At
some time in the evolution of Canadian Law, health care systems will
conclude abortions, beyond those for health, rape, or incest, are an
electable procedure and be paid for by the proponent who wishes to
terminate the life she and her sex partner created.
At that point we will see health costs reduced, more lazy hedonists, who undertake the sex act have protection and ensure they are using the technology provided by science to prevent pregnancy. Having to travel a short distance will be moot.
Selley is essentially saying we ought not inconvenience a woman who, through choice, had sex without taking responsibility for her actions. As it turns out her lack of responsibility is to be "born" by the taxpayer.
Women have few excuses for getting pregnant when it is their choice. Feminists argue she should have a CHOICE to get an abortion. They don't discuss the adult decision to take responsibility through CHOICE to not get pregnant. I propose a new slogan and category for females to adopt. "I am Pro-Choice for ensuring I don't get pregnant." I think we will probably have a 95% approval rate on this. Ideological Feminists will oppose it because it would imply women are not "special" enough anymore and are acting like adults.
This just continues to infantilze women as a gender who, on its face, can't make responsible decisions before a human life is terminated due to their poor judgment. It's the old story of "rights" without responsibility.
The Mississippi vote was thankfully killed as it would not stand scrutiny in the SCOTUS and held the pro-life movement back for some time. The issue must be dealt with incrementally, one step at a time, due to the misinformation supplied by the Feminist, tax supported lobby.
At that point we will see health costs reduced, more lazy hedonists, who undertake the sex act have protection and ensure they are using the technology provided by science to prevent pregnancy. Having to travel a short distance will be moot.
Selley is essentially saying we ought not inconvenience a woman who, through choice, had sex without taking responsibility for her actions. As it turns out her lack of responsibility is to be "born" by the taxpayer.
Women have few excuses for getting pregnant when it is their choice. Feminists argue she should have a CHOICE to get an abortion. They don't discuss the adult decision to take responsibility through CHOICE to not get pregnant. I propose a new slogan and category for females to adopt. "I am Pro-Choice for ensuring I don't get pregnant." I think we will probably have a 95% approval rate on this. Ideological Feminists will oppose it because it would imply women are not "special" enough anymore and are acting like adults.
This just continues to infantilze women as a gender who, on its face, can't make responsible decisions before a human life is terminated due to their poor judgment. It's the old story of "rights" without responsibility.
The Mississippi vote was thankfully killed as it would not stand scrutiny in the SCOTUS and held the pro-life movement back for some time. The issue must be dealt with incrementally, one step at a time, due to the misinformation supplied by the Feminist, tax supported lobby.
Chris Selley: Pro-lifers give themselves a warm fuzzy
Charlottetown is about four hours from Halifax or Fredericton by road. A return bus ticket costs $108. Some 140 Prince Edward Island women took those trips last year to terminate their pregnancies — as the National Post reported this week — in Halifax, on the province’s dime, if they have a referral from two doctors; or in Fredericton, out of pocket $800 to the Morgentaler Clinic, if they don’t.http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/11/18/chris-selley-pro-lifers-give-themselves-a-warm-fuzzy/#disqus_thread
Are you admitting to be the arch enemy of feminism – a controlling Patriarch – daring to tell the world you are or would coerce your wife to not offer up her own opinion.
Likewise you choose to infer Mr. Lilley is somehow involved in similar coercion of his wife and that he is somehow controlling this situation. You accuse him of inferring the dipper is a commie, which she might be, but then tar him in the same manner. Pot meet kettle.
You don’t have to tell us your politics. It can easily be inferred from these and past scribbles, not too mention J. Ibbetson that thoughtful sycophant at the G&M.
Here are some of his musings:
"Like most journalists working on the Hill, I try to conduct my personal affairs in such a manner as to resist allegations of bias towards the politicians I cover. (Ed note: LOL)
I do not put up campaign signs during elections, I make no donations to political parties and keep my voting intentions to myself. I don’t even answer telephone polls on politics.
It’s not that I don’t have political views — my friends, family and some of my colleagues know them. It’s just that expressing them publicly will inevitably, to some, undermine the perceived credibility of my reporting. This is a standard practice among Hill reporters. Few of us want the headaches of dealing with charges that we’re in the tank for a party.
So, I was surprised to read in Sun TV commentator Brian Lilley’s blog this morning about NDP interim leader Nycole Turmel, in which he claims that “many” journalists working on the Hill have dabbled with communism in the past and some likely remain fellow travellers:..."
See more here:
http://afewtastefulsnaps.net/?p=811#comments
Heres a sample of another left winger, Steven Wicary, at the G&M on Twiiter and my response.