May 14, 2017

Why Canada’s pro-life movement needs to change

Faith GoldyArchive

I support and respect Canada's pro-life movement, and I'm heartened when I meet up and coming leaders like Alissa Golob.

However, Canada is still the only G8 nation without an abortion law on the books.

If marches alone worked, we would have seen change by now.

On this week's show, I explained what the movement needs to change in order to achieve a degree of success.

Comments
You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2017-05-23 12:45:18 -0400
Spot on, faith.
I really think most of the “moral peoples” (I mean, mostly, the social conservatives and the faithfull catholics) have for much too long forgot the ways of politics and confined themselve in the morality realm.
One thing is to stand for moral principles and something else are the political gains and the way/means to achieve them.
commented 2017-05-15 17:44:46 -0400
Andrew, your attempts to find analogies is getting more ludicrous all the time. OK, A tenant.

I can evict my tenants but I can’t kill them to do so. Only the most callous of people can take the sanctity of mother hood and reduce it such evil by way of analogy.

You assume that this “parasite” is harming the mother in some way. Almost never is this the case. In fact the woman who has an abortion is more likely to get cancer.

Once again you are making completely arbitrary decisions. Now it is about being a “physical” parasite. Once the child is born he or she is still physical and still making demands on the mother’s time and energy and finances. This has been a justification for claiming that the child puts a mothers health at risk whether born or unborn.

You are so desperate to justify your position that you expand the semantic range of a word where it has never been used before. Parasite, indeed.

Here is the Oxford dictionary’s definition of parasite:

“An organism that lives in or on an organism of another species (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the other’s expense.”

The unborn child does nothing at the mother’s expense that causes her lasting harm in a physical way. If so then all unborn children should be aborted as a huge health risk to the mother.

I think the only way to deal with this if you persist in your sophistry is to follow G. K. Chesterton’s advice:

“Let all the babies be born. Then let us drown those we do not like.”

Why not do it that way? The ancient Romans and Greeks did.

Still you are desperately seeking comforting lies.
commented 2017-05-15 17:27:27 -0400
TAMMIE PUTINSKI-ZANDBELT commented 23 mins ago
“Peter Netterville, I care that you take the time to post your thoughts; opinions and comments.
Jack Carter has demonstrated over and over again that he has a God-complex; he frequently writes for the “world”.”
You are bang on, Tammy. The truth of the following will be obvious to truth seekers:

15 Do not love the world nor the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life, is not from the Father, but is from the world. 17 The world is passing away, and also its lusts; but the one who does the will of God lives forever.
18 Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared; from this we know that it is the last hour.
commented 2017-05-15 17:02:40 -0400
Peter Netterville, I care that you take the time to post your thoughts; opinions and comments.
Jack Carter has demonstrated over and over again that he has a God-complex; he frequently writes for the “world”.
Dan Mancuso has asked Jack a very important question; twice in the last little while and Jack has not fashioned a response. I am most interested in hearing his answer. Well Jack, answer Dan’s question please.
commented 2017-05-15 16:38:11 -0400
Jack Carter said, “The law, society and world doesn’t care that you think it’s best to assume life begins at conception.”

Then Jack said, “A person isn’t a person until they are born.”

And the world also doesn’t care that you believe a person is not a person until they are born.

Link to this law you claim exists, because until you do you are just blow crap out of your mouth, like you usually do, crap of the highest quality.

Oh, and btw Jack, this comment section is here specifically for people to post their opinions, so put up with my opinions being posted here because their is not anything your can do about it.
commented 2017-05-15 15:34:03 -0400
Andrew Stephenson said in part, “You’re caught up on the phsyical definition of “life”, whereas I”m arguing from the legal perspective, which revolves around who owns the woman’s uterus. Sure, it’s alive. That doesn’t mean the woman has to carry it."
If you want to only argue from a legal perspective, please explain how the RCMP should handle “failed abortions”? I’m sure you are in good standing with the Bar Association!? Maybe a big part of the problem is you haven’t considered the physical definition of life for more than a few minutes. I suggest you do.
commented 2017-05-15 15:23:55 -0400
So Andrew, if we follow you down the rabbit hole; it means that father’s can prevent mother’s from aborting the baby by serving them a notice disputing the “eviction”….that is actually a good idea Andrew Stephenson!

