn are parasites then they should all be aborted. Parasites kill the host or cause lasting damage. Babies of course do not normally kill the mother so this is another BS red herring in Andrew’s abundant supply. Either all babies are parasites or none are. I’ll take the latter position since in coheres with reality.

Now that the baby is born it moves from a “parasite” to an “organism”. Somewhat of an improvement from the pejorative used previously. Now scientifically this is impossible Parasites remain parasite throughout their existence. But in Andrew’s desperate need for comforting lies the movement through the birth canal magically transforms one kind of being into another kind. As for me I don’t believe in magic.

Furthermore since beings don’t change from one type to another and the parasite remains a parasite we have an obligation to kill the parasite after it emerges. If we don’t it will make life intolerable for the “caregiver”. Lack of sleep from crying and changing diapers endanger the well being of the caregiver. Those diapers are loaded with harmful bacteria.

There are also the financial matters to consider. Since children are unable to work until the age of about 6 they are a draw on the parents financial reserves. No one should be fired to pay the way of another person against their will.

Then there’re the societal costs. They will require ongoing healthcare throughout their lifetimes at the taxpayer’s expense. They also require schools and recreational facilities.

As they age they need and demand old age care homes. This is unreasonable to ask us to keep the parasites alive and to provide for them just because they managed to outlive their hosts. They just need more than a self-absorbed society can reasonably be expected to provide.

So the only reasonable and rational way to deal with this heinous invasion of the parasites is KILL THEM ALL! KILL THEM WHEREVER YOU SEE THEM! KILL! KILL! KILL!!! Age does not matter. The older they get the more they cost us. Why wait for the inevitable? KILL THEM All NOW! NOW, DO YOU HEAR ME?! NOW, DAMMIT!
WHEN YOU SEE ONE IN THE STREETS-KILL IT! WHEN YOU SEE ONE IN A STORE BUYING FOOD FOR THEIR BREEDING PROGENY, KILL THEM! FEEDING THEM ONY ALOWS THE PARASITES TO BREED MORE. WHEN YOU SEE THEM LOOKING OH SO CUTE IN THEIR BASKETS REMEMBER THAT THEY ARE PARASITES! STEEL YOURSELVES FOR THE TASK AND KILL THEM. WHEN YOU SEE THEM SUCKING YOUR FINANCES DRY BY ATTENDING A SCHOOL, KILL THEM. DON’T LET THE UNGRATEFUL BASTARDS GO ON ANOTHER DAY. KILL THEM NOW AND MAKE THE WORLD A BETTER PLACE, PUT THEM IN CAMPS AND GAS AND BURN THEM. SHOOT THEM ENMASSE. RAM SCISSORS INTO THEIR BRAINS WHEN THEY ARE NOT EXPECTING IT. DO WHATEVER IT TAKES BUT FOR THE LOVE OF PEOPLEKIND—— KILLTHEM!!!!!

I’ll hold the position that is empirically verifiable that babies remain babies from conception until birth. They need care at every stage of life. It is evil to deny them that at any stage. Andrew and James can continue to believe in the magic birth canal.
commented 2018-02-09 18:23:17 -0500
JAMES CROCKETT commented 2018-02-09 14:46:33 -0500
Al Peterson,

Are you really that clueless?

A fetus that is not viable outside the womb per the amount of weeks – will be lucky to last a minute no matter how good the parenting is for those 60 seconds.

A baby outside of the womb is viable and will live even with shitty parenting, as long as it’s not abuse.
________________________________________________________________________________
Thanks for that clarification. And yet we are aborting babies right up to the point of birth. So they are “viable” but it matters not. We abort them anyway. So viability is, as usual, a red herring. We destroy “viable” human lives with no real distinction right to the last second and even partial birth abortions. Such is the state of morality in Soviet Canuckistan.

So the debate is settled if people are too gutless to keep it alive. The lefties are always telling us that what the debate on various issues is settled when it suits them but that it is open when it doesn’t suit them.

