How to turn Mark Warawa into a symbol

A motion on sex-selective abortion is ruled out of order


 

Conservative MP Mark Warawa would like to put a resolution before the House of Commons that would condemn “sex-selective pregnancy termination.” But yesterday, Conservative MPs joined with New Democrats and Liberals on the subcommittee that oversees private members’ business to deem the motion out of order.

The decision on MP Mark Warawa’s motion came in a special parliamentary subcommittee Thursday, as Tory MP Scott Armstrong closed ranks with the opposition and voted against letting it proceed. “(The motion) involves ultrasounds and health-care delivery,” Armstrong said just before the vote. “This is clearly the jurisdiction of the provinces.”

Armstrong’s comment flew in the face of the testimony of a Library of Parliament analyst that the motion was within federal jurisdiction, wasn’t similar to another motion before the Commons and wasn’t unconstitutional. The decision irritated members of the Conservative caucus. “Scott Armstrong was whipped,” one MP said. “There’s little doubt that the Prime Minister’s Office wanted this motion removed so that it not be dealt with by the House of Commons.”

Mr. Warawa is displeased (and will appeal).

“My motion is fully in line with the criteria to deem Private Members’ Business votable,” said Warawa. “The idea that Members of Parliament aren’t allowed to express an opinion on any subject is beyond belief.”

At least two other Conservative MPs—LaVar Payne and Kyle Seeback—are also unimpressed. And social conservatives are unhappy.

WeNeedaLAW director Mike Schouten was also shocked by the decision. “Is the Prime Minister’s Office so dismissive of anything remotely connected to pre-born human rights that it will subvert democracy itself to avoid the discussion?” he asked.

Here is where Mr. Warawa might get the support of those who otherwise oppose his views on abortion. Regardless of how one feels about his motion, regardless of how uncomfortable it might make the leadership of Mr. Warawa’s party, every MP and everyone who is represented by an MP should be concerned if Mr. Warawa is being prevented from putting a motion before the House simply because some people oppose its sentiment or would rather it not be brought forward. Never mind the very fraught matter of abortion, this now threatens to become a question about the nature of parliamentary democracy and the independence of MPs.


 

How to turn Mark Warawa into a symbol

  1. Fair enough. In exhange for an amendment to the motion which changes “condemns” to “disapproves of”, and makes it absolutely fundamentally clear it is the woman’s choice to seek an abortion at any time pre-birth, I will have no objection.

    • Sorry, but that’s not his motion. If the rest of his colleagues are that aghast about it, they can vote against it. We shouldn’t be censoring what MPs can talk about it, regardless of whether they agree with it or not. Should his constituents have a problem with it, there’s an election in 2015.

      • On second thought, having put forth the idea the Liberals and NDP could all abstain at the last minute, letting only CPCers vote on it. Then they could underline the hypocrisy AND oppose the disingenuous motion.

    • So, as long as they say what you want, you’re ready to support their right to be heard. Exceedingly generous of you.

      • I rule!

        • So it would seem. LOL I bet your cupboards are immaculate!

  2. I for one hope that the Liberals on this committee reverse their votes. Actually I hope all the parties do, but I look to the Liberals to protect important processes even if they are unhappy with a specific outcome.

    Yes Warawa is attempting to use this as the thin edge of a wedge and we would be on a slippery slope etc. However in my experience, thin edges and slippery slopes don’t really matter if you understand your principles. Everyone has the right to manage their own body. The fact that it is women that are capable of getting pregnant does not diminish that right for them. Any motion that impacts that right should be opposed. This one doesn’t.

    • I would have thought the opposition parties might have welcomed an opportunity for this to go forward with the possibility it would have to sow dissent within the CPC MP’s ranks. Even if the resolution went to the Commons and passed, the opposition could in future campaigns have used this as a wedge issue.

