Which again shows, how seriously NOT progressive and NOT pro-choice either May and/or some of the Green supporters are. To make such accusations and insist upon them in the face of it being a matter of rights is inconceivable. And this after all the discussion here today, where nary such a thing was mentioned, so he came into this discussion with ulterior motives even.

quote:

---

... I’m just disagreeing with the position of some people who would be happy in stirring up controversy so May and the Greens are tossed aside so the NDP gets more votes.

---

quote:

---

Most of those discussions leave me feeling very discouraged, and maybe frightened. The presumption of young men in particular disturbs me. They seem so confident in their belief in their own profound goodness ... as they debate the liberty of others

---

was also linked in the mother thread and quoted in part.

After skdadl responded to the bolded section,

quote:

---

I guess it sucks that nature sticks roughly half of all people with a uterus. Still, that too can be removed.

Nothing like cutting to the heart of the matter, lrC. And there it is. You pity women. That is an expression of pity at least -- women get "stuck" with a uterus -- with clear undertones of physical disgust and revulsion.

---

To May supporter's it is a ludicrous notion that we pro-choice woman should just have our uterous removed. BTW he came back with the response; "we pro-choicers" think other surgical proceedures are "trivial" so why not.

The small minded, narrow view point that this May supporter exhibited towards a hysterectomy and what it means physically to a woman and her future was frightening to behold. Seriously, it has been bothering me all afternoon. The implications contained in his words cover many layers of really regressive prospectives, and consequent ugly behaviour. The acceptance of his words without much rebutt is even more disturbing. And could give a bleak picture of just how far there is to go.

However, on a positive side to this, my 26 year old daughter that lives in the Victoria area, who was pretty non-involved in active feminism, has been spurrred to be more involved by what she has been reading here, and elsewhere in this regard. It had been her position that women's self determination was a forgone conclusion for always, and forever.

Naive, I know, but how many other young women out there are just exactly like her? They have been raised in the fruits of other women's struggles for equality, just as we ourselves were, unlike us though, they thought the fight was over and just the final touches needed to be gained. Like her, I guess they think somehow automatically it would come. To say she was shocked to find out otherwise is an understatement. Her reaction has been more along the lines of an epiphany.

Now to get into a small political impact of this faux pas of May's, and some Green supporters, is that my daughter had been a Green supporter in a couple of elections. Once provincially and once federally. Except the last election, she did not want Harper to get in and perceived she should not split her vote off to a party that had no chance to win the riding, and thereby allow the CPC to slip in. I do not know who she voted for, nor whom she will vote for in this springs election, but I sure as hell know it won't be Green, nor CPC.

And no, this is still not a partisian post, it is relaying political fallout and a positive movement towards true progressiveness, because there has been so many fine examples or regressiveness that have been exhibited to Canadian women, and men, throughout the last few days. People who truly believe in equality and who could not before see the boundaries between what is or is not progressive.

Mother thread

BoundbyGravity A Regressive Forum Containing May Supporters

[ 14 December 2006: Message edited by: remind ]

Saskboy shuts his man trap…and whines some more.

Saskboy, you're welcome to post in every other forum of babble except the feminism forum from now on.

quote:

---

Originally posted by writer:

Saskboy shuts his man trap…and whines some more.

Kinda like the guy drinking water while the dummy sings. But on the internet. Or something.

---

Sounds like you miss the guy already!

Don't worry, I'm not going to post any opinions about abortion.. just here to listen, you'll be relieved to know...

[ 14 December 2006: Message edited by: ForestGreen ]

[ 14 December 2006: Message edited by: writer ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by writer:
Give your daughter a hug for me, will you? Let her know I'm happy she's joined the club of Scared Shitless By These Control Freaks.

---

Ok, will give her a verbal hug from ya tomorrow morning, as we do not live close to each other at the moment.

Actually, I was disparing that she would actually get it for some time, And the last few days have done teaching to her, than anything she was raised with apparently. Coming from a progressive home with a feminist father softened the world too much for her, I think, and she never saw the real regressive control freakishness some men have, in such an unfettered way before.

Elizabeth May on Abortion - Green Party of Canada blog.

Edited to add: Scott Piatkowski had linked to this page in our previous thread.

