Apparently,
The front windows of New Brunswick’s Right to Life office in Fredericton have been smashed, and a sticker reading “choice” affixed to the front door, reports The Daily Gleaner...
"We tried to be a witness in a quiet way, but the protest made some people erupt and someone has taken their anger out on us because of where we stand on the issue," Ryan continued. "It's unfortunate there are people so disturbed that they would need to turn to violence and destruction."
This is disappointing since, as we all know, vandalism solves nothing. The proper course of action is, naturally, to form a human blockade and scream endlessly at those you disagree with.
Or simply kill them. I've heard that works, too.
16 comments:
right on
I don't know of any Canadian protests in recent memory that involved blockades.
And the overwhelming majority of pro-lifers reject violence.
And you got my name wrong.
And thanks for the traffic.
Suzanne writes:
"And the overwhelming majority of pro-lifers reject violence."
Except for those few with the high-powered rifles, right? Luckily, as Suzanne points out, they're a minority. Otherwise, I suspect there would be cause for concern.
I don't know any pro-lifers with high-powered rifles. If all these pro-lifers with high-powered rifles were such a threat, we'd hear about it, wouldn't we? The pro-lifers I know in Ottawa are not keen on guns (judging by the lack of talk of guns at meetings), if that's what you're getting at.
The pro-life movement in Canada is overwhelmingly peaceful and dedicated to the democratic process.
Suzanne writes:
"The pro-life movement in Canada is overwhelmingly peaceful and dedicated to the democratic process."
"Dedicated to the democratic process," you say? How amusing since, according to Wikipedia,
In a Gallup Canada poll taken April 2005, 52% of respondents say they would like to see Canadian abortion laws "remain the same," 20% say they would like the laws to be "less strict," while 24% say they would like the laws to be "more strict.
That means a full 72 per cent of Canadians favour abortion rights. One would think the public has spoken on the issue, then. And yet, Suzanne, there you are ... trying to outlaw abortion. How exactly do you define "democracy?"
And about that whole "overwhelmingly peaceful" thing, well ...
First off, we can't have any "less strict" laws, because there are simply NO LAWS on abortion in Canada. Plain and simple. So that poll was loaded. Life Canada does a poll every year. About a 1/3 of Canadians want abortion banned, 1/3 want more resrictions, and the rest want the laws as is.
Being dedicated to the democratic process means that you persuade the public and work to get your candidate elected. That's what we do. We have the right to have our views represented by elected officials, even if they're minority views (and some of them are not: most Canadians, for instance, oppose late-term abortion).
The attack of three doctors occurred ten years ago. Separatists killed more people during the sixties, but they don't get branded as violent, do they?
If those are the only cases you can come up with, in spite of the yearly Life chains, the yearly March for Life, all the abortion clinic protests, and every other kind of pro-life meeting and manifestation, that's not much of a case for your assertion that pro-lifers are violent. Face the facts, we're a peaceful bunch. Ask the police whether they'd rather oversee a pro-life protest on Parliament Hill or a comparable number of protesters at a G8, I think the answer is predictable.
Suzanne, who accuses liberals of wanting to legalise pedophilia talks about persuasion? That is to laugh.
If these nutbags didn't come off so damn hateful all the time, people might actually listen to them. But they can't, because at the core of their belief is not "respect for life," but intolerance and anger.
No anger, hatred and intolerance from you ti-Guy, no siree, you're the very picture of peace and love on every single blog you confront a right-winger.
Listen ti-Guy, if we're doing such a poor job of persuading people, I'm sure you'll be happy to let us keep doing what we're doing without interfering. After all, the left doesn't need someone throwing ad hominems in its name, making everyone else look bad, now do they?
No anger, hatred and intolerance from you ti-Guy, no siree, you're the very picture of peace and love on every single blog you confront a right-winger.
What's that got to do with accusing liberals of wanting to legalise pedophilia? That's a far more hateful accusation than simply arguing with rightwing fascists, don't you think?
Listen ti-Guy, if we're doing such a poor job of persuading people, I'm sure you'll be happy to let us keep doing what we're doing without interfering.
Are you nuts? You're the one who's always showing up at progressive blogs and bothering everyone. Look, you can hold your beliefs about abortion, you can protest peacefully and lobby the government.
You don't get to lie and hate, though. If you don't like that, tant pis.
I do not like the phrase pro-life attached to the anti-abortion crowd. I don't think there is a single person in this country who is not pro-life, unless they are a serial killer or someone convicted of one or more murders. To suggest that someone is pro-death because they believe in the right of a woman (or couple) to choose to carry through with a pregnancy is ludicrous and a sanctimoneous label to boot.
What's that got to do with accusing liberals of wanting to legalise pedophilia?
What's that got to do with the subject of the discussion? Or does it always have to become about the poster for you to make my point? I did not specifically accuse any liberals of legalizing pedophilia. You misread a comment of mine and read into it an accusation.
That's a far more hateful accusation than simply arguing with rightwing fascists, don't you think?
Arguing is not "you're so full hatred, anger and intolerance". That's ad hominem. Arguing means you present facts and insights into the subject of discussion, which you aren't doing.
Are you nuts? You're the one who's always showing up at progressive blogs and bothering everyone.
I don't show up on lefty blogs that often. This particular post happened to be about something I wrote.
Look, you can hold your beliefs about abortion, you can protest peacefully and lobby the government.
Which is what I said.
You don't get to lie and hate, though. If you don't like that, tant pis.
Well you give yourself permission to hate. When you preach against hate, and you come off hateful yourself, that doesn't make you credible.
Besides *I* am not the topic of discussion. If pointing out what an (allegedly) shitty person I am is the only way to make your point, that doesn't say much to your debating skills. Frankly, your behaviour is very trollish, as you can't stick to the subject of discussion, and have to make ad hominem attacks.
BC Waterboy:
"Pro-life" is short for "pro-right-to-life", that is the right to life from conception to natural death. I think you're committing a logical fallacy by assuming that just because people label themselves "pro-life" that means that everyone is "pro-death" just like not being "pro-choice" doesn't mean I'm against every choice. Being "anti-choice" means I'm against the choice of legalized abortion; being not being pro-life means a person is against the right-to-life of embryos and fetuses, and/or in favour of assisted suicide, euthanasia of babies (like in Holland), eugenics and and so forth.
I try to cut through the semantics by calling myself a fetal rights activist.
Suzanne, thanks for the explanation. Perhaps it would be worthwhile to your cause in the future to refer to yourself as a fetal rights activist. I completely disagree with your assertion in regards to semantics: is not a logical fallacy to conclude that persons against abortion label those in favour of a individual's right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy as pro-death. I've heard and seen many anti-abortionists label those in favour of choice as "pro-death", "murderers" and the like, that is such a complete crock of shit. This occurs each and every Tuesday in front of Kelowna General Hospital, with anti-abortionists holding up doctored photos and screaming insults at people as they enter the hospital, but, thanks for the input. Although I do not believe that abortion should be used as a method of birth control, as it often is, and adoption is always a prefered option for the millions of unwanted and abused children in this world, I will never accept that I or anyone else, has any business dictating what a woman ought to do with her body.
BC, the issue is: does a woman have the right to dictate what happens to another human being? And yes, a fetus is a human being. He is, by all the laws of biology, a living being and a member of our species, and therefore shares our nature. We were all fetuses at one point. The fetus is not her body. The fetus lives inside her body, but that's not the same thing. Does her convenience and her interests trump the right to life of an unborn child? Fetal rights activists say no. Fetuses are people too.
Is it moral that in this country, in the name of feminism, there is no legal protection whatsoever for fetuses, who, for a good part of pregnancy, are sentient creatures who are loved, feel pain, considered members of the family, and so forth?
This "no right to dictate to women" attitude completely neglects that the unborn child is not just a blob of tissue. While Canadian law might say the fetus is not a a person, sociologically, he is. When doctors and pregnant women and family members talk about an unborn child, they don't call him "My blob of tissue", "my potential son" or any such euphemistic language. He is loved, he is nicknamed (if not actually named) and is called a "baby". He is not a non-entity in the eyes of society and in the eyes of the medical establishment (even Health Canada calls him "an unborn child").
But in the Feminist ideology, he's a nothing. Even though the rest of society treats the unborn child as someone important, God forbid we consider his interests.
We have to stop this insanity.
There is nothing morally wrong with making women live up to the responsibility of parenting an unborn child. If people are going to have sex, they must realize that babies result from it, and that there is a potential parental responsibility. We must change our behaviour accordingly. It's not fascistic to persuade people to do this. We do this with all kinds of social movements. Otherwise the resultant disconnect between our behaviour and our actions is that the end of a line, an unborn child is scapegoated for his parents' actions.
Rant over. Thank you for posting.
Suzanne, I see where you are coming from, really, I do. However, it is the woman's body that the blastocyst implants into the wall of the uterus, therefore, it is HER body that is going to endure the pregnancy. That being said, I would truly like to see the unwanted blastocyst fully develop and be adopted out to persons who are not fortunate to be able to bring a life into this world and care for and nurture that child, instead of subjecting him or her to constant reminders that they were a "mistake" or a "bastard". As well, it is both parents who share a responsibility for the child, not just the woman who gets blamed for getting pregnant. Too often, the man gets off scott free, leaving the woman to fend for herself. In my workplace alone, there are more garnishees against the wages of deadbeat dads than for any other form of debt. That's sick and I find it appalling. If I were perhaps 10 years younger, my husband (yes, we are a gay married couple), and I would certainly consider adopting an unwanted child, may do it yet, who knows:), age is only a number. Thanks.
Post a Comment