    • Very good post. Of course, Warawa is making mischief but at least half of these private member’s and opposition day motions are precisely the same thing. I am firmly pro-choice myself but I often wonder at the near hysteria that people reserve for any pro-life sentiment of any kind. Do we not have the courage of our convictions that we can’t answer arguments but must instead shun them?

      Bring your motion, watch it be defeated, and learn (or not) accordingly.

    • Last time I checked, women can only bring forth human life (contribution from a male donor albeit). Therefore two humans involved, not just one. This subject however is not about a woman or man’s right to choose life over death of the unborn. Now the rights have upped the anti. Now humans get the right (?) to choose for the third human involved – male vs. female unborn lives as now LIFE is being reduced to which sex brings more value. So, for all the supposed RIGHTS women now have – they have the right to bring their own gender towards extinction, and somehow society should accept this because our Government concurs.

  3. “The idea that Members of Parliament aren’t allowed to express an opinion on any subject is beyond belief.”

    “Is the Prime Minister’s Office so dismissive of anything remotely connected to pre-born human rights that it will subvert democracy itself to avoid the discussion?”

    Nelson Muntz: Ha! Ha!

    • The first reaction to truth is hate…Tertullian. smart guy..

      • The first reaction to Nancy Cosgrove is bafflement.

        • LOL I meant that the PM will not even look at something that bespeaks the truth of abortion because it might make people angry or hateful.

          • He doesn’t give a rats ass about making people upset or angry. Simply, if discussion, not even a vote, is allowed in the house, then he is accused of opening the debate and breaking a promise. So he has to shut down that process, as that would not be good for his election campaign.
            samu press store _ cartoon life blog _ samu press blog

  4. It’s ok to pass a motion condemning Macleans for saying mean things about Quebeckers, but not one that reflects on sex selective abortions? And people wonder why our Parliament is becoming irrelevant.

    • I supported the motion against Macleans, but mainly because I felt the cover used an intentionally inappropriate photo of Bonhomme. (it made him look fat)

      Somethings you just should not mess with.

      • I thought he looked quite jolly…but maybe you have a point, fat and jolly are stereotypes we should studiously avoid.

  5. Thing is, Warawa’s motion is clearly intended to re-open the abortion debate in Canada, which was closed 25 years ago. Canadians know precisely where this is going and I’m glad for once, Stephen Harper put his foot down and said this issue is settled.

    BTW women rights as regard abortion are far from secure. Let us pass FIRST a law that unambiguously declare that a woman’s body is her own, not that of her husband, religious leaders and the government. Until we do that, and until antichoicers at last put an end to their shameless attacks on women rights, this debate is closed.

    • Closing debate because you don’t like what your opponent is saying is antidemocratic. Period.
      I don’t like the back-door approach that Warawa is trying either. But as this is a free speech and a democracy issue I will defend his right to try it.

      • You’re right but the irony is not not lost on me that a Con MP has been hoist on the petard that was initially used to silence the Afghanistan Inquiry, debate on the omnibus bills etc.
        Maybe, just maybe the muppets who blindly stifled debate when told how to vote in the past will understand the consequences of the deeply undemocratic behaviour that they allowed to flourish. I’m not holding my breath that the Harper party cogs are that smart though. He chose them because they are compliant, not independent.

      • Right. And I suppose we should “debate” racism? Homophobia? Antisemitism?

        The problem with Cons is that they want to debate their rights to be racists, misogynistic, sexist and homophobic, and generally intolerant.

        This is a private matter and I’m sorry, but I’m glad this committee decided women rights were not up to discussion. Enough with Cons sexism already! If they want to really do something about gender discrimination, fine! That’s a great idea, actually. But they need to come up with real ideas, a real plan. Not more sexism.

        • The problem with Cons is that they want to debate their rights to be racists, misogynistic, sexist and homophobic, and generally intolerant.

          So let them.

          Unless you’re afraid that they’re going to convince people that they’re right, what’s the problem? The best defence against ignorant people is to let them be ignorant in public. Sunshine is the best disinfectant.