[ 14 December 2006: Message edited by: writer ]

If these "Green" lads don't know when they're beat, they should.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Catchfire:
I just wanted to say that I think that writer, remind, Scout, Stargazer, (skdadl,) clersal, (Debra,) and everyone else who hasn't given up on this issue is amazing. I wasn't going to post anything because there's obviously no need, because you have all been kicking ass and taking names like mad, but I felt I should just say you are all awesome.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by writer:
You are most welcome. For those who wish to speak directly to Greens, on the Party's turf, Tehanu of EM suggests a way:

---

Hmph, went to read got teed that a man posted there, from the Green Party, a Mr Fletcher, presuming to speak for most Canadians. So, I posted do not know if will appear.

No, I have to join to post and will not do so.

Here is my response anyway.

quote:

---

Respectfully Mr Fletcher, your comment stating Canadians are largely in sympathy with Ms May's comments, is at best wholly presumptive, at worst deeply misogynistic, or both.

In fact, at the end of your commentary, you discredit your own first premise of a majority of Canadians which are in sympathy with May's position by saying:

"This is a deeply emotional issue, and divides society very deeply."

Divides society deeply does not = largely in sympathy.

Nor is there any statistical proof that you provide that supports your erroneous premise.

In future, please try not to speak for everyone in Canada unless you have spoken to everyone of us and gained our written consent.

Thank you.

---

And yeah, that guy's post was bizarre. Can't quite get where he was coming from about the caesarians comment, but using terms like "killing babies" and "late-term abortions" make it pretty clear he's anti-choice.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tehanu:
Hi ... just wanted to say, remind, that you don't have to join to post on their site, just provide an email address. I've got a generic yahoo one that I use for such occasions.

And yeah, that guy's post was bizarre...I am holding out a faint hope that actually posting on the Green site itself might encourage some clarification on their part. One way or the other.

---

Thanks Tehanu, I tried again, after trying twice before and was rejected, this time I got a censorship message. so we will see if they actually allow it. Seems the Green Party and some of the supporters that are bloggers can't handle being called on their words and actions. Progressive my ass!

quote:

---

Your comment has been queued for moderation by site administrators and will be published after approval.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tehanu:
Hi ... just wanted to say, remind, that you don't have to join to post on their site, just provide an email address. I've got a generic yahoo one that I use for such occasions.

And yeah, that guy's post was bizarre. Can't quite get where he was coming from about the caesarians comment, but using terms like "killing babies" and "late-term abortions" make it pretty clear he's anti-choice.

I am holding out a faint hope that actually posting on the Green site itself might encourage some clarification on their part. One way or the other.

---

Yes, I enjoyed your post, too. It was thoughtful and eloquently stated. Somebody posted a reply to that effect. I wish more of the dialogue surrounding the issue carried that sort of tone.

[ 15 December 2006: Message edited by: ForestGreen ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
In future, please try not to speak for everyone in Canada unless you have spoken to everyone of us and gained our written consent.

---

Remind... first of all, I am not going to engage directly in any further discussion about abortion - it is a deeply divisive issue, and not worth the result it produces. (I think the other "Green men" would agree, since they have mostly vanished).
However I have a question... You often bring up the issue of how men should not speak on behalf of women. Do you think the same applies for speaking about the disabled, about aboriginals, about immigrants, or about minorities? What about when these issues come up in politics? Isn't that what politicians do, try to speak on behalf of Canadians? I'm not trying to be sarcastic or anything here. I am trying to get a sense of where you draw your boundaries of what is appropriate and legitimate discussion. There seems to be a number of unspoken rules that I and others are unaware of until we have crossed them.

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
Thanks Tehanu, I tried again, after trying twice before and was rejected, this time I got a censorship message. so we will see if they actually allow it. Seems the Green Party and some of the supporters that are bloggers can't handle being called on their words and actions. Progressive my ass!

---

quote:

---

However I have a question... You often bring up the issue of how men should not speak on behalf of women. Do you think the same applies for speaking about the disabled, about aboriginals, about immigrants, or about minorities? What about when these issues come up in politics? Isn't that what politicians do, try to speak on behalf of Canadians?

---

Hi Forest Green, and everyone here. I've not posted on this topic and its many threads.