Andrew Stephenson, you missed the point of why I asked you if have heard of the Landlord’s and Tenant Act. Evictions are subject to regulations & laws; and must follow a carefully laid out process, there is a Landlord and Tenant Board….. if you are comparing abortion to a landlord evicting a tenant do you not see how ridiculous that is?!!
Link to LTB Ontario:
http://www.sjto.gov.on.ca/ltb/
commented 2017-05-15 13:58:07 -0400
Peter,

The law, society and world doesn’t care that you think it’s best to assume life begins at conception. A person isn’t a person until they are born. That’s the way it’s been and the way that it will continue to be.

Giving the woman the right to choose supersedes any possible argument you can make, which is why they say that abortion debate is settled, because that right for women won’t be taken away.
commented 2017-05-15 12:36:05 -0400
“Allan Peterson commented 1 hour ago

Andrew this answers nothing, The “parasitic relationship” as you so crassly put it does not end at birth.
The now born child is still a parasite on the mother for at least 6 years. Why goes she not have the right to kill the parasite at any point? "

No longer a physical parasite after birth. The law guarantees security of person, and that’s no longer threatened after birth.

“Tammie Putinski-Zandbelt commented 1 hour ago
ANDREW STEPHENSON commented 28 mins ago
The mother’s uterus belongs to the mother, not the “unborn”. They are a tenant that can be evicted at any time by the owner.

Andrew, have you ever heard of the Landlord & Tenant’s Act? "

Yup. https://www.saskatchewan.ca/residents/housing-and-renting/renting-and-leasing/giving-notice-to-end-a-tenancy#landlord-regaining-possession-of-a-unit-eviction-for-cause-s-58
See #4.“disturbing or interfering with other persons, including the landlord,”. You could easily claim that a pregnancy disturbs or interferes with other persons, including the “landlord”.

So, you serve it notice, it has 15 days to respond. If it doesn’t, then 30 days after notice is served, you can evict it.

“Peter Netterville commented 16 mins ago

You have claimed there is no differentiation in the life of those cells before or after conception nor even before or after birth and there fore it is impossible to determine when life begins.

And according to your own theory, a person’s life holds no more value after birth as it does in the womb or even before conception.

Therefore in logically follows, that if it is okay to abort a fetus in the womb because the life of the cells before and after birth are the same … at the woman’s request, of course … then it follows that she can at any point during the life of that child after birth to that child’s death also abort his/her life whenever she pleases. After all, the cells have the same state of life as when in the womb.

Andrew, are you saying women should have control over the life of every person she bears? "

The question in hand is the phsyical dependence of the fetus on the mother’s womb, and who actually possesses it. After birth, the child no longer holds a competing claim to that organ, and the controversy disappears.

You’re caught up on the phsyical definition of “life”, whereas I"m arguing from the legal perspective, which revolves around who owns the woman’s uterus. Sure, it’s alive. That doesn’t mean the woman has to carry it.
commented 2017-05-15 12:18:29 -0400
The firm purveyor’s of “abortion is just a little scrape” “parasitic relationship” “tenant who can be evicted at any time” “it’s a glob of cells, not a life” …… have bought into the abortion myths and deny ending a heartbeat and brainwaves is killing a human being. Why can’t they be honest, and stop minimizing the act of abortion?
Making it illegal is not what I’m arguing in favour of, we cannot win that war. I believe there is a need for regulating at what stage abortion should no longer be on the table as an option.

I came across an interesting article a few years ago:
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/01/31/three_tory_mps_ask_rcmp_to_investigate_some_abortions_as_homicides.html

I would be very interested in knowing what the real up to date stats are for “failed abortions”, and, what Canadians’ views are concerning the whether the RCMP should thoroughly investigate these cases and report on them.

Abortion Myth #9 – Source abortionmyths.ca (I would like more recent stats)
There are virtually no late-term abortions in Canada.

Abortion Facts
Abortion is permitted at any stage of pregnancy in Canada. When the Supreme Court of Canada struck down Canada’s abortion law in 1988, it also removed reporting requirements making statistics hard to come by. (1) As a result, detailed information is not available for more than half of the abortions performed.