If the debate is settled why are we having this discussion? Not everyone is onside with killing the unborn. Whether or not the issue is politically expedient is not the issue. The debate was also "settled "in the time of William Wilberforce but he laboured until his dying day to change people’s minds. And he was successful. And, like Wilberforce, I will not bow the knee to this or any other Baal of the left.

Your decreeing that he debate is over does not make it so. You are still not God. So I guarantee you the debate will continue.
commented 2018-02-09 15:54:30 -0500
Andrew nails it again.

It’s not even debateable, but of course Al and others will try.
commented 2018-02-09 15:41:58 -0500
“Explain viability to me?” Self-sustaining, independent biological processes. No longer directly dependent on those of the mother.

“A baby cannot survive without parental input for many years- lets say 5- if there are no evil doers intent on causing harm. I mean other than this magical trip down the birth canal that suddenly confers all manner of rights that 10 seconds earlier were non-existent? "

The baby is NOT reliant on its mother, but rather a caregiver that need not be related. At birth, it ceases to be a de-facto endoparasite and becomes a free living, albeit needy, organism.

“You said on another segment that there is no absolute right an wrong and yet you keep on arguing though there is. Is it absolutely wrong to have a woman bring a baby to birth? Is that absolute or not?
If it isn’t why are you here besides to hear yourself talk? "
No, it’s not absolutely wrong to carry a pregnancy to term. Nor is it absolutely right. Without moral absolutes, it must be left up to the individual to make that decision for themselves based upon their own priorities. Which is to say … the best solution is for the government not to take a position at all.

" just like we on the right are told we must never do since that would be imposing our beliefs on someone which is apparently very bad thing to do. Except when a lefty wants to do it. "

Pro-choice isn’t imposing on anyone. It’s literally an absence of imposition of any kind, as in, you make that choice for yourself, not have it imposed upon you by the government.
commented 2018-02-09 14:53:11 -0500
Al Peterson,

The debate is indeed settled.

Even conservative politicians know that abortion is a campaign loser even if they are personally pro-life. They know they will instantly lose the election if they come out wanting to make abortion illegal.

Harper certainly knew that.
commented 2018-02-09 14:46:33 -0500
Al Peterson,

Are you really that clueless?

A fetus that is not viable outside the womb per the amount of weeks – will be lucky to last a minute no matter how good the parenting is for those 60 seconds.

A baby outside of the womb is viable and will live even with shitty parenting, as long as it’s not abuse.

That is the difference and that is why the word viable is used by doctors when discussing abortion.
commented 2018-02-09 14:24:24 -0500
JAMES CROCKETT commented 2018-02-09 13:57:21 -0500
Al Peterson,

A baby is viable outside the womb.

Globs of goo are not.
________________________________________________________________________________
James, y9ou ae truly an idiot if you see gobs of goo in a dismembered baby.

Explain viability to me? That is another one of those left wing expressions that is designed to sound scientific when it is just more mental gymnastics to justify the barbaric indifference of the evil doers.

A baby cannot survive without parental input for many years- lets say 5- if there are no evil doers intent on causing harm. How is that different than a baby in the womb that is reliant on the mother for nourishment and protection? I mean other than this magical trip down the birth canal that suddenly confers all manner of rights that 10 seconds earlier were non-existent?

JAMES CROCKETT commented 2018-02-09 14:01:30 -0500
Al Peterson,

You seem to have a problem with the fact the abortion debate is settled.
________________________________________________________________________________
Yeah, I have a bit of a problem with the dismemberment of children to satisfy the selfishness of a self absorbed person. In your world nothing is ever settled because you have no moral foundation on which to decide it.
You said on another segment that there is no absolute right an wrong and yet you keep on arguing though there is. Is it absolutely wrong to have a woman bring a baby to birth? Is that absolute or not?
If it isn’t why are you here besides to hear yourself talk?

The debate is not settled. You lefties keep trotting that old canard out. In a free society nothing is ever settled especially if you hold to the notion that there is not absolute right or wrong. Then it is just a matter of who can cudgel the other side into submission for the time being. It is an eternal wing/yang battle.