Even though the above question was not asked of me, my response is: YES!

As for the topic at hand, I may start a new thread on the issue of reproductive rights, rather than only abortion. Maybe I'll see some of you there?

quote:

---

Originally posted by writer:
Elizabeth May on Abortion - Green Party of Canada blog.

---

Good for Tehanu! Especially since she's going to be subjected to gross, armchair psychologizing comments like this at the beginning of the reply to her post:

quote:

---

Tehanu, you speak eloquently and with obvious sincerity and conviction. You do leave something out of the equation however.

I do not deny what you say:

"My moral imperative is that no woman should ever be forced to be pregnant, and that my choices about my reproduction should not include someone standing over me judging me for it."

The first leg of your imperative is 100% right on! It is the second leg that betrays your anger and lingering uneasiness. Almost a sense of guilt, but I hasten to emphasize "almost". I do not believe you feel guilty in holding the view you do.

---

Well, isn't that cute and weaselly. I almost sense some guilt. But I don't think you feel guilty! I just brought it up to stick a label on you while denying I'm doing so because that's just good debating!

And wow, he figured out that women get pissed off when our rights are debated by political party leaders? Imagine that. And her "uneasiness" has been "betrayed" by her comment? He takes a completely straightforward statement by a feminist saying she won't stand for people controlling her reproduction or judging her for the choices she makes, and he claims that somehow this "betrays" feelings of guilt and uneasiness about abortion on her part?

Edited to add: Thanks Catchfire, Unionist, BCG!
Edited to update link

[ 16 December 2006: Message edited by: writer ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ForestGreen:
However I have a question... You often bring up the issue of how men should not speak on behalf of women. .

---

I often do that, do I? Just where do I often do that, except perhaps in the feminist forum? My taking exception to Mr Fletcher's comments were that he was speaking, not just for women, but for all Canadians! Ass that he is that he thinks he can make a statement for all Canadians, and not even just women!

quote:

---

Do you think the same applies for speaking about the disabled, about aboriginals, about immigrants, or about minorities?

---

Yes!

quote:

---

What about when these issues come up in politics?

---

My reproductive rights, and right to self determination should not even becoming up in the political realm these days, it was settled long ago!

quote:

---

Isn't that what politicians do, try to speak on behalf of Canadians?.

---

Perhaps some, but as we all know they are for the most part pretty much there for themselves, except perhaps the NDP.

quote:

---

I'm not trying to be sarcastic or anything here. I am trying to get a sense of where you draw your boundaries of what is appropriate and legitimate discussion..

---

Forestgreen, I think we have all been pretty clear on where we draw the boundaries, our self determination rights are NOT up for discussion at all. None of it is appropriate or legitimate!

quote:

---

There seems to be a number of unspoken rules that I and others are unaware of until we have crossed them.

---

No, there have been NO unspoken rules only someone completely mired in their own self opinion would think so.

quote:

---

Also, keep in mind that I and others are more open than you may assume to concerns you raise..

---

I don't believe this for a minute, or you would not be carrying on still about what is legitimate or appropriate when discussing my, and other women's, rights to self determine.

quote:

---

What I find more difficult is the tone in which they are delivered, .

---

That's nice, we have the same problem then, as I can't abid your condensative nature/tone.

quote:

---

which often obscures the message you most want to convey. .

---

It seems to only obscure them for you and other men in the Green Party. Stop trying to blame me for your lack of understanding. Typical just typical!

quote:

---

I try to relate to all segments of society, and the various types of human beings, to understand how they think, and to find some common ground if possible..

---

No, I don't think you do at all, you give token words and then proceed to do the opposite, and then completely ignore what has been said! Moreover, I think you are trying to imply that we feminists are NOT trying to understand, or find common ground, as there is a subtle accusation in your words, that says; "I am trying, but you are not". Your wrong, it's quite the opposite, it is you who is not trying and it is you who thinks there is common ground in regards to woman's self determination. There isn't. My body, my rights to it solely!

quote:

---

I know it's been a challenge at times on this board.

---

Thats because men, like you, insist you should be defining the tone, parameters and boundaries of how we conduct ourselves and what we say!

