Stephen Woodworth on 'abortionism' -

Stephen Woodworth on ‘abortionism’

The author of Motion 312 on the rejection of Motion 408


Yesterday afternoon I emailed Conservative MP Stephen Woodworth, author of Motion 312, to ask if he had any thoughts on Mark Warawa’s concerns. He responded as follows.

I haven’t had the opportunity to catch up on what Mr. Warawa said this morning. Also, as you know, I never disclose private conversations. However, as M-408 clearly meets the Parliamentary criteria for voteability, I am concerned that the subcommittee members might have succumbed to the philosophy that elevates abortion above all democratic ideals, including even the fight against gender discrimination, the independence of private members’ business, and the privilege of Parliament to collectively express an opinion about an international issue such as sex selection.

As you know, I found it very odd and dangerous that this “abortionism” philosophy, which elevates abortion above democratic principles, led those who spoke against M312 to shelter our subsection 223(1) definition of human being, a law by which the State is empowered to designate certain individuals as non-human without any regard for their actual character as a human being. This is the very epitome of an anti-democratic law, so it would not surprise me much that an “abortionism” philosophy might seek to over-ride Parliamentary rules, to reduce backbench independence and to deprive Parliament from expressing an opinion on an important issue.


Stephen Woodworth on ‘abortionism’

  1. Gandhi ~ A nation’s greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members

    “Statistics Canada tables show a recorded total of 2,838,328 abortions between 1974 and 2006. CIHI tables show a recorded total of 353,034 abortions between 2007 and 2010, which means that the total number of “reported” abortions that took place between 1974 and 2010 in Canada is 3,191,362. “

    • You threw two quotes at me here. I’m not getting the point of either.

      • Nor am I seeing a direct relation between the two.

        • He’s simply contrasting Gandhi’s observation about how a great nation treats it’s weakest members with statistics on abortion. IOW, we are not a great nation because we slaughter our weakest members in their millions.

          I’m not agreeing with him or disagreeing with him. just underlining the point I think he was trying to make.

          • Yes, he seems to equate foetuses to members of Canadian society.

          • They are certainly members of the human race, no matter how you divide the unborn from the born. They are humans without legal standing but they are still human.

          • I divide the unborn from the born on birth. How do you divide them?

  2. Do you know who is silent on these boards these days? (presuming he still reads them)
    Couldn’t have an abortion-therad without him accusing half the board of wanting to kill babies.
    Would be interested to know how he feels about these recent developments.

    • “without him accusing half the board of wanting to kill babies”

      And how would you define it?

      To quote Christopher Hitchens; “In order to terminate a pregnancy, you have to still a heartbeat, switch off a developing brain . . . break some bones and rupture some organs.”

      If that’s not killing, what is?

    • Shhhhh.. haven’t you heard of “speak of the devil”?

      • Haha, true enough. I agree, can’t say I miss him.
        Just always interesting to try and reconcile a homer’s beliefs in light of new developments.

  3. The fight against gender discrimination isn’t a democratic principle in the way that disingenuous crapweasal means it. In fact, while anti-discrimination is an important aspect of our society and one we should treasure, and while democratic principles aren’t limited to merely voting, I’m not sure anti-discrimination itself is sine qua non democratic principle at all.

    • Gender discrimination is gender discrimination regardless of how you try and split the hairs! The fact pre-born girls are being killed is revolting in a civilized society, the fact it is being ignored makes it worse!

      • exactly “preborn”. try growing a baby out of a mothers womb, yeah it’s not feasable. therefore it is not a independent living being with rigth until it has pass the first test of life and evolution that is to breath, and live by itself in the outside world. Emotion and religion is not an argument because religion differ for each of us and emotion are dependant on the situation. The argument make no sense, because it would be discriminating for a wowen to have her rights removed in favor of an unborn being. The reality is that insuring life continuity is important, but blind reproduction without thinking is plain dumb. the earth doesn’t get bigger at every life, and a 1.5 birth for every death, the space available for each being is not growing bigger but smaller. Life at all cost make no sense for the survival of a species. Plus never in history a baby was considered a human being, before it survived birth, trying to play on words only make your argument more despicable.
        You cannot right a wrong, with another wrong.

        • Gender selection is wrong on a basic moral level. If a woman doesn’t want to have a child, period, that’s one thing – but to decide on the basis of the sex of that child is not, in the view of many who are otherwise pro-choice, appropriate.
          Preventing – or at least minimizing – this does not require a restriction to abortion access; it merely requires the banning of gender identification.

          • I’m not sure that it’s wise to ban gender identification. A person who would abort a healthy female child because it’s not a healthy male child strikes me as pretty high-risk parent in any case. Do we want to force misogynists to raise little girls?

            I think it’s a horrible circumstance if sex-selection abortions are wide-spread but I think they may be the price we must pay if we are truly dedicated to allowing unfettered abortion. If we are dedicated to the proposition that abortion is a woman’s choice (and I am) then we don’t get to over-rule her choice regardless of how distasteful we find her criteria.

          • Do we want to force misogynists to raise girls? Do we want to pay for misogynists to expose their female partners to any number of abortions so they can ensure they only procreate boys? As a taxpayer, I don’t want to pay for male circumcision or breast enhancement as those are in my opinion something that should be user-pay due to religious and cultural biases that govern them. I certainly don’t want to pay for a misogynist who doesn’t like women to procreate on his terms and put his partner through unnecessary medical procedures. If you could prove to me that any of these women are making the choices to have these sex-selection abortions and are not coerced by membership in cultures that have no respect for women, I would accept your “dedication to the proposition that abortion is a woman’s choice”.