Try to follow along here. I know it is difficult when you want to believe a lie but give it the old college try. The SCOC did not say restricting abortion was against the law or unconstitutional. They only said that last law that was drafted was unconstitutional. The SCOC justices are not gods. They do not get to make law. They only get to interpret it.

Since they are mostly left-wingers appointed by left wingers they interpret it according to their privately held beliefs- just like we on the right are told we must never do since that would be imposing our beliefs on someone which is apparently very bad thing to do. Except when a lefty wants to do it.

So please do not keep stating your preferences as truth. They are only opinions. In your world view that’s all you can attain- opinion based on emotion. The rest of us have a grasp on truth.

Now if you hold to what you say about there being no absolute truth you will not respond any further. But given the inconsistency of your position you will.
commented 2018-02-09 14:17:17 -0500
Al Peterson commented 2018-02-09 11:49:21 -0500

“And yet you force your moral (or immoral as the case may be) framework onto the child.”

No. I don’t force anything on anyone. This sort of argument is a false equivalency – leaving the choice, and associated ethical considerations, to the individual is not the same thing as forcing them to respond a certain way. It might be equivalent were we talking about forcing everyone to get abortions, but we’re not. Freedom of choice suggests that you do what you feel is best for you.

“Yes the uterus is an organ but the unborn child is not. You have a moral obligation to treat all life as sacred. You do not destroy a life simply because it is inconvenient. What then would stop us from doing as previous societies have done and engage in infanticide?” The uterus belongs to the mother. It is solely her decision whether to use it to host a fetus or not. Infanticide is different in that an infant is independently viable and the question of competing rights is no longer pertinent. That question, of who takes priority, is an individual one and not something that can or should be legislated. If you believe that life is so sacred as to override the mother’s own autonomy, that’s your own belief and you’re welcome to it, but you can’t force others to subscribe to what is essentially a subjective opinion in a free society.

“Legal realities are simply mental gymnastics. They are realities today but gone with the wind tomorrow. That is why we used to not consider women and blacks to be persons. There is nothing immutable about legal “realities”. The laws are the ultimate rules of society. They are what matters – particularly if the discussion is about the legalities of abortion.

Constitutional rights are essentially never revoked, especially something as fundamental as security-of-person (which is to say I, alone, own my own body and have full rights to it). If the government starts claiming ownership rights, we’re no longer a free society.

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. Got a problem wirh that? We’ll put you in jail if you don’t comply.”. I am sure that you would find one of those scenarios to be essentially fascist, yet advocate openly in favour of the other, despite the fact they’re almost the same. Is Adult Billy, who needs your kidney to survive, less worthy than Fetus Billy, and would you advocate mandatory kidney donation against someone’s will to save his life?

“Because the Supreme Court arrogate the to themselves the place of a god does not make it a reality either. Many Supreme Court decisions have been overturned. Hardly the unshakeable rock of morality you make it out to be. Legality is not the same as morality.” I do not ascribe divine reality to anything. We are a secular nation, and yes, the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbitor of law. The law is not there to dictate morality, it’s there to decide what is fair and reasonable and nothing more.

When was the last time a constitutional right was overturned? Should we be deliberately restricting

“Genocide is exactly the same. There are competing rights. Hitler thought he had the right to the land occupied by the sun human slavs. Hence operation Barbarossa and the starvation of the citizens of Leningrad. He also thought he Jews were occupied valuable space and making life difficult for the Germans. No difference whatsoever. And his Supreme Court decided this too.”

My comment about competing rights refers to who owns your body. Unwanted pregnancy by necessity harms one party or the other, no matter what action is taken. Genocide is entirely discretionary at the hands of the aggressor – coexistence is reasonable and possible in virtually every case.

I find this argument is a slippery slope, and has little relevance to the crux of the abortion issue, which is again, one of security-of-person.

“And here we get another of your throw away opinions with no support whatsoever. Forgive me if I dismiss it out of hand.”