[ 15 December 2006: Message edited by: remind ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by writer:
Elizabeth May on abortion[/URL] Colby Cosh, National Post Digital

Edited to add: Thanks Catchfire, Unionist, BCG!

---

writer, I can't find it, and have to register anyway, what was the gist of it?

quote:

---

writer, I can't find it, and have to register anyway, what was the gist of it?

---

I found it confusing, too, and actually didn't know it was a full columns, which I suspect is in today's paper.

See if you can get it here.

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:

Originally posted by ForestGreen:
However I have a question... You often bring up the issue of how men should not speak on behalf of women. .

I often do that do I? Just where do I often do that, except perhaps in the feminist forum? My taking exception to Mr Fletcher's comments were that he was speaking, not just for women, but for all Canadians! Ass that he is that he thinks he can make a statement for all Canadians, and not even just women!

---

I'm not accusing you of anything here... just stating a fact that it has been mentioned many times. If not by you than other members. I wasn't referring to the specific comment about Mr. Fletcher.

quote:

---

quote o you think the same applies for speaking about the disabled, about aboriginals, about immigrants, or about minorities?.

Yes!

---

quote:

---

quote: What about when these issues come up in politics? .

My reproductive rights, and right to self determination should not even becoming up in the political realm these days, it was settled long ago!

---

quote:

---

quote: Isn't that what politicians do, try to speak on behalf of Canadians?.

Perhaps some, but as we all know they are for the most part pretty much there for themselves, except perhaps the NDP.

---

quote:

---

quote: I'm not trying to be sarcastic or anything here. I am trying to get a sense of where you draw your boundaries of what is appropriate and legitimate discussion..

Forestgreen, I think we have all been pretty damn clear on where we draw the boundaries, our self determination rights are NOT up for discussion at all. None of it is appropriate or legitimate!

---

quote:

---

quote: There seems to be a number of unspoken rules that I and others are unaware of until we have crossed them..

No, there have been NO unspoken rules only someone completely mired in their own self opinion would think so.

---

quote:

---

quote:Also, keep in mind that I and others are more open than you may assume to concerns you raise..

I don't believe this for a minute, or you would not be carrying on still about what is legitimate or appropriate whenn discussing my, and other women's rights to self determine.

---

quote:

---

That's nice we have the same problem then, as I can't abid your condensative nature/tone....

It seems to only obscure them for you and other men in the Green Party. Stop trying to blame me for your lack of understanding. Typical just ftypical!...
I don't think you do at alll, you give token words and then proceed to do the opposite, and then completely ignore what has been said!...
That's because men, like you, insist you should be defining the tone, parameters and boundaries of how we conduct ourselves and what we say!

---

[ 15 December 2006: Message edited by: ForestGreen ]

[ 15 December 2006: Message edited by: ForestGreen ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by writer:
I found it confusing, too, and actually didn't know it was a full columns, which I suspect is in today's paper.

---

Thanks writer, it is a confusing aerticle for the most part. This was interesting though, and a very good analogy.

quote:

---

what politician is ever judged solely by what they say they intend to do about abortion? Stephen Harper has issued disavowals almost exactly like Ms. May's, and has made explicit promises to abide by the status quo. But women's groups have remained stubbornly unassuaged, and some voters still fear the consequences for reproductive freedom of a Conservative victory. Yet the Prime Minister has never questioned the sanity of those who think abortion is sometimes the right thing to do, nor has he accused abortion patients of being "frivolous." If he ever did, effigies would be blazing across the land the next day. Does Ms. May deserve a break just because she is a pixieish little relic of the Cold War left?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ForestGreen:
I'm not accusing you of anything here... just stating a fact that it has been mentioned many times. If not by you than other members.]

---

Backtracking? you specifically said me.

quote:

---

I wasn't referring to abortion in particular here. But no, I don't want to see what was settled come up for debate either.

---

Apparently you do as you are, and what else would we be speaking of except abortions, or are you just trying to deflect away from May's words, start another thread if you're speaking of something else.

quote:

---

I have no interest in discussing your reproductive rights. My interest is in what kind of things men can say on here.]

---

quote:

---

Keep in mind that some of us haven't spent much time around feminists. I wasn't clear all along of just what your beliefs were.]