          • Well, sure. But why? Why should we tolerate hate (as an extreme case, say)? Why should we be silent when others take away rights from people?

            But ultimately this will hurt the Conservatives, for the same reason you mention. People do not want this issue raised again. Constantly bringing it up will only make people support other parties.

          • Why should we tolerate hate (as an extreme case, say)? Why should we be silent when others take away rights from people?

            Who says you should be silent? Scream bloody murder while they try to pass the motion. Show how wrong they are to try, and how terrible you think their ideas are.

            But silencing their ideas only makes you look weak, and them look genuinely aggrieved.

            If constantly bringing this up will really make the other side less and less popular, then let them keep bringing it up, and drive them further into the margins.

          • Well actually, if you read why the motion was rejected, it has nothing to do with “silencing” the opposition. The issue had already been raised before. And: “(The motion) involves ultrasounds and health-care delivery,” Armstrong said just before the vote. “This is clearly the jurisdiction of the provinces.”

            In other words: we’ve seen this before. Now move on.

            They should come up with motions that are actually votable in the first place.

          • Yeah. ‘Cause Ottawa NEVER legislates in areas that are more properly left within the jurisdiction of the provinces.

            That’s a weasily argument, imho, and pretty transparently so. “This should be left to the provinces” may be a perfectly valid point to be made when a motion is debated, but it’s a patently ridiculous argument to be made when preventing the motion from even being debated. It’s just a less egregious version of the argument that says “No one said she couldn’t sit on the bus. She just can’t sit at the FRONT of the bus”.

          • Sure. I see your point there, and I have to agree with part of what you’re saying. But still: the motion itself is equally deceptive, and transparently so.

            So oh, M. Warawa suddenly care about women and girls? That’s new!

            Sorry, but I call bullshit. (And you seem to have spotted that too, from what I gather.)

            Sure. Should it have come up for a vote? Perhaps. And it might: there are several options on the table. But why spend time and money on taking away women rights? Yet again?

            And why does the CPC suddenly care about democracy, anyways? Clearly they have no lessons to teach us.

            But Stephen Harper has an agenda behind this: he knows that ultimately, it is HIS party that will suffer. Either way it’s not good. Let the motion go, so that everyone now clearly sees that this party DOES have an agenda of rolling back women rights? OR not bringing it for a vote which will 1) split the party and 2) make Harper look as the dictator that he is, in all other respects.

          • Read my reply above..Thanks

          • Read my reply above…

          • Uh, did you read the whole article? Or just cherry-pick the bits you like?

          • Well the great thing about M408 is that it’s a no win for Harper.

            Deem it un-votable: your supporters will scream “Attack on democracy!!!!” (While ignoring all previous attacks on democracy from the Cons.)

            Allow it to move forward? Everyone will know your party stands against women rights and for re-opening the abortion debate. And Harper is not stupid: he knows that’s not a good thing for him.

            So yeah. I LOVE how M408 ends up dividing the right.

          • On that, we agree :-)

          • We will never be silent as long as we kill our babies in the womb. And do you know what..we are winning. 20 ,000 people marched for Life in Ottawa last May and will do it again this year. (Oh..there were about 25 Pro-Aborts, two bare-breasted girls rolling their nipple decorations) What does that say to you about “Choice”
            500,000 Americans marched in Washington in January (google it)
            And the biggest number of both marchers was young people.

            25 Abortion clinics were closed down last year in the US… A high-profile abortion clinic director left her job and is now rescuing workers who desperatly want to get out of the abortion industry (Read her story “Unplanned” by Abby Johnson) An abortionist, Kermit Gosnell is on trial for murder of at least 10 babies who were born alive and he slit their throats. (Is this the type of societal monsters we want to leave our children (if there are any)?

            Kansas has adopted a motion that life begins at fertilisation and these children have a right to life. Most states have adopted restrictions on late-term abortions (after 22 weeks) North Dakota is not far behind with beating heart and pain capable bans on abortion.