I linked some statistics about timing of abortions in an earlier post. The images used in shock literature indicate advanced development, almost certainly after 20 weeks. As indicated in my link, post-20 week abortions are less than 3% of total reported.
commented 2018-02-09 14:02:25 -0500
I think Canadians should abort Trudeau before the end of his term.
commented 2018-02-09 14:01:30 -0500
Al Peterson,

You seem to have a problem with the fact the abortion debate is settled. Do you actually think that you are going to be living in a world where pro-choice no longer exists? That will never happen.
commented 2018-02-09 13:57:21 -0500
Al Peterson,

A baby is viable outside the womb.

Globs of goo are not.
commented 2018-02-09 11:55:20 -0500
JAMES CROCKETT commented 2018-02-09 03:52:28 -0500
Al Peterson,

I see what amounts to gummi bears.
________________________________________________________________________________
Then you are, again, willfully blind. Arms and legs and ribs and toes, etc are clearly visible. No one is so blind as the people who do not want to see.

Not something that can live outside the womb.
________________________________________________________________________________

A baby cannot live outside the womb either for a considerable number of years. So 10 seconds makes the difference between being able to survive outside etc womb or not? Well, post natal abortions it is. I’m sure you would not be opposed to that. Especially if the baby is in any way an inconvenience to the mother- or father. I’m sure you’ve got more mental gymnastics to separate the two realities.
commented 2018-02-09 11:49:21 -0500
ANDREW STEPHENSON If that morally upsets you, carry it to term. However, you can’t project your own moral framework onto others and force them to comply with beliefs, particularly religiously motivated ones that they may not share.
______________________________________________________________________________
And yet you force your moral (or immoral as the case may be) framework onto the child.

Yes the uterus is an organ but the unborn child is not. You have a moral obligation to treat all life as sacred. You do not destroy a life simply because it is inconvenient. What then would stop us from doing as previous societies have done and engage in infanticide?

Legal realities are simply mental gymnastics. They are realities today but gone with the wind tomorrow. That is why we used to not consider women and blacks to be persons. There is nothing immutable about legal “realities”.

Again, this has already been determined by the Supreme Court …
________________________________________________________________________________
Because the Supreme Court arrogate the to themselves the place of a god does not make it a reality either. Many Supreme Court decisions have been overturned. Hardly the unshakeable rock of morality you make it out to be. Legality is not the same as morality.

Genocide is completely different – there is no question of competing rights there.
________________________________________________________________________________
Genocide is exactly the same. There are competing rights. Hitler thought he had the right to the land occupied by the sun human slavs. Hence operation Barbarossa and the starvation of the citizens of Leningrad. He also thought he Jews were occupied valuable space and making life difficult for the Germans. No difference whatsoever. And his Supreme Court decided this too.

Maybe it is, although it’s not representative.
________________________________________________________________________________
And here we get another of your throw away opinions with no support whatsoever. Forgive me if I dismiss it out of hand.

I have not made any of my arguments based on religion. It isn’t necessary. Dan can do as he likes. Many non-religious people also oppose abortion on demand.
commented 2018-02-09 11:17:27 -0500
Al Peterson commented 2018-02-08 22:18:18 -0500
ANDREW STEPHENSON
The government cannot assert control over your organs…
_______________________________________________________________________________
Ah, Andrew goes full deceitful again. We are not talking about someones organs. If we were I would agree with you. If you want to have your spleen removed for kicks go ahead. I would think you’re nuts but I wouldn’t try to stop you. But a baby is not an organ. It is a separate human with it’s own organs as you know full well. Once again you are telling the most obvious lies. Once again it is evidence that the lefties are desperately seeking comforting lies."

A uterus is an organ, is it not? Who owns that uterus? Last time I checked, it’s mine to decide what to do with, not the govenrnent’s. The government cannot force me to use it in ways I don’t want to, and that includes unwelcome tenants. It’s unfortunate for unwelcome tenants, but again, it’s my uterus.

“You lefties like to crow on about the legal realities. But as I pointed out at one time women themselves were not legally considered people. Nor were blacks. Legality is only a convenient legal construct to soothe the consciences of the evil doers.” The legal realities are what matters. The courts already decided that women are people, and the ones who have ultimate say on their own bodies. The fetus, who as you’ve pointed out, is someone else, is not entitled to override the womans’ own rights. Again, this has already been determined by the Supreme Court – from a philosophical perspective, it’s an interesting debate, but legally the decision is resolved.