According to the Canadian Medical Association, a child is viable after 20 weeks gestation.(2)

Margaret Somerville, a prominent ethicist at McGill University, recently surveyed available statistics on Canadian abortions. She discovered that “it’s known that at least 400 post-viability abortions take place in Canada each year and the actual number is most probably more than twice that.”(3) Statistics Canada, which claims that “providing statistics is a federal responsibility,” told Somerville when she inquired about late-term abortion numbers that, “they were instructed for political reasons not to collect statistics on the gestational age at which abortion occurs”. However, they explained that “hospitals must report the number of abortions and about 45 per cent had continued to report gestational age.”

Statistics Canada reported in 2005 that at least 534 abortions were performed after 20 weeks. Since the gestational age is reported by less than half of hospitals and clinics, the number of post-viability abortions is likely doubled.

In 2003-4, Ontario paid for 56 “out of country” late-term abortions. The total cost to Ontario taxpayers for those abortions was $397,514. Between 2002-2003, British Columbia paid for 54 out of country late-term abortions. The cost was approximately $2,800 per procedure.(4)

According to Ainsley Jenicek of the Quebec Federation of Birth Planning, Quebec leads all other provinces when it comes to access to abortions, even controversial late-term abortions. At least one Quebec clinic performs them up to 24 weeks. Beyond that, abortions of 32 and 34 weeks gestation have been reported in the province. There are about 29,000 abortions each year in Quebec. About one in three Quebec women will have an abortion in her life.(5)

(1) Joanne Byfield, ‘’Has Abortion Gone Too Far and the Debate Been Too Little?’‘, Calgary Herald, January 28, 2008.
(2) CMA Policy Induced Abortion, www.cma.ca, December 1988
(3) Margaret Somerville, ’’Busting the abortion myths,‘’ Montreal Gazette, June 2, 2010.
(4) Barbara McAdorey, ’’Growing concern over late abortions on Canadian women,‘’ Life Canada News, September/October 2004.
(5) Andrew Chung, ’’Quebec politicians unite to criticize Harper on abortion,’’ www.thestar.com , May 19, 2010
commented 2017-05-15 12:17:35 -0400
Andrew said to me in his post 1 hour previous to this comment,
“Again, the question doesn’t centre around “when life begins”, a question that’s impossible to define since the parameters of “life” are undefinable- there’s nothing about the process that is never NOT alive.”

Thank you for reinforcing my point with your evasive comment.

Yes, even the most uneducated and inexperience person knows that cells are living before and after conception. Your pushing of this point is irrelevant and pointless.

You have claimed there is no differentiation in the life of those cells before or after conception nor even before or after birth and there fore it is impossible to determine when life begins.

And according to your own theory, a person’s life holds no more value after birth as it does in the womb or even before conception.

Therefore in logically follows, that if it is okay to abort a fetus in the womb because the life of the cells before and after birth are the same … at the woman’s request, of course … then it follows that she can at any point during the life of that child after birth to that child’s death also abort his/her life whenever she pleases. After all, the cells have the same state of life as when in the womb.

Andrew, are you saying women should have control over the life of every person she bears?
commented 2017-05-15 11:38:44 -0400
ANDREW STEPHENSON commented 28 mins ago
The mother’s uterus belongs to the mother, not the “unborn”. They are a tenant that can be evicted at any time by the owner.

Andrew, have you ever heard of the Landlord & Tenant’s Act?
commented 2017-05-15 11:30:29 -0400
ANDREW STEPHENSON commented 24 mins ago
“My answer to both posts is the same: At birth, the fetus ceases its de-facto parasitic relationship and exits its host; it ceases to be a physical autonomy issue for the woman, as full control over the fate of her own body becomes uncontroversial at that point. Prior to that, the fetus is reliant on its mother, who legally remains fully in control of her own body and can chose whether she provides that or not.”

Andrew this answers nothing, The “parasitic relationship” as you so crassly put it does not end at birth.
The now born child is still a parasite on the mother for at least 6 years. Why goes she not have the right to kill the parasite at any point?
commented 2017-05-15 11:07:17 -0400
“Allan Peterson commented 33 mins ago
KELLY WEBER commented 30 mins ago
“Here’s an idea, if you’re against abortion don’t have one.”