            We will feel so much better for all women who have to go through this horror. (40% are coerced by family or partner)

            Read about how Planned Parenthood encourages pedophilia , incest etc…abortion is a convenient form of covering up their mistakes. As one pedophile stated in a recent photo journal: “Abortion is neat.”

            Read and watch an actual abortion on “abortioninstruments.com” the Grantham institute.

            Our side is becoming very very popular. We and all unborn children will NOT be marginalised. And you say our views are terrible…

            Join us and feel a great burden lifted from your soul..

            Also

          • Read about how Planned Parenthood encourages pedophilia , incest etc.

            You want to post a link for that? To actual Planned Parenthood documents that say this; not some raving lunatic’s propaganda site? Because when you make such ridiculous claims you lose all credibility.

            40% are coerced by family or partner [into aborting]

            So instead you would force the 60% to carry their babies to term against their will?

            I tend to agree that abortions are wrong. But I also think it is a personal, moral decision. We can’t legislate abortions out of existence. And even to try is abhorrent to me; I don’t want to live where the state thinks it has the right to dictate control over a person’s body.

            Flip it around: would you like it if the state had the power to force you to have an abortion?

          • Actually Abby Johnson is a liar. I’d be careful before bringing her in the debate: http://feministsforchoice.com/abby-johnsons-story-doesnt-hold-water.htm

            So. Apparently clinics are closing in the U.S.? Good thing here we have anti-bullying laws to protect women from antichoice harassment, uh? They’re quitting their jobs, apparently? And? That only makes MORE jobs for pro-woman, pro-choice folks. GREAT! Everyone can chose their jobs. If they don’t like it, they quit. There’ll always be plenty of people standing up for women’s rights and doing what’s right.

            Oh, and learn to respect doctors. They’re not “abortionists” they’re doctors. Your rhetoric is just so gross it’s not even funny.

            Look, dear: it’s not your body, it’s not your life, you’re not the one pregnant. So unless YOU’RE the one pregnant, the decision isn’t yours to make. We’ll never cease to campaign against people who like you, disgustingly, try to impose your views on other people.

            BTW learn, from the typicall antichoice National Post, no less, why the status quo in Canada is the best case scenario: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/02/07/jesse-kline-canadas-status-quo-on-abortion-is-the-best-case-scenario/

            As for Kansas, yes that will deeply hurt women. I’m happy to live in a prochoice country that actually respects women and values their lives. Because make no mistake. This will not lower the number of abortions. That will only make them unsafe, putting women’s lives at risk.

            And you say life begins at conception? And? Where is the zygote located? Hmmmm? That’s right: in SOMEONE’S BODY. So unless you’re the one in whose body said zygote happens to be located: I repeat: this is not your choice. We can argue this day and night. You CANNOT make this choice for another woman.

          • As for babies: if there’s a baby it’s born. Otherwise it’s a fetus. Use the correct terms.

          • 20 ,000 people marched for Life in Ottawa last May and will do it again this year. (Oh..there were about 25 Pro-Aborts, two bare-breasted girls rolling their nipple decorations) What does that say to you about “Choice”

            That their position is so unassailable in Canada in 2013 that they cant even be bothered to counter-protest any more?

          • Yes..agree totally..Why be silent when innocent children (remember the heart beats at 18 days of gestation) are murdered. Rights…rights????

          • And please. By any means. If children are being murdered please speak up.

            So will I.

            Link with abortion?

          • Again: “the first response to truth is hatred..”

          • And? Do you think it is better that they express that hate where we can see it and judge it/them on the basis of that hate? Maybe discuss and defuse it? Or is it better to let it silently fester until it explodes, with real human consequences?

        • What is sexist about not wanting female babies killed.. Misogynistic? ??? don’t use big words you don’t understand.

          I have a great idea, a fabulous plan. Stop killing babies in the womb.
          “A nation that kills its own children is a nation without hope.” John Paul II.

