17

Pro-life rally on the Hill


 

Stephen Harper has apparently succeeded in angering both sides of the abortion debate.

“People who call themselves Christians need to take another look at what Christianity means to them and what it means to life,” Ms. Kearney said, standing with her friends under a light drizzle and cloudy skies. The Prime Minister calls himself a Christian, she said. “I’m not judging him because I don’t know the man. But, if you call yourself a Christian, then you should believe in life from conception.”

More on today’s rally from the CBC. Conservative MP Stephen Woodworth’s issued an invitation today to anyone who would like to contact him about his motion. He has also put together this video to explain his initiative.

See previously: A debate about a debate about abortion, Gordon O’Connor’s statement on Mr. Woodworth’s motion and my interview with Conservative MP Brad Trost.


 

Pro-life rally on the Hill

  1. This won’t harm Harper since these people are never going to vote Lib or NDP anyway.

    • No, but pro-life MPs might split from the Conservative Caucus and make their support conditional on reopening the debate…

      • Then we’d have an NDP govt…

      • Keep dreaming. Conservatives blew their party up on principle once. They got 13 years of Liberal rule for their trouble. They’re not likely going to do it again any time soon.

  2. As i understand it, the bible is in fact silent on the topic of abortion, despite later interpretation by religious figures.

  3. The third rail of Canadian politics.

    How do you think Stephen Harper feels about Stephen Woodworth right about now?

  4. Religion has no place in politics – Harper being Christian shouldn’t matter when it comes to debating this topic…heck, this topic shouldn’t even be discussed. We should ALL have a choice in what we do with/in our lives whether we’re religious or not. If you’re religious and want to stick to your beliefs then by all means do so but don’t try to re-work society to fit into your so call “perfect world”.

    • If I choose to kill somebody, should I have the choice to do so? If I choose to abuse drugs, should I have the choice to do so?

      In terms of politics, religion can be viewed as a group of people who has a certain mandate on certain questions about the society, you can’t just brush aside any group of people’s voice just because they are “religious.”

      • You can when they’re trying to force their beliefs on everyone else….especially by using the force and mechanism of the state to do so.

        • I can’t believe you said that. I can’t believe that any civilized person would think such a thing. Maybe I have misunderstood your referent. I think you are saying that it is o.k. to kill someone if they are trying to force their beliefs on everyone else. What kind of a monster would say such a thing?

          • I said nothing about killing people.

            What kind of mind immediately jumps to such an assumption?

      • Murder is universally taboo – religion has nothing to do with it.
        And yes, you should and do have the right to abuse drugs.

      • Sounds like a political agenda. Does the “right to life” crowd have tax exempt status?

  5. As long as this issue remains donation fodder (Forever!), logs will periodically be thrown on the polity fire. Woodworth is a log. Liquidity uber alles.

Sign in to comment.