Sunday, November 16, 2008

I got your hidden agenda right here.


But, but, but ... I thought P-207 (aka C-484) had nothing to do with abortion. Wasn’t it all about protecting poor, defenseless women and their much-loved, much-wanted fetuses? Fetusi? Fetusesessssss? After all, Ken Epp said so.

Oh my stars, does this mean Big Daddy’s cult of personality party lied? I am so disillusioned.

6 comments:

Unknown said...

"P-207 (aka C-484) had nothing to do with abortion."

That is right it had nothing to do with abortion.

I voted in favour of P-207, I am pro-choice.

Unknown said...

Oh ya what hidden agenda???? Everything has always been done out in the open!!!!!

LuLu said...

I'm calling it -- 10:05pm on Sunday, November 16th, 2008, Wayne officially cracked right down the middle.

Alison said...

From the ConCon final plenary session:
"A delegate from the East Coast bravely makes the argument that this would, indeed, open the door to fetal rights - which gets a cheer, and then boos when she indicates that this would be a bad thing."

CC said...

Alison:

Please don't invest any time trying to educate Wayne -- he is stupid beyond words, and always has been.

Luna said...

Of course it has to do with abortion! If you give rights to the fetus, you open the door to ban abortion.

What they should have done was made pregnant women a protected class. Since we're way more likely to be attacked when pregnant, it makes sense to give us some extra protection then.

The fact that it would punish someone for hurting the fetus would just be a bonus for those who assign that kind of value to fetuses.

FWIW, I'm pregnant. With my third, wanted child. I'd be LIVID if someone hurt my baby (which is, of course, how I view him right now). I'd want to smite the motherfucker. HOWEVER, the law has to come down on it as a crime done to me, a pregnant woman. Not as a crime against what's growing in me, because at this point, we are not two legal entities, and I do not ever want us defined that way.

LOL at wv: fornco