          Or stop making us pay for it. (67% of Canadians want that too.)

          The truth is not convenient, it doesn’t sway with the times.

          and ” The first response to truth is hatred” Tertullian…

          Don’t worry though, the world is on your side…

          • Awww, cute!

            You know, I DO understand what MISOGYNISTIC means. Do you?

            And no, I don’t want babies killed. Male or female. Link with abortion?

            As for M408, like I said it’s sexist and misogynistic. Come up with a plan and we’ll have a talk. But don’t try to take away people’s rights because that won’t work.

            BTW the truth is that Canadians do NOT want this issue reopened. Harper knows this will divide his party and sink the CPC ship. So perhaps that’s a good thing, after all. At least now, the misogyny of the CPC is becoming clearer day by day.

          • You also do not know the def. of “Rights”
            go to “abortioninstruments.com”, pictures of aborted babies on any site…,foliow the trial of Kermit Gosnell,
            Then come back and tell me babies are not killed…

          • Awww you’re awfully cute. Go to ThisIsMyAbortion.org. http://www.thisismyabortion.com/fr

            Then tell me this has more rights than I do.

            Thanks.

        • So you really think that if you plug your ears and go “lalalalala” at the top of your voice issues you don’t want to discuss will disappear?

          Here’s the thing – something I have raised on these blogs quite a few times: As long as we have NO law on abortion, it will continue to be an issue to be raised. The courts threw out the previous law 25 years ago and politician have been afraid to touch it ever since. Largely because rabid ideologues on both sides of the debate are unwilling to listen to anything other than their own sanctimonious bullsh*t.

          We are about the only developed nation without a law dealing with this subject because Canadians apparently are too immature.

          Isn’t it time we grow up?

          As for my own stance on this: I have posted it as well on this site many times. I call it Primacy of Rights. I won’t repeat it again this time, but if you are interested you can read one of my posts on it here: http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/09/22/abortion-harpers-vigilant-global-audience/#comment-319826655

    • Antichoicer, prodeather, what’s in a name? People on either side of this who can’t see the other side’s point of view are small minded. Glad to hear you are in favour of limiting democracy though.

    • The debate was not closed 25 years ago. The Supreme court ruling expressed the exact opposite sentiment. It sent the law back to be re-written, it was supposed to re-open the debate. The lack of political will simply stifled the debate.

    • The ironic thing is that with sex-selection abortion, the woman’s body is NOT her own. Overwhelmingly it is certain cultures who don`t value girls who are demanding that the women in their culture only give birth to male children. In Canada we offer abortion for people who cannot have a child for some reason…not for people who don`t want a child of a certain gender due to bigotry. We don`t need to outlaw sex-selection abortion. Provincial governments only need to de-list it as a free service…just like plastic surgery. It is not a necessary procedure but rather a frivolous waste of our healthcare resources. It is not a part of our Canadian culture…we don`t pay for male circumcision for infants and we don`t pay for sex-selection abortion.

      • I completely agree. It is mostly patriarchal cultures where female children are not valued that force women to have abortions when they don’t produce a male heir.

    • The debate wasn’t closed and isn’t. The SCOC in 1988, in striking down the then current abortion law, said it was up to parliamentarians to introduce said legislation. Successive governments have sniffed the wind and becoming invertebrates on arrival in Ottawa, have used the “closed debate” and “social peace” suggestions to run their own game.

      • And some of us, in fact many of us, are perfectly content with that approach. It’s part of this thing called democracy — politicians sniffing out the general will of the majority and heeding it.

        • What about the 92% of Canadians who oppose sex-selective abortions? Who is heeding them??

    • Totally appreciate what you’re saying re: “a law that unambiguously declares that a woman’s body is her own, not that of her husband”. And it seems like common sense.

      However, it’s doubtful that gender-based legislation would pass any kind of judicial test. On the other hand, applying that simple principle of ‘self-ownership’ to all Canadians seems to open up the possibility of, say, choosing the time and means of one’s own death. Maybe not a bad thing, but divisive nonetheless.