---

Why do I have to keep that in mind, it is not my fault you have not been interested in progressive thinking. And I have been pretty clear on my beliefs i think! But please after this stop making this about me, and deflecting away from May's words and actions, its not fooling me!

quote:

---

Why are you so eager to use insults, anyway?]

---

Why are you so eager to use passive aggressive control techniques and to deflect the thread topic away from May?

quote:

---

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm trying to find if something is reasonable.

---

What are you trying to find out if it is reasonable or not, and why?

quote:

---

I don't know why you take it as trying to impose my opinion. ]

---

Because you are! In almost every word you have written. In particular, your words below are a good example.

quote:

---

One member did a good job of articulating her (I presume) position on the green forum. I appreciated that. Michelle also presented an interesting analogy. The fact that the tone here has been less than respectful has not been lost on anyone. I'm more likely to hear you when you keep the personal attacks and generalizations to a minimum.]

---

Why does our "tone" have to be respectful? Some people sure as hell are not being respectful of our rights and care not they intrude into the feminist forum demanding that we be a certain way and to discuss off topic positions. And again you Green guys are good at the passive aggressive threats of the mysterious "others" and their opinions.

quote:

---

I find the rest hard to respond to so I won't. It's not exactly inviting for a reply.

---

Neither have been any of you posting, but I managed to anyway, no matter how distasteful, but please note, I will not be in the future engaging in any of your off topic dialogue and you questioning of ME!

[ 15 December 2006: Message edited by: ForestGreen ]

quote:

---

May's comments are puzzling to me. I have worked in the sexual health field in Canada for ten years. I don't understand why Elizabeth May, in her role as leader of a political party, would want to discuss the "moral issue" of abortion and enter into a "dialogue".

I know how difficult it is for women in Canada to obtain abortions. Only 17.8% of Canadian hospitals even provide abortions. If a political party which calls itself "pro-choice" (which the Green Party apparently does in its policy on abortion) were to have a dialogue about abortion, I would think it would be about the following questions: How can we improve access to abortion in Canada? How can we pressure the current federal govenment to make New Brunswick obey the Canada Health Act and pay for abortions performed in clinics like other provinces do? How can we start getting abortions provided somewhere on Prince Edward Island? How can we shorten the time women must wait to have an abortion and the distance they must travel to find a provider in so many regions of Canada?

To me, these are the issues regarding abortion in Canada that a "pro-choice party" should be discussing and encouraging public discussion about, not talking about when Augustine thought fetuses received souls. (He believed it was at forty days after concepton for boys and eighty days for girls, by the way).

---

quote:

---

To me, these are the issues regarding abortion in Canada that a "pro-choice party" should be discussing and encouraging public discussion about, not talking about when Augustine thought fetuses received souls. (He believed it was at forty days after concepton for boys and eighty days for girls, by the way).

---

just as it would be assumed in a politics forum titled "Green Party forum" or "NDP forum" that the discussion would ensue from a pro-Green or pro-NDP position and we would not have to discuss platforms, philosphy or origins, as that would be, once again, assumed as a common starting point or context.

i stated in a previous thread that i was happy this had been moved to the feminist forum, as i was interested in seeing May's words discussed/debated in a non-political-partisan forum, where Green/NDP sniping or partisanship would not cloud the issue. I am wholeheartedly a declared NDP paritsan. I am also a man. This makes me inherently biased on a number of issues and i recognise that. Apparently some are having difficulty with self-identifying in these threads.

Moving this discussion into the feminist forum to me is a good one, as i would like to see May's words and opinions discussed by other women from a pro/anti choice perspective, not a Green/NDP/Liberal/Conservative/Rhinocerous Party perspective, as it is ultimately women who are the ones who will/are affected by those opinions. That is what the political forums are for. If you want to discuss partisan tactics and motives, great, lets start a thread on how the NDP is using Elizbeth May's own comments on abortion access as some sort of smear campaign or to score partisan political points. But the feminist forum is not the place as far as i know. just one guy's opinion and some friendly advice for the other guys who haven't clued in.

edited to add: and in case it also isn't clear, and in reference to the thread title seeming partisan in itself, regardless of the dissembling anyone of any affiliation wants to engage in, the leader of a party is exactly that. they were elected to represent that party and it's platform to the electorate, in parliament, and in the media. No amount of doubletalk can change this, nothing in your party platform will persuade the public otherwise. The leader speaks for the party, period. If they say something in public that is contrary to party policy, they should rightly be debated, questioned thoughroughly, and subject to censure by their own party if it is inconsistant with thier platform or message. We can see this regularly with my party leader, and if May wants to be taken seriously as a party leader, she will be subjected to the same scrutiny and debate, and will welcome it, not try to dismiss it as a smear by another party. After all, it is her own words we are discussing, no one else's.