“Other left wingers have done the same in history. Nazis decreed Jews to be non-people in order to carry out their particular brand of barbarism. This is no different. Our left wing legal system has for the moment decreed certain things to be true. Tomorrow they may be different because they have no moral absolute to decide any of these maters. It is only how the iceberg their feelings are anchored to has drifted that day. " Genocide is completely different – there is no question of competing rights there.

“Have you ever heard of anything so stupid in your entire life? The pictures of abortins are not realistic? How so? THEy are pictures of an actual abortion. What she really means is that the evidence runs counter to her wishful thinking so lease don’t confuse her with the facts. "Maybe it is, although it’s not representative. Majority of abortions take place before tissue differentiation has completed to that degree. Further, the pictures are mostly American issue, and in the US removal of fetal remains after it naturally died (undelivered miscarriages ,which are a huge health risk if no intervention is undertaken) are also classified as “abortion” – in fact, in the same category that’s often misleadingly called ‘partial birth’ which are actually mostly illegal on viable fetuses, and , so the shock pictures were very likely of naturally miscarried fetuses that needed surgical delivery.
“Dan Mancuso Mancuso commented 2018-02-09 01:07:04 -0500
So according to the left, the precious gift and ultimate responsibility bestowed upon women by God of bringing new life into the world, nurturing it and continuing the human race is “a life sentence”, and that beautiful human being life developing in the woman’s womb, and all their potential, is “something trivial”, to be murdered, torn apart in the womb, for the sake of convenience…Yup, that’s how the left rolls.

I still haven’t heard a straight, honest answer to the only question that matters:

WHAT ABOUT THE HUMAN BEING IN THE WOMB AND THEIR BASIC RIGHT TO LIFE?
"

The woman’s right to her own body is legally, more important than the fetus’s right to utilize it. The law says, you control your body. Someone else doesn’t. You do. The fetus is someone else. The government cannot legally intervene even if doing so is necessary for someone elses continued survival, such as organ donation or early pregnancy.

If that morally upsets you, carry it to term. However, you can’t project your own moral framework onto others and force them to comply with beliefs, particularly religiously motivated ones that they may not share.
commented 2018-02-09 03:52:28 -0500
Al Peterson,

I see what amounts to gummi bears. No something that can live outside the womb.

As for her conservatism – I will let Suzy Wharing speak for herself.
commented 2018-02-09 03:28:56 -0500
Should have said “regular basis” not “red gulag”- whatever that might be. Of course with the muzzies and leftists running the show we may end up in a red gulag for telling the truth. Those who don’t learn from their history are doomed to repeat it.
commented 2018-02-09 03:26:34 -0500
SUZY WHARING commented 2018-02-08 16:17:34 -0500
All these pictures of gore of full term dismembered babies is not realistic.[!!!!!!!!!] It is the size and shape of a peanut, very very small with no real visible discernible limbs.
________________________________________________________________________________
Have you ever heard of anything so stupid in your entire life? The pictures of abortins are not realistic? How so? THEy are pictures of an actual abortion. What she really means is that the evidence runs counter to her wishful thinking so lease don’t confuse her with the facts.

And then James Crockett praises her for being “reasonable and rational”.:

JAMES CROCKETT commented 2018-02-08 17:26:32 -0500
Suzy Wharing,

We desperately need more reasonable and rational conservatives like you here.
________________________________________________________________________________
So it is rational and reasonable to deny the reality you just saw?