      That said, Warawa ought to be able to bring his wedge legislation to a debate by the house.

    • hmmmm..Read this and see whose rights are being abused. The unborn babe is a separate and complete human being from the time of fertilisation. The real attack on women begins in the womb.

      10 surprising quotes from abortionists:

      They’re threatened by informed consent. They’re traumatized by the limp body parts they look at every day. They’re torn by the contradiction that they became doctors to preserve life but use their profession to end it. Here are some eye-opening confessions from current and former abortionists.

      They [the women] are never allowed to look at the ultrasound because we knew that if they so much as heard the heart beat, they wouldn’t want to have an abortion. –Dr. Randall, former abortionist

      Even now I feel a little peculiar about it, because as a physician I was trained to conserve life, and here I am destroying it. -Dr. Benjamin Kalish, abortionist

      You have to become a bit schizophrenic. In one room, you encourage the patient that the slight irregularity in the fetal heart is not important, that she is going to have a fine, healthy baby. Then, in the next room you assure another woman, on whom you just did a saline abortion, that it is a good thing that the heartbeat is already irregular… she has nothing to worry about, she will NOT have a live baby… All of a sudden one noticed that at the time of the saline infusion there was a lot of activity in the uterus. That’s not fluid currents. That’s obviously the fetus being distressed by swallowing the concentrated salt solution and kicking violently and that’s to all intents and purposes, the death trauma… somebody has to do it, and unfortunately we are the executioners in this instance[.] -Dr. Szenes, abortionist

      Telling those women their fetuses feel pain is heaping torment upon torment. These women have real pain. They did not come to this decision easily. Creating another barrier for them to get the medical care they need is really unfair. –Abortionist Dave Turok

      This is why I hate overuse of forceps – things tear. There are only two kinds of doctors who have never perforated a uterus, those that lie and those who don’t do abortions. –Anonymous Abortionist

      I got to where I couldn’t stand to look at the little bodies anymore. -Dr. Beverly McMillan, former abortionist

      I think in many ways I’ve been lucky to have been part of this. If I hadn’t gotten involved, I would have gone through life probably being perfectly satisfied to go to the medical society parties and it would have been very, very dull. I would have been bored silly. -Dr. Jane Hodgson, late abortionist

      Sorrow, quite apart from the sense of shame, is exhibited in some way by virtually every woman for whom I performed an abortion, and that’s 20,000 as of 1995. The sorrow is revealed by the fact that most women cry at some point during the experience… The grieving process may last from several days to several years… Grief is sometimes delayed… The grief may lie sublimated and dormant for years. -Dr. Susan Poppema, abortionist

      If I see a case…after twenty weeks, where it frankly is a child to me, I really agonize over it because the potential is so imminently there…On the other hand, I have another position, which I think is superior in the hierarchy of questions, and that is “who owns this child?” It’s got to be the mother. -Dr. James MacMahon, abortionist

      We know that it’s killing, but the state permits killing under certain circumstances. -Dr. Neville

  6. On the principle of the thing, I have some sympathy for Warawa and his So-Con brethern. But I still have to admit to some amusement that – 7 years down the road – it is finally dawning on them that an oppressive, undemocratic government might actually be a bad thing.

    • And the Liberals are shining examples of that?

      • Remind us what the Liberals have to do with anything …

        • They’re the model on which the Tories built their strategy for governing.

          • Ouch!

            But funny.

          • Oh, it was an historical, rather than the usual hysterical, reference.

    • Yes, very true. Whining when it suits them. Meanwhile, attacking the civil liberties of pretty much everyone else.