[ 15 December 2006: Message edited by: farnival ]

...If they say something in public that is contrary to party policy, they should rightly be debated, questioned thoughroughly, and subject to censure by their own party if it is inconsistant with thier platform or message. We can see this regularly with my party leader, and if May, who in this case seems to be confirming party policy, wants to be taken seriously...

thanks for drawing attention to my unintended ommision, as it does change the context somewhat considerably!

edited for seeming technical glitch!

[ 15 December 2006: Message edited by: farnival ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stargazer:
And where, exactly, is the outrage on the lost sperm! Do they not contribute to 'baby making'?

---

There is no middle ground on choice.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasmus raven:
Well, I've emailed this around to everyone I know (thanks to writer), and with only one exception, someone who knows May personally, everyone, myself included, has been quite horrified by it.

There is no middle ground on choice.

Thanks also for all the eloquent responses here and elsewhere.

---

Thank you Rasmus, for your words, and for affirming what I , and others, have found when speaking with people about it. Without fail all were quite horrified by May's words and the ensuing abuse we have received here, because of our immovable stance, by her regressive faithful.

...From the end of the article:

quote:

---

The argument that criminalizing abortion creates danger to women from amateur, underground abortionists, after all, is a strange one coming from a Christian. Perhaps, though, it is more important to ask why this logic is regarded as decisive only when it comes to reproductive freedom.

The full-scale "butchery" Ms. May envisions women being subjected to would not come back even if abortion were outlawed tomorrow. The number of reported abortion-related deaths in the entire United States for 1972, the year before Roe vs. Wade, was 39. By contrast, the number of drug users who die of overdoses because they cannot buy a pure, consistent product from a reputable dealer is vastly greater -- probably close to a thousand every year in Canada alone. Their position is completely analogous to that of the women who died of hemorrhage or infection from inept abortions in the past. No religion considers their sin any worse, and no respectable ethical philosophy discounts their right to life. So why does our War on Drugs grow ever more intense 20 years after our surrender in the War on Abortion?

---

I don't know if I understand what the author was trying to say with the war on drugs. I found it to be a strange comparison. As someone who spent 10 years of my youth in active addiction, and with just over 6 years clean & sober, I have to say that comparing the two is like comparing apples and Jupiter. I think I'm missing something.

[ 16 December 2006: Message edited by: Cameron W ]

quote:

---

Ms. May's policy position, as far as it goes, is the one that the broad Canadian middle supports, and I regard it as the right one. But what politician is ever judged solely by what they say they intend to do about abortion? Stephen Harper has issued disavowals almost exactly like Ms. May's, and has made explicit promises to abide by the status quo. But women's groups have remained stubbornly unassuaged, and some voters still fear the consequences for reproductive freedom of a Conservative victory. Yet the Prime Minister has never questioned the sanity of those who think abortion is sometimes the right thing to do, nor has he accused abortion patients of being "frivolous." If he ever did, effigies would be blazing across the land the next day. Does Ms. May deserve a break just because she is a pixieish little relic of the Cold War left?

---

Well, it is the NP, so we'll have to just roll our eyes at quotes like "Women's groups have remained stubbornly unassuaged," but as scary as Harper's views on abortion are, he would never say what May said. Whether this is just more experienced politicking or greater respect for women is questionable, but it should paint in massive, broad strokes why May's comments are so abhorrent. Even Harper recognizes that he could never make these comments.