Brilliant and effective. Except for the unborn who don’t get that choice. "
The mother’s uterus belongs to the mother, not the “unborn”. They are a tenant that can be evicted at any time by the owner.
commented 2017-05-15 11:02:27 -0400
*Allan Peterson
And a reductio ad absurdum is now called for. Since the mother can decide what she wants to do with this baby inside of her and, since “every child should be a wanted child”, why does the passage of through the birth canal change this?
-
Glenn Craig
Whatever inconvenience you can use to justify abortion can also be applied to children up to the time they are fully independant.

As well Andrew….women are now permitted to walk away from parenthood they find inconvenient….but men are not…

I am just dying to hear your response.*
--

My answer to both posts is the same: At birth, the fetus ceases its de-facto parasitic relationship and exits its host; it ceases to be a physical autonomy issue for the woman, as full control over the fate of her own body becomes uncontroversial at that point. Prior to that, the fetus is reliant on its mother, who legally remains fully in control of her own body and can chose whether she provides that or not.


*Peter Netterville
Tammie’s quote of someone she read saying, “If there is any doubt about when human life begins, priority should be given to protecting life.”, is something I have also been advocating for years.

Since science cannot define when life begins, then it is better to assume life begins at conception for fear of murdering a baby at some stage after if “acquires” life.

The baby is clearly a living child inside the womb and is observably thus in later stages of development. *


Again, the question doesn’t centre around “when life begins”, a question that’s impossible to define since the parameters of “life” are undefinable- there’s nothing about the process that is never NOT alive. The question is whether the woman has autonomy and control over her own body, and whether she is forced to carry it or not.

The Supreme Court ruling doesn’t address the “life” question at all. The question becomes, can the state force a woman to carry a baby against her will? The SCoC ruling declared that doing so represented a confiscation of one of our basic constitutional rights, towards “security of person”, meaning you, not the government, owns your body.

Whether it’s “life” or not is essentially irrelevant in the eyes of the law. Again, it’s philosophical rather than scientific, and it’s up to the individual to decide whether that’s important to them.
-
“Peter Netterville commented 12 hours ago
Based upon your own belief, Andrew, you have no more value than haploid gametes.
"
--

I don’t believe humans are anything special, an unusually intelligent and fecund bunch of apes. What is “value”? Typcally it’s defined as societal value, economic value, etc, but beyond that, it again becomes a philosophical question. I’d like to think that as a researcher I’ve made some societal contributions far in excess of the dirty socks you left under your bed when you were 14, but who knows (maybe your crusty socks were unusually gifted- assuming you don’t get bogged down in their potential to be “life”. That’s a sin, by the way, and probably for that very reason). I hold no illusions about the meaning of life or lack thereof; we are nothing more than a happy accident of evolution.
commented 2017-05-15 10:32:40 -0400
KELLY WEBER commented 30 mins ago
“Here’s an idea, if you’re against abortion don’t have one.”

Brilliant and effective. Except for the unborn who don’t get that choice.
commented 2017-05-15 10:31:48 -0400
Dan, you are correct in most points.
But to stop conversing with the Pro Death crowd is a necessity. True, they are seldom going to change because they want to believe a lie. But some do change and for those we need keep on using the truth hammer. It is also good mental exercise so we don’t become pressed not the World’s mold. Surely you don’t want us to just turn turtle? That’s what they are counting on with their claims that this has a all been settled.

I agree with you and have been saying for a long time that there are no mental and logical gymnastics the left will not use to avoid the truth.

