Friday, July 29, 2016

Hillary wants us to change our religious beliefs

More scary stuff from Hillary Clinton from 2015:
"She told attendees at the sixth annual Women in The World Summit that “deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed” for the sake of giving women access to “reproductive health care and safe childbirth.”" emphasis added

Abortion - blame it on the pinkos

Wednesday, July 27, 2016

Canadians support Cassie and Molly's Law

Great news on the results of a poll on Cassie and Molly's law:
"Poll confirms majority of Canadians support legislation that creates a new offence for criminals who knowingly injure or cause the death of a pregnant woman’s preborn child: Wagantall
Ottawa, ON – Today, MP Cathay Wagantall (Yorkton-Melville) released the results of a national poll that shows the majority of Canadians support legislation that will create a separate offence when a violent criminal knowingly injures or causes the death of a preborn child while committing a crime against a pregnant woman. 
According to the Nanos poll, a majority of Canadians are in favour of Cassie and Molly’s Law, with nearly 70% of respondents saying that they support a law that would make it a separate crime to harm or cause the death of a preborn child while harming a pregnant woman. Support among women is even higher at nearly 75%..."
Of course not all people are happy with this bill. They have to attack it. Which is really kind of pathetic. But Cassie and Molly's law is a fantastic piece of legislation. This law, which we now know the majority of Canadians support, would make a new offence in the case where a woman has chosen to keep her unborn child. It is a good law. A positive law. A law that provides extra protection for a woman who is carrying a child she loves and she wants.

This law has absolutely nothing to do with so-called "abortion rights". The pro-abortions think they have to protect these "rights" at all costs, at all times, never letting up in their relentless attack on anyone and anything they perceive would harm these precious sacred "rights" of theirs.

Their rabid ideology can only blind them. I feel sorry for them.

Friday, July 22, 2016

Trump - The lesser of two evils

Fred was surprised when I told him that I would vote for Donald Trump. As Ted Cruz said yesterday, all voters should vote their conscience. Well my conscience wouldn't let me vote for Hillary Clinton. Besides all of Clinton's scary shenanigans, she is horrendously pro-abortion.

Even though we know there are Canadian MPs who are pro-life, they are scared to death of saying or doing anything public about it. If they do they are shouted down and vilified. Both by other MPs and by the pro-abortions. Our Conservative party has gone from being pro-life to being pro-silent to I don't know, but their silence is deafening.

Not in the US. Republicans put their pro-life views into their policy paper: That the unborn child has a "fundamental right to life"; that it should be a crime to sell fetal tissue; that they are against assisted suicide and euthanasia; that they support assisting women who face unplanned pregnancies; that they support a Born-Alive Infant Protection Act; that they support Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Acts; that they are against sex-selection abortions and abortions based on disabilities; that they oppose embryonic stem cell research.

Republicans are not afraid to say they are pro-life. They are not afraid to act pro-life. And good grief, there are even pro-life Democrats down there. I'm pretty sure the Liberals and NDP are bereft of any pro-life MPs, at least any that will speak out that they are. Cowards? Or afraid?
"Do not be afraid, for I am with you; do not be alarmed, for I am your God. I give you strength, truly I help you, truly I hold you firm with my saving right hand." Isaiah 41:10
Isaiah where are you when we need you?

And where does our fear/cowardice of saying we are pro-life get us? Absolutely nowhere. We have a 100% pro-abortion legal system, all paid for by the tax-payer. That's where not speaking out gets us. The US has all kinds of abortion restrictions. Tons of them. They are not afraid.

Plus, Donald Trump's running mate Mike Pence is unequivocally pro-life.

Yes. If I were American, I would have to vote for Donald Trump.

Saturday, July 16, 2016

Begging the question about abortion

Why the Statement "A Woman Has the Right to Control Her Own Body" Begs the Basic Question in the Abortion Debate. By by Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Libertarians for Life, Copyright © 1978

(Posted with permission from the author)

Some people claim that abortion is legitimate because (i) a woman has a right to control her own reproduction, or (ii) a woman's body is her own property, and is therefore, rightfully subject to her exclusive control. Neither of these claims squarely supports the pro-abortionists.

I. First, a woman can control her own reproduction in three ways: viz., (i) by abstinence from sexual activity; (ii) by contraception; and (iii) by abortion. (She can also control it by destroying her offspring after birth; but very few pro-abortionists argue that infanticide is legitimate.) Now, no one doubts that a woman has a right to sexual abstinence and to contraception.  But her "right to abortion" is in issue. Therefore, to say that abortion is legitimate because a woman has a right to control her own reproduction merely begs the question: it merely says "a woman has a right to abortion because a woman has a right to abortion". This is not an argument, merely a fiat statement. And mere fiat is not enough.

II. Second, even if a woman's body is her own property (which no libertarian would deny), the question still remains whether the body of the unborn child is also the woman's property.

A. As a matter of biology, an unborn child is not "part of a woman's body" in the same sense that her liver, heart, or other organs are. It is a separate entity involved in a special symbiotic relationship with the woman, but not part of her. Therefore, the unborn child cannot be the woman's property in that sense.

B. To be sure, the unborn child lives inside the woman's body. But an entity does not necessarily become the property of an individual because it is in or on that individual's property. (Even a trespasser on someone else's land does not thereby become the landowner's property, in the sense that the landowner may do whatever he will with the trespasser.) The question remains whether the unborn child has a right or privilege to live within the woman until its birth. If it does, it cannot be the woman's property to dispose of as she sees fit.

C. Of course, the woman always has the physical power to abort, and thereby destroy the unborn child; and, in the sense that the child is always subject to that sort of physical control, one could say metaphorically that the child is the woman's "property" in a physical sense. But the question is whether the unborn child is the woman's property in a moral or legal sense: that is, whether it is right or just for her to exercise whatever physical power she possesses. (The murderer always has physical power over his victim. That may make the victim metaphorically his "property" in a physical sense; but it does not make murder moral. Mere temporary might does not make right -- at least not to libertarians.) Therefore, the mere physical power of the woman over the unborn child does not make the child the woman's property in any sense meaningful to the ethical debate over abortion.

III. In sum, the argument that abortion is legitimate because a woman has a right to control her own body simply misses the point: which is, what right does a woman have when certain of her actions endanger the body, and therefore the life, of another person, the unborn child? Every person has a right to control his own body; but this gives no one a right to use his body to injure another person's body through aggression. It is not enough, therefore, to talk about the woman's property right. What must be considered is (i) whether the unborn child, an entity separate from the woman, is a person entitled to its own rights; and, if so, (ii) what its rights are as against the woman. If the child is not a person, or is a person without rights, then (by logical necessity) it will be the woman's property. But if the child is a person with rights, then (by logical necessity) to the extent of those rights it cannot be the woman's property. To invoke a woman's "property rights" in support of abortion before these two questions are answered against the unborn child is not to support abortion with arguments -- but instead to avoid rational argument entirely.

(Dr. Vieira is an attorney practicing constitutional law.)