I also question the curious drug use analogy. I don't even really understand it. Is this article really just an argument for more safe-use clinics in Vancouver? An advocation for drug legalization? Or is it truly the far scarier argument that "it wouldn't be so bad for women if we went back to criminalizing abortions. Only 39 chicks would die, after all." If this sort of rhetoric doesn't demonstrate that we have to fight any threat on the universal access to abortion rights tooth and nail, well, I don't know what does.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Catchfire:
...we'll have to just roll our eyes at quotes like "Women's groups have remained stubbornly unassuaged," but as scary as Harper's views on abortion are, he would never say what May said. Whether this is just more experienced politicking or greater respect for women is questionable, but it should paint in massive, broad strokes why May's comments are so abhorrent. Even Harper recognizes that he could never make these comments.

---

Yes, I read that article yesterday,or the day before somewhere, which in part lead to my little educational treatise on Condescending Parternalistic Chastisement, may it come from a woman, or a man, comments like those Elizabeth mayd are abusive and abhorrant. That Harper recognizes this type of commentary is unacceptable only means that his, and others like him, defamation of women, who are self-determining, is more covert and incideous.

quote:

---

I also question the curious drug use analogy. I don't even really understand it. Is this article really just an argument for more safe-use clinics in Vancouver? An advocation for drug legalization?

---

I did as well, but had never thought of it as advocating anything other than what you suggsted with:

quote:

---

Or is it truly the far scarier argument that "it wouldn't be so bad for women if we went back to criminalizing abortions. Only 39 chicks would die, after all."

or it meant that "afterall we have not given up the war on drugs so why give up the war on abortions?" What brought this to my mind was his statement about "right to life" of a drug addict. I had thought perhaps he was likening a drug addict to a fetus who is aborted in the by alluding that somehow, they "both" have no choice in what happens, and there was a war against both.

But now after multiple readings perhaps he was advocating the legalization of drugs. Either way the juxposition that pro-choice=drug addiction is questionable though.

[QUOTE] If this sort of rhetoric doesn't demonstrate that we have to fight any threat on the universal access to abortion rights tooth and nail, well, I don't know what does.(And we "surrendered the War on Abortion"? WTF?)

---

I know, just where some people get their ideas from I have no idea. Not only has there never been a "war against abortion" there has never been a "war on drugs" in Canada either. This type of continued mixing us up with the USA almost pisses me off as much as the abortion rhetoric of May et als.

On a further note, regarding comments uttered this week like: "the mushy middle" or "the majority of Canadians" support May's commentary, "as that is the way the largest portion" feels, I came across an article out of Austrailia yesterday. This article contained data on current sociological studies that shows quite the opposite, across the world. And it said in fact, that the study also shows that 53% of self identifying Christians believe in unfettered access to abortions.

Will try to have a look for it today again and link it.

quote:

---

Sociologist Katharine Betts has tracked opinion polls between the mid-1970s and 1990s, which show support for unqualified access to abortion has risen from 30 to 50 per cent.

A survey of social attitudes last year found that 53 per cent of evangelical Christians - defined as Baptists, Lutherans and Pentecostals - agreed with the statement "a woman should have the right to choose whether or not she has an abortion".

---

http://tinyurl.com/yxquml

Edited to add link, and change the % amounts. Of note, I used the word Christian, when the article uses Evangelical Chrisitian, as I do not feel Lutherans are evangelical, nor are all Baptist Churches.

[ 16 December 2006: Message edited by: remind ]

quote:

---

The real motive seemed to be a grudge against every minority group (although women are not much of a minority!)that benefited from those programs.

---

She was discussing the program cuts by the CPC which included the Status of Women offices. Now that's quite the comment geared to chastize Harper for acting on a grudge, eh?!

Nor is it really supportive of the need for more actions to ensure women's prgression towards true equality. Personally, I take it as a slam against women's programs, and in essence says there is no need for them, because we are not "much of a minority".

What is even more mind boggling she does nothing more than mention the grudge against minorities, she does not say it is unacceptable and in fact she trivializes harper's petty grudges with her comment about women not being much of a minority.

At the end of that inane diatribe, there is an even more curious commentary:

quote:

---

In other anti-gay/lesbian/women's rights news, Environment minister Rona Ambrose just chose Darrel Ried of "Focus on the Family" as her new chief of staff.