  7. NY Times June 2011 – In 1990, the economist Amartya Sen published an essay in The New York Review of Books with a bombshell title: “More Than 100 Million Women Are Missing.” …. The essay did not mention abortion ….. Twenty years later, the number of “missing” women has risen to more than 160 million, and a journalist named Mara Hvistendahl has given us a much more complete picture of what’s happened. As the title suggests, Hvistendahl argues that most of the missing females weren’t victims of neglect. They were selected out of existence, by ultrasound technology and second-trimester abortion.
    ———-
    PJ O’Rourke – The second item in the liberal creed, after self-righteousness, is unaccountability. Liberals have invented whole college majors–psychology, sociology, women’s studies–to prove that nothing is anybody’s fault. No one is fond of taking responsibility for his actions, but consider how much you’d have to hate free will to come up with a political platform that advocates killing unborn babies but not convicted murderers. A callous pragmatist might favor abortion and capital punishment. A devout Christian would sanction neither. But it takes years of therapy to arrive at the liberal view.

  8. “Armstrong’s comment flew in the face of the testimony ….. ”

    David Hume – It is, therefore, a just political maxim, that every man must be supposed a knave: Though at the same time, it appears somewhat strange, that a maxim should be true in politics, which is false in fact. But to satisfy us on this head, we may consider, that men are generally more honest in their private than in their public capacity, and will go greater lengths to serve a party, than when their own private interest is alone concerned. Honour is a great check upon mankind: But where a considerable body of men act together, this check is, in a great measure, removed ….

  9. The reality is that P.E.T. decided Canada was to be a multicultural society. I can understand why pro-life groups oppose sex based abortions. However, when you consider cultures in India accept the killing of infant girls, this might be the most humane way to avoid that from happening in Canada. Combatting such a practice is best done by raising the profile of women in cultures that consider them inferior to males.

    • hmmmm.. Oh so raising the profile of women would certainly follow from the present day standard of choosing to kill females in the womb.. Yep..that follows.

  10. I fail to understand how preventing a motion from even being tabled, i.e. literally preventing the DISCUSSION of a topic, helps to protect women’s rights. There shouldn’t be ANY topic that’s off limits for discussion in the House of Commons, period.

    Frankly, I think that pro-choice advocates would be much better served having this motion put before Parliament and resoundingly defeated, than they are by preventing the discussion from even taking place. Preventing the discussion from even taking place just make the pro-choice side look weak, and afraid of the discussion, and what’s more, it’s exactly what Stephen Harper wants.

    To my mind, all that handling the motion this way does is save conservatives from having to squirm on the issue, while making pro-choice advocates look like they’re so afraid that they couldn’t win the argument on the merits of their position that they don’t even want the argument to be allowed to take place.

    • It isn’t only the conservatives that would be squirming on the issue if it were tabled in parliament. Canadians overwhelmingly are against abortion as a tool for gender selection of children. We all prefer to believe that the medical system will act as a gate-keeper from this bigotry against girls from thriving in Canada. As I stated earlier, it is hard to argue about a women’s right to chose when the women who are having sex-selection abortions are from cultures that are so oppressive toward women that they don’t want any girls being born. Let’s be honest, the women aren’t making the choices.

      • Fair points.

        I wouldn’t be so certain that all sex-selective abortions are of the type that you suggest though. Some (I have no idea how many) are women choosing to abort boys simply because they already have two, and now they want a daughter, or choosing to abort girls because they already have two and now they want a son. Sometimes the women are making the choice. Heck, I’d imagine that sometimes even oppressed women are making the choice, when they decide that they’d rather not have a daughter at all, than have a daughter who’s going to be oppressed and/or abused.

        • Ah, you mean it’s OK to kill … pro-choice= pro-abortion = death to a child. Abortion makes a woman the mother of a dead child.

          I guess convenience , feeling, gender, whims are more important than life itself.

          Read this interesting bit of dialogue from abortionists and former abortionists

          10 SURPRISING QUOTES FROM ABORTIONISTS.

          They’re threatened by informed consent. They’re traumatized by the limp body parts they look at every day. They’re torn by the contradiction that they became doctors to preserve life but use their profession to end it. Here are some eye-opening confessions from current and former abortionists.