          • ” I certainly don’t want to pay for a misogynist who doesn’t like women to procreate on his terms and put his partner through…”

            Misogynist is as misogynist does. Women can be misogynist too.

          • Frankly speaking Keith, there are only certain cultures that are interested in sex-selection abortion. Now that the Canadian Medical Association is on alert and knows about the practice, it is up to them to be gatekeepers. Even if people don’t find it morally reprehensible, they certainly don’t want to pay for it given the reality is that a person could be pregnant multiple times before getting a fetus of the “desirable” sex. I have an uncle who had 7 daughters before he had a son. Are provinces that are already overwhelmed with out of control healthcare debt going to enter into that kind of debacle? I don’t think so.

        • All excellent reasons for killing children Yvan. Kudos, eugenics FTW.

          And the exit of the birth canal is the only thing that magically turns fetuses into people, amirite?

          Oh but about that, “never in history a baby was considered a human being, before it survived birth” bit; that’s actually not true.

          The Buddhist monastic code, hold that life begins at conception and Shinto believes that too, which is why funerary stones shrines where mothers can pray for the children they aborted are everywhere in Asia. In Islam abortion is permissible only if the fetus is less than four months old, after that it’s murder. Zoroastrianism thought it was murder. Hindu texts are strongly opposed to abortion, though a minority of Hindu theologians believe personhood begins at 3 months. The Talmudic commentaries declared that abortion is forbidden to Jew, with only the 20th century Reform movement viewing it as permissible.

          I could go on and on, but for the sake of TLDR I’ll leave off there.

          • Great, you know the stand of assorted religions on abortion, now you need to explain why a religion’s opinion is relevant to Canadian law.

          • Well, to begin with, FL was countering a specific false argument made by Yvan, not debating the law per se.

            Second: our current law – that human life (legally) only begins once the child has fully exited the womb is an absurdity that needs to be replaced. Most pro-choice advocates don’t want to reopen the debate because many have based their arguments on the fetus not being alive or not human – both of which are fallacies easily disproven by basic biology.

            The argument they need to make is that of Primacy of Rights – that a woman’s rights take precedence over the rights of the life they are hosting. (Search Primacy of Rights on this site if you aren’t familiar with it and want to know more – I’ve expounded on it any number of times, so see no reason to repeat it at this time.)

            This is a moral, ethical, rights-based issue, not a scientific one. It is, in other words, a matter of opinion. And law. And law is informed and established largely on the basis of morals and ethics. We may not base our laws directly on religious principles anymore, but they often influence them – even today.

    • “Disingenuous crapweasel” is my new favorite phrase. And Stephen Woodworth wears it well.

    • So anti-discrimination is important, unless you happen to be Pro-Life, then discriminating against those people is A-OK? You speak of “democratic principles” while at the same time trying to stifle someone else’s freedom of speech. Your hypocrisy is amazing!

      • read. it. again.

  4. Changing the way people value women is the cure for aborting females. They’ll just abort them underground if you outlaw it. That will just hurt the woman, if he card at all for women’s rights and protection this “Disingenuous crapweasal” (Thank you GFMD for that one) would see that. But he’s just jealous he doesn’t have a uterus and needs to control mine to make up for the shortfall it seems.

  5. Get your grubby misogynistic fingers out of strangers vaginas. You have no place there and you should be ashamed for thinkng that you do.

    • Slaughter em all for their Mothers sake, right?

      Oh BTW, here’s a free anatomy lesson. Vagina’s aren’t where the baby hangs out. If you want to kill one you’ll have to aim a little higher.

      • Well duh, dingleberry. I think Victor was trying to illustrate the absurdity of this foul situation. A blastocyst is not a baby. There is no god.

        Sit down, drink your tea and try to get through that Bible some time before you die. I know it’s a big book, but I’m certain you can do it if you can get past your screaming and ever more diminishing sense of reason.

        Women have rights. We have some fight in us. Get used to it you woman hating, blowjob wannabe.

  6. “Abortionism”? Nice try. It just has that certain ring to it. Sort of goes “clang.”

  7. He’s a rogue today, tomorrow who knows? He might be a ‘radical’. Keep talking Warawa, this is great bottom of the barrel stuff.

  8. I’ve said this elsewhere, but it’s still apropos.

    It’s fascinating to see the Tory who’s “rogue” abortion motion was not only allowed to be tabled, but then garnered the support of 49% of the Tory caucus when it came for a vote, speak about the “rogue Tory” who’s not even allowed to make a statement on the floor of the House of Commons concerning his motion getting the circular filing cabinet treatment.

  9. Stephen Woodworth is a one-trick pony who has failed to represent his actual constituents in any meaningful way. (I’m one of them.) Furthermore, he fails to notice the log in his own eye, belonging to a governing party which has no trouble at all muzzling individuals who might utter inconvenient truths.

    A couple of weeks ago he was shut down during a presentation at UW by a rather rowdy group of students. And he called them bullies…! Kettle calling the pot black. Or, it takes one to know one.

  10. Why the Sex Selective Abortion Debate is Bullsh!t

    Sex selective abortion and infanticide are symptoms of a problem in of itself – part and parcel of a patriarchy in which our judicial system also operates. In the long run, the same people are benefiting from both.

    Sex selective abortion will never go away until the patriarchy does.

    I am fed up with reasonable people still arguing about it; as if taking away a woman’s right to choose whether to continue a pregnancy can help her in a world that is going to slap her daughter down in the same way it just did to her.