They are desperately seeking comforting lies.
commented 2017-05-15 10:22:26 -0400
In regard to all the pro-baby murderers trolling this site:
You will never ‘win’ an argument or debate with a lefty/liberal/progressive(LLP). It is because they are uninformed or misinformed and they don’t want to know the truth. They’re very comfortable in their delusional moral relativism, that they have so much invested in, and so reject all facts, logic, reason, common sense and moral absolutes that don’t jibe with their indoctrinated narrative and/or personal preferences. Because LLP’s are really just fascist dictators screaming to get out of their LLP bodies, they have no problem with murdering babies – or anybody that doesn’t ‘think’ the same way they do. That’ll be that infamous LLP moral bankruptcy…Have you ever noticed that whenever you ask a pro baby murderer the very pointed and specific question; ‘What about that baby’s right to life?’,

…you either get no response or some BS response that’s pretty much made-up gibberish and nonsense – and because they believe that tripe as deeply as a shallow LLP can, that’s how you can tell that liberalism is in fact a mental disorder…
It would be interesting to see a ‘Twilight Zone’ kind of movie about these baby murderers ending up in the womb just as their mother allows a doctor to start ripping and tearing them out of her womb piece by bloody piece…if you could somehow force them to ‘live’ through that experience – with some super-duper virtual reality machine – I wonder how many of them who went through that would still be such avid baby murderers…
commented 2017-05-15 10:01:33 -0400
Here’s an idea, if you’re against abortion don’t have one.
commented 2017-05-15 09:53:45 -0400
@ Jim Reinhart

You are completely correct.

The Catholic Church should stand up for what they believe, and not just in the area of abortion. So should all the Protestant and Evangelical churches. All the Western Christian churches have fallen away from what they believe to one degree or another.

- – - – - – - -
Regarding the current topic:

The fetus is a separate life with its’ own DNA, its’ own blood type, and is only connected to the mother by the umbilical cord as a few have pointed out. As Allan Peterson said, “Science shows us that the baby is not the mother’s body. It is a separate human.”

Tammie’s quote of someone she read saying, “If there is any doubt about when human life begins, priority should be given to protecting life.”, is something I have also been advocating for years.

Since science cannot define when life begins, then it is better to assume life begins at conception for fear of murdering a baby at some stage after if “acquires” life.

The baby is clearly a living child inside the womb and is observably thus in later stages of development.
commented 2017-05-15 09:47:13 -0400
John your repeated calling everything you don’t like “extremist” doesn’t prove it is. But like all good lefties you keep on in the hope that if you say it loud enough and long enough it will be.
commented 2017-05-15 09:41:51 -0400
Andrew, now you have moved from science (pseudo though it is) to philosophy which you supposedly disdain. The child is not “foreign material” it is partly of her own body and partly the fathers’s. An alien did not inject something “foreign into her” a la the “Alien” movie. She made it.

And a reductio ad absurdum is now called for. Since the mother can decide what she wants to do with this baby inside of her and, since “every child should be a wanted child”, why does the passage of through the birth canal change this? If, say a year later, she decides that she really doesn’t want this child- perhaps it infringes on her mental health as in it restricts her socialization choices- she should be able to destroy it. Then death advocates like your self can put another bogus clean and scientific term on it to sanitize the reality. Lets call it a post-natal abortion. Of course it will all be done in a government (tax payer) funded facility where it can be kept away from the prying moralistic eyes of the public.

If it is foreign material inside her body it is foreign material outside it has well. What obligation does a woman have to nurture and care for foreign material at any stage of it’s existence? What callous, moralistic bigot should have the right to tell her what to do with a piece of foreign material in her care? Since the definition of life and person is not a scientific one but a legal construct we can change it to suit the declining morality of the generation we are living in. Brilliant!

This is further bolstered by the left’s view that a choice can be rescinded like consensual sex can later be proclaimed to be rape. A child once born should have the same circumstances. The mother at one point made a choice for keeping the child and giving birth but now decides, for whatever reason, that she doesn’t want to keep on with this choice. It was her choice during pregnancy so why should that choice be immutable after birth? So post-natal abortion time.

Think of freeing this would be! Think of how women would be emancipated from the drudgery of raising germ bags! Free at last!
commented 2017-05-15 09:26:08 -0400
For Canada to not be the 51st state on trade and everything, we need to follow what we had from WW2 to 1984 where Canada protected social programs, health care and had an independent and active public broadcaster and the standard of living was better than now.

Many on the right want an agenda of globalism but they call it nationalism simply by protecting our borders and having less immigration when they still want the war on terror which is as globalist as you can get plus the extremist free trade agreements packaged as nationalist as well.

Give me a break!

