Thursday, April 26, 2012

Put your hand up if you totally saw THIS coming.

It was only a matter of time wasn't it?  Only a matter of time until the horrid shitshow attack on reproductive rights (aptly termed the War on Women by the media) started to creep its way north of the border.

Today Parliament, in spite of Steve-O's empty promises not to reopen the abortion debate, is debating whether to have a big old special committee to discuss the whole “Does life begin at conception” thing.  I caught a snippet on the news this morning regarding the debate, and later came across the story through Twitter (via @creativetweets).

Abortion rights debate spurred by MP's motion

Granted, the definition of the current law, which basically states that life begins when you fall out of your mom's vagina, is rather outdated seeing as it's based on a British definition that goes back about 400 years.  Any woman who has had her ribs bruised to shit by a fetus that seems to fancy itself the next Bruce Lee will tell you that this definition doesn't quite ring true.

But I am not, for one second, buying that this debate is being held in the name of clearing up an old definition in the name of being more scientifically accurate and “in line with 21st century medicine”.  Especially when you consider that Stephen Woodworth, the Conservative MP who brought it to the table, all but admitted that the motion is linked to abortion.

Woodworth wants to have an honest discussion but I think it's a discussion that should be kind of moot.  Regardless of when government rules ‘life’ begins, does one ‘person’ (or fetus') right to life cancel out another person's right to NOT have another person take residence in their body for up to nine months, possibly to the detriment of her own health?

I'd say no, regardless of how this fetus or person got there (ie, the ‘good' abortion vs the ‘bad' abortion) and no regardless of whether the reasons for abortion are considered selfish or noble/tragic.  Pro-choice means choice for all, even if we don't like or agree with those choices.  Anything less and we run the risk of allowing our rights over our bodies to be eroded.

I'm glad to hear that at least the NDP is planning to vote along party lines with the idea that the right to choose is NOT up for debate.  Conservatives, we don't know for sure, but it doesn't look good.  Rae has said that the Liberals will likely be allowed to 'vote their conscience'..

My friend @corecorina posted a link on twitter to a petition put forth by Liberal party member Lucie Pepin.  I will be signing and I encourage those who are eligible to sign as well.  We've already seen from the way things have been going to hell in a handbasket in the U.S. that allowing this debate to open again can quickly dissolve into a slippery slope to the point where even a miscarriage could potentially be grounds for criminal charges.


  1. I heard this on the radio today. The topic enrages me. My uterus, my choice. Period. Why is this topic still up for debate?

    1. I wish I could say I am surprised by it.. but I'm really not. :-(

      I WAS surprised to read a few months ago that apparently abortion IS still illegal in PEI (if I recall correctly).

    2. How is that even possible? I thought this had been decided years ago at the Federal level? My problem is I don't like any of our politicians. Stephen Harper defines the anti-women PC stereotype, but the Liberals haven't done any better in Ontario as we watch all of our high paying jobs be replaced by minimum wage ones. Which, usually ends up being women too.

    3. Wait, I got that wrong.. it's not illegal per se, but there is no access. The only hospital that was performing abortions merged with a Catholic hospital in '82 and they stopped offering the service. So now women have to go to Halifax or Fredericton.

    4. So it may as well be illegal.

  2. I was fuming over the bullshit happening in the States, while I was cutting the grass today, wondering where the hell they think they got the right to choose for women... or make them undergo invasive, intrusive procedures before deciding.


    I've never trusted Stephen Harper and his backwards thinking on women's rights and gay marriage.

    This is utter bull. My body. My choice. My ability or inability to parent is my choice. You know when it gets decided by government... no good can come of it. I honestly believe this is nothing but bad news.

  3. It's the way I was taught to boil a frog without it jumping out of the pot...warming the water very slowly. Things are getting incredibly ugly here in the states...I truly wish you better outcomes!

    1. I totally agree and I think this is a way of testing the waters.. let a back-bencher bring it up and be like 'oh this is not the Conservative Party line, this guy is an outlier but let's hear what he has to say'.. kind of testing the waters to see what the public reaction is.. fortunately, so far, it's been a resounding "HELL NAW!" But seriously, If Harper didn't want it to come to the table, it wouldn't have. Those guys don't wipe their nose without his say-so.

      The whole debate also serves as an excellent way to distract the country from other bullshit they're trying to push through legislation.

  4. not the right forum to post this, but because I think that your blog is so effing awesome, I've awarded it/you with a Liebster award. I'd never heard of it either but I gotta say - receiving it felt pretty damn awesome. It's for smaller blogs with under 200 followers. Hop over to my blog and get the how-tos... but for sure - thanks for being such an amazing writer!!!

  5. The sad part is that this was most one of the worst fears for a Conservative majority, but I didn't actually think they would do it. Maybe that was just my idealistic nature coming through!


Engaging in discussion and/or general sucking up.. that's where it's at!

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.