What you desperately need are more of those comforting lies.
commented 2018-02-09 03:19:41 -0500
AN G commented 2018-02-08 01:03:53 -0500
Andrew Stephenson:
WHAT IS YOUR POINT?
Late term abortions happen more than you realize.
AND YOU ARE WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
_______________________________________________________________________________
Jan, I have to disagree with you here. Andrew is not wrong. Well, he is but more than that he is lying. He does so on a red gulag basis. He uses all the leftist tricks in the book. He pack more BS into one post than you a can refute in a day. He just makes claims and pronouncements and fabricates evidence and goes on his way. Each these lies takes a huge amount of time to refute because unlike Andrew we have to actually find the evidence. Once you do he generally clams up and moves onto another topic and starts over again there.
commented 2018-02-09 03:10:40 -0500
JAMES CROCKETT commented 2018-02-08 22:34:20 -0500

We have a conservative TODAY that is pro-choice.
________________________________________________________________________________

No, we have what is no doubt a fiscal conservative which is a liberal who can balance a cheque book. She can call herself the man in the moon but claiming it doesn’t necessarily make it so. Even if 90% of people support abortion it would still be wrong and I will not bow the knee to that Baal either.

Like the rest of you lefties she lies to make her point:
Suzy Wharing commented 2018-02-08 16:17:34 -0500

. It is the size and shape of a peanut, very very small with no real visible discernible limbs.
You cannot expect to give women a life sentence on something as trivial as something that is less than an inch in size.
_______________________________________________________________________________
James, you are always yapping about bat shit crazy conservatives not providing evidence. SO here is the evidence that proves her wrong and also liar. Which also makes you altar since you are supporting her claim by reps eating it. No discernable limbs, huh? Smaller than a peanut, huh? That is absolute BS and you al know it. But as always you cultural relativists are refusing to exercise discernment and desperately seeking comforting lies.

The evidence that you claim we never provide. From 7 weeks on:

https://www.abortionno.org/abortion-photos/nggallery/page/1
commented 2018-02-09 03:03:41 -0500
Drew Wakariuk,

Is that what “he” told you?
commented 2018-02-09 02:20:12 -0500
James Crockett Andrew is not a “he”.
commented 2018-02-09 02:16:38 -0500
Andrew no it was not struck down , i am talking about the Injection Sites. They ignored the law.
commented 2018-02-09 01:37:36 -0500
Dan Mancuso,

I already answered your question below – straight, honest, factual.

You just don’t agree with the truth and facts, but that’s completely irrelevant. Facts don’t care about your feelings or about your God.
commented 2018-02-09 01:07:04 -0500
So according to the left, the precious gift and ultimate responsibility bestowed upon women by God of bringing new life into the world, nurturing it and continuing the human race is “a life sentence”, and that beautiful human being life developing in the woman’s womb, and all their potential, is “something trivial”, to be murdered, torn apart in the womb, for the sake of convenience…Yup, that’s how the left rolls.

I still haven’t heard a straight, honest answer to the only question that matters:

WHAT ABOUT THE HUMAN BEING IN THE WOMB AND THEIR BASIC RIGHT TO LIFE?

Sane, moral people know the answer to that question…the left can’t answer it honestly and in a straightforward manner because then they would have to admit all their baby-murdering rationale and twisted logic is complete and utter BS…and they have too much invested in their pro-baby-murdering ideology and its connection to the rest of their Marxist propaganda and indoctrination to admit the truth…murder a whack of human babies in the womb because you’re too much of a narcissistic retard to admit you’re wrong, wrong, wrong!
Yuh, that’s how the left rolls alright…
commented 2018-02-08 22:34:20 -0500
Al Peterson,

Just so you know there are conservatives/people on the right/Republicans that are pro-choice as well.

I know people like you want to make pro-choice supporters all about the evil of liberals, but it’s not. There are pro-choice supporters on ALL sides.

We have a conservative TODAY that is pro-choice.

Suzy Wharing commented 2018-02-08 16:17:34 -0500

i am conservative but on the topic of abortion i dont agree. we need to let women decide for themselves what to do with their bodies. Again it is ILLEGAL in canada to abort after 10 weeks of gestation. Abortion is ONLY legal between 8 and 10 weeks. All these pictures of gore of full term dismembered babies is not realistic. It is the size and shape of a peanut, very very small with no real visible discernible limbs.

You cannot expect to give women a life sentence on something as trivial as something that is less than an inch in size.