The only way to true nationalism is by following the agenda of Paul Hellyer, Mel Hurtig and the agendas to reduce our debt by using the Bank of Canada.

Many on here haven’t seen the videos of the Canadian Action party which stopped being a party just this year, but that party regularly advocated for using the Bank of Canada to reduce our debt which the three big parties all believe in usury and following globalism all the time.
commented 2017-05-15 09:23:08 -0400
The Roman Catholic Church is bleeding. The cuts come from within. Don’t rock the boat….we need the money.
commented 2017-05-15 09:18:53 -0400
That is why it is imperative for me to have a choice of many religions and not just the “big three” which are Catholicism, Judaism and Islam because choice is important in everything but people on here want zeal and hate religions like Buddhism, Taoism, Jainism and Animism. Many want the fight to happen with monotheism as if it is essential to their very existence like Rebel instructs them to do and believe in.

To ensure there is peace and to have peace, I think the world needs Buddhism and / or Taoism to rise to being a major religion to challenge the three main religions of death. Catholics are not spared from the Indian period where nearly 100 million were eradicated and somehow Catholics are a peaceful religion, where the following of Jesus has never occurred. What should happen is a clear and 100% truth tour of the three big religions and their centuries of Colonialism, wars, conquest and even the world wars which were wars for mercantilism and corporatism.

Back to pro-life, many on right simply want pro-life for social conservatism and to play culture wars when the culture in Canada is very much an American copied culture where we don’t have an identity because Canada is the 51st state.

To be truly independent, Canada needs to protect its health care system, have an independent broadcaster that reports independently about stories and gives a platform for all ideologies and parties, and protecting our safety nets and social programs. That is how to be independent as a country and how to have true nationalism. Before Reagan, Canada had a distinct anti-American and peacekeeping foreign policy. That is how to be civic nationalist and truly be anti-imperialist.
commented 2017-05-15 09:10:10 -0400
Except Catholics are not like extremist Protestants that are normally pro-life. Catholics normally want compromise and ways to deal with every faith on an intellectual level and be uniters. Just look at the Catholic Church now in the fact they want to eradicate poverty as it has always been. It never wants to follow the Protestant agenda of privatization, tax cuts and corporations. Protestants are the same people that choose rapturism. I will choose Catholicism over Protestantism any day, but the truth is religion is just a team colour and why I always say sure debate abortion versus anti-abortion but in the end abortionism will remain because for one the Supreme Court will keep it and women will be in an uproar if it is removed.

Conservatives on the right wing meaning social conservatives may never let it go but even the Conservative party will never allow it to pass. It will at most be used for fundraising and nothing more!
commented 2017-05-15 08:49:09 -0400
Why don’t we hear the Catholic Church speak out from the pulpit every Sunday telling Liberal Catholics to choose between their party and their church. The Catholic Church carries a great deal of power to persuade people on this one important issue. The Church should stand up for their beliefs and say it plainly. If you vote Liberal there is no place for you in the Catholic Church. You can’t vote for the baby killing party on Tuesday and then show up in church on Sunday and pray for the opposite. To do so would be hypocritical and we all know what Christ thought of hypocrites.
commented 2017-05-15 02:14:34 -0400
Jack Carter …it is you who are considered a joke…Stephan Molineaux has a subscription level and Patreon support that makes YOU the joke….this from the ONLY person Stephan Molyneaux EVER backed down from in an on line debate….when he trash talked a buddhist on his channel a troll named YOUMAUS handed Stephan his ass…that was me.

Now until you match that feat on Stephan Molyneaux’s channel I will not let you get away with that here…you simply have not earned it.
commented 2017-05-15 02:09:04 -0400
Andrew Stephenson…let me crank it up a notch….my Irish ancestors were able to sacrifice their children to Crom Cruagh the lord of the mound right up to the time they were old enough to fend off their parents and fend for themselves….then along came those overbearing Christians and took away parental rights.

Whatever inconvenience you can use to justify abortion can also be applied to children up to the time they are fully independant.

As well Andrew….women are now permitted to walk away from parenthood they find inconvenient….but men are not…

I am just dying to hear your response.
commented 2017-05-15 01:56:35 -0400
Andrew Stephenson, yeah I got that, I meant the last paragraph.