---

And she just leaves it at that, a flip meaningless comment. No calling them to account, or making an actual statement against it. The only thing she goes on to say is:

quote:

---

This is a short blog (like normal people apparently write) to urge you to go to the GP Squared document on this webiste, read it and talk it up. We need Canadians to really understand the threat if the Harper-Ambrose Green Plan pretends to deal with smog and ignores the climate crisis.

---

Which has nothing to do with the grudges, bigotry and program cuts that she had just been talking about. It seems even, that she does not want her supporters talking of them, as she quite clearly tells them what to talk about.

]http://www.greenparty.ca/page269.html[/qb]

[ 16 December 2006: Message edited by: remind ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
[QB]This morning I have been reading May's campaign trail blog and came across this curious comment of hers:

Which has nothing to do with the grudges, bigotry and program cuts that she had just been talking about. It seems even, that she does not want her supporters talking of them, as she quite clearly tells them what to talk about.

---

I'm thinking that you can read that quote "not much of minority" differently. At least I did. Though it's really and awkward way of saying that woman aren't really a minority demographically thus for Harper ton have a 'grudge' against them is even worse.

quote:

---

May’s idea that “[i]f we make [abortion] illegal, women will die ... it happened for hundreds and hundreds of years” is just nonsense. The only reason women sought out abortions then was because of the social stigma of out-of-wedlock pregnancy at the time. News flash: times have changed. Why not look at the pro-life/pro-abortion debate in a different light?

Questions of life and death

---

Jane: a secret women-run collective that took matters into their own hands when abortion was illegal and created a safe underground network in the Chicago area

Dr. Henry Morgentaler: Fighting Canada's Abortion Laws

For Cosh and May, "it is time to dispel the myth about the number of women who died from so-called back alley butchers. In fact, most women who died pre-Roe, died from self-induced abortion." Life and Liberty for Women

Reemergence of self-induced abortions. (U.S.)

And wise words from the Pro-Choice Action Network:

quote:

---

If a woman has sex, she has to pay the consequences. Too many women have abortions for their own convenience or on "whim."

This vindictive, self-righteous attitude stems from a belief that sex is bad and must be punished. Motherhood should never be punishment for having sex. Forcing a child to be born to punish its mother is the ultimate in child abuse. Anti-abortionists trivialize motherhood and childbirth by dismissing pregnancy as a mere inconvenience. They ignore or belittle the needs of the woman and the conflict she endures in making her decision. Guilt is inflicted when compassion is needed.

Misconceptions about abortions

---

quote:

---

These are stories told by mothers, single women, rape victims, medical personnel, orphaned children. They tell of illegal operations taking place on kitchen tables and in sleazy hotel rooms, or self-induced on bathroom floors. They are powerful accounts of physical and mental anguish, disturbing to remember and painful to tell. Yet they are stories that must be told. We don’t want to forget, and as a woman we call Nancy expresses it:

I never want my daughter or anyone else’s daughter to go through what I did. Never again.

No Choice
Canadian Women Tell Their Stories of Illegal Abortion

---

[ 17 December 2006: Message edited by: writer ]

quote:

---

If a woman has sex, she has to pay the consequences. Too many women have abortions for their own convenience or on "whim."

This vindictive, self-righteous attitude stems from a belief that sex is bad and must be punished.

---

quote:

---

This vindictive, self-righteous attitude stems from a belief that sex is bad and must be punished.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by writer:
For Cosh and May, "it is time to dispel the myth about the number of women who died from so-called back alley butchers. In fact, most women who died pre-Roe, died from self-induced abortion." Life and Liberty for Women

---

Thanks for the links writer, they will be very useful, I have been reading and reading, and now have them book marked. It would be hoped that most do not just read your post, but go to the links, there is much true and salient facts that can be used, if needed ever. And one hopes that it will never be needed again, to discuss self determination and defending the right to have it.
However, with people like Cosh and May espousing falsehoods who knows, I never thought I would again be having these types of feelings and conversations ever again.

Th following is bite from the Life and Liberty link. The images are graphic, disturbing, insightful and make me as a woman very angry, that again, some would play with our lives and that of our daughters and granddaughters too. Further, they need to be shared, as showing the juxposition between living women's lives and that which is not yet formed, nor will ever be when the host dies anyway. I am so unbelievably fucking angry and sad, I can hardly