          They [the women] are never allowed to look at the ultrasound because we knew that if they so much as heard the heart beat, they wouldn’t want to have an abortion. –Dr. Randall, former abortionist

          Even now I feel a little peculiar about it, because as a physician I was trained to conserve life, and here I am destroying it. -Dr. Benjamin Kalish, abortionist

          You have to become a bit schizophrenic. In one room, you encourage the patient that the slight irregularity in the fetal heart is not important, that she is going to have a fine, healthy baby. Then, in the next room you assure another woman, on whom you just did a saline abortion, that it is a good thing that the heartbeat is already irregular… she has nothing to worry about, she will NOT have a live baby… All of a sudden one noticed that at the time of the saline infusion there was a lot of activity in the uterus. That’s not fluid currents. That’s obviously the fetus being distressed by swallowing the concentrated salt solution and kicking violently and that’s to all intents and purposes, the death trauma… somebody has to do it, and unfortunately we are the executioners in this instance[.] -Dr. Szenes, abortionist

          Telling those women their fetuses feel pain is heaping torment upon torment. These women have real pain. They did not come to this decision easily. Creating another barrier for them to get the medical care they need is really unfair. –Abortionist Dave Turok

          This is why I hate overuse of forceps – things tear. There are only two kinds of doctors who have never perforated a uterus, those that lie and those who don’t do abortions. –Anonymous Abortionist

          I got to where I couldn’t stand to look at the little bodies anymore. -Dr. Beverly McMillan, former abortionist

          I think in many ways I’ve been lucky to have been part of this. If I hadn’t gotten involved, I would have gone through life probably being perfectly satisfied to go to the medical society parties and it would have been very, very dull. I would have been bored silly. -Dr. Jane Hodgson, late abortionist

          CLICK LIKE IF YOU’RE PRO-LIFE!

          Sorrow, quite apart from the sense of shame, is exhibited in some way by virtually every woman for whom I performed an abortion, and that’s 20,000 as of 1995. The sorrow is revealed by the fact that most women cry at some point during the experience… The grieving process may last from several days to several years… Grief is sometimes delayed… The grief may lie sublimated and dormant for years. -Dr. Susan Poppema, abortionist

          If I see a case…after twenty weeks, where it frankly is a child to me, I really agonize over it because the potential is so imminently there…On the other hand, I have another position, which I think is superior in the hierarchy of questions, and that is “who owns this child?” It’s got to be the mother. -Dr. James MacMahon, abortionist

          We know that it’s killing, but the state permits killing under certain circumstances. -Dr. Neville

          • Is this a reply to my comment? ‘Cause it seems as though you’re replying to another comment entirely.

      • So we restrict the freedoms of some women because the freedom of other women is already being restricted?

        Well.. I guess it’d even out the playing field.. oppress everyone equally.

  11. I’m disappointed in the CPC on this one. I expect Liberals and Dippers to suppress debate and free speech, but not the Conservative’s. I’m completely flabbergasted that not a single political party in Canada has the guts to simply state that sex-selective abortion is wrong. By refusing to condemn it, they are implicitly condoning the barbaric practice.

    • You have evidence they’ve refused to condemn it?
      Because all I see is that they’ve refused to discuss it.

      • I get what you’re saying here, but that was a strange way to put it.

        So, they’re going to condemn it without discussing it? That’d be a neat trick.

  12. The Supreme Court has ruled on abortion. So unless one has a comprehensive new abortion law, the sex selection debate is a moot, and a total waste of time, and merely serves to divide society in a multitude fo ways.

    It puts the cart before the horse, and Stephen Harper said there would be no horse on his watch.

    • Tell that to millions of Canadian citizens killed in the womb.

  13. this is a bloody motion , not a Bill. and it is about a cultural type genocide. what is wrong with MPs – has Ottawa got some kind of idiot poison in the water that some of these MPs are drinking?