A response to a cynic
http://canadiancynic.blogspot.com/2008/03/if-dishonesty-were-any-thicker.html
represents the full link so that any persons reading it have the opportunity to view the comments in their entirety and not my piecemeal.
Yeah, what are you folks all worried about? It's not like this was about abortion or anything.
On the other hand, courtesy of JJ, there's this SUZANNE
If you follow the thread you will see that the canadian cynic links to other sites that talk about the issue of bill c484 as it relates to abortion.
He has a fair point in that there is an inconsistent message on abortion and how it applies to bill c484. While some pro-lifers are saying that it's not about abortion they are in the next breath saying that they hope that it has an impact on abortion laws in the future.
I do not have the legal background to know whether or not the bill will have long-term consequences but I think that pro-choicers have a legitimate reason to be concerned about that. I do, ultimately, hope that abortion will not be legal in Canada but I don't know whether or not this bill can contribute to this process or not. I don't have that kind of a legal background. Certainly, it appears there are competing legal views on that - Mr. Epp has legal evidence to suggest that the prochoicers do not have a valid concern.
I do know that even if I had a guarantee that it would not I would still support the bill. I live a few minutes away from Olivia Talbot's home and I was greatly saddened by her death. I've also had transient opportunities to meet her mother at political events. I've spoken fewer than 3 words to her but her pain is just so obvious.
What I do dislike though is persons presenting Mary Talbot as a person with a hidden agenda. She has said many times that she is pro-choice and does not want this to impact abortion at all. While I understand that prochoice people don't trust the politicians or other advocates for the bill I would like to think that they could understand the grief and pain that motivates Mrs. Talbot. Believe that she is wrong, believe that she is mistaken, and disagree with her respectfully - but acknowledge and realize that her political action stems from pain. By her own report she's had long-held prochoice views.
I'm fascinated that Suzanne (edited to show manners) was allowed to use the phrase "pro-abortion advocates" to refer to pro-choicers, given that most pro-choicers find that former appellation more than a little offensive. One wonders if the Post has a guidebook that explains what is and isn't acceptable terminology. Would someone rebutting Suzie be allowed to refer, not to "pro-lifers," but to "fetus fetishists?" Or would the Post suddenly invent some journalistic standards out of thin air?
It is true that most pro-choicers don't like the term. I am not sure that it's not applicable though when Joyce Arthur herself is quoted by Suzanne as saying that she doesn't know we prefer birth over abortion. That to me is a pro-abortion statement. I wouldn't be offended if someone called me pro-birth!
And as for how Suzanne found her way to a prominent piece in a national paper I would imagine it's because they saw her writing talents and her collected manner of representing herself. And I do not doubt that pro choice persons would be able to call pro-lifers anti-choice or the like in some publications. Suzanne did not use an inflammatory term like pro-death or anything.
I guess most of all I would hope that persons could stop their bickering back and forth between the different groups on abortion and everyone could reflect on Olivia. Her short life came to a horrific end and she lost a child that she was carrying. She and her fiance had hopes and dreams for little Lane. Those dreams ended in gunshots. Her family was left to pick up the pieces and they are motivated by their loss and sadness. They are not people that ever intended to get involved in the abortion debate. They just wanted Olivia and Lane's deaths to be acknowledged and they want the laws to change. That people can't show compassion for that is amazing to me.
All of those people that talk about how they have compassion for this family and then don't even remember Olivia's name or call them "fetus fetishists" or infer that they are not emotionally well because of their grief really stand out for their insensitivity.
If you can't support this law because of your concerns about the impact on abortion then at least do something positive - come up with an alternative piece of legislationt hat would address the concerns without touching the abortion issue from your perspective or just simply donate money to a victim's rights group. Do something compassionate and positive in that young woman's name.
When I scan though the list of contributors to this discussion on cynic's blog I am doubtful that this could ever occur. This is a site that has used the word "cunts" to reference women that they disagree with. A term intended to belittle and silence women with strong voices that are alternatives to their thinking. Some persons that frequent there have, in the past, referred to traditional women building larger families and/or women beginning their families at a young age as "sluts" and "harlots". If that is the mentality that they bring to women, to free thinking women of different philosophy than their own, to childbirth, to pregnancy, to traditional family life etc then they cannot possibly imagine the loss that occured on the doorstep that day when Olivia and her baby died. Some people engaging in this debate are devoid of compassion.
represents the full link so that any persons reading it have the opportunity to view the comments in their entirety and not my piecemeal.
Yeah, what are you folks all worried about? It's not like this was about abortion or anything.
On the other hand, courtesy of JJ, there's this SUZANNE
If you follow the thread you will see that the canadian cynic links to other sites that talk about the issue of bill c484 as it relates to abortion.
He has a fair point in that there is an inconsistent message on abortion and how it applies to bill c484. While some pro-lifers are saying that it's not about abortion they are in the next breath saying that they hope that it has an impact on abortion laws in the future.
I do not have the legal background to know whether or not the bill will have long-term consequences but I think that pro-choicers have a legitimate reason to be concerned about that. I do, ultimately, hope that abortion will not be legal in Canada but I don't know whether or not this bill can contribute to this process or not. I don't have that kind of a legal background. Certainly, it appears there are competing legal views on that - Mr. Epp has legal evidence to suggest that the prochoicers do not have a valid concern.
I do know that even if I had a guarantee that it would not I would still support the bill. I live a few minutes away from Olivia Talbot's home and I was greatly saddened by her death. I've also had transient opportunities to meet her mother at political events. I've spoken fewer than 3 words to her but her pain is just so obvious.
What I do dislike though is persons presenting Mary Talbot as a person with a hidden agenda. She has said many times that she is pro-choice and does not want this to impact abortion at all. While I understand that prochoice people don't trust the politicians or other advocates for the bill I would like to think that they could understand the grief and pain that motivates Mrs. Talbot. Believe that she is wrong, believe that she is mistaken, and disagree with her respectfully - but acknowledge and realize that her political action stems from pain. By her own report she's had long-held prochoice views.
I'm fascinated that Suzanne (edited to show manners) was allowed to use the phrase "pro-abortion advocates" to refer to pro-choicers, given that most pro-choicers find that former appellation more than a little offensive. One wonders if the Post has a guidebook that explains what is and isn't acceptable terminology. Would someone rebutting Suzie be allowed to refer, not to "pro-lifers," but to "fetus fetishists?" Or would the Post suddenly invent some journalistic standards out of thin air?
It is true that most pro-choicers don't like the term. I am not sure that it's not applicable though when Joyce Arthur herself is quoted by Suzanne as saying that she doesn't know we prefer birth over abortion. That to me is a pro-abortion statement. I wouldn't be offended if someone called me pro-birth!
And as for how Suzanne found her way to a prominent piece in a national paper I would imagine it's because they saw her writing talents and her collected manner of representing herself. And I do not doubt that pro choice persons would be able to call pro-lifers anti-choice or the like in some publications. Suzanne did not use an inflammatory term like pro-death or anything.
I guess most of all I would hope that persons could stop their bickering back and forth between the different groups on abortion and everyone could reflect on Olivia. Her short life came to a horrific end and she lost a child that she was carrying. She and her fiance had hopes and dreams for little Lane. Those dreams ended in gunshots. Her family was left to pick up the pieces and they are motivated by their loss and sadness. They are not people that ever intended to get involved in the abortion debate. They just wanted Olivia and Lane's deaths to be acknowledged and they want the laws to change. That people can't show compassion for that is amazing to me.
All of those people that talk about how they have compassion for this family and then don't even remember Olivia's name or call them "fetus fetishists" or infer that they are not emotionally well because of their grief really stand out for their insensitivity.
If you can't support this law because of your concerns about the impact on abortion then at least do something positive - come up with an alternative piece of legislationt hat would address the concerns without touching the abortion issue from your perspective or just simply donate money to a victim's rights group. Do something compassionate and positive in that young woman's name.
When I scan though the list of contributors to this discussion on cynic's blog I am doubtful that this could ever occur. This is a site that has used the word "cunts" to reference women that they disagree with. A term intended to belittle and silence women with strong voices that are alternatives to their thinking. Some persons that frequent there have, in the past, referred to traditional women building larger families and/or women beginning their families at a young age as "sluts" and "harlots". If that is the mentality that they bring to women, to free thinking women of different philosophy than their own, to childbirth, to pregnancy, to traditional family life etc then they cannot possibly imagine the loss that occured on the doorstep that day when Olivia and her baby died. Some people engaging in this debate are devoid of compassion.
posted by MissHailey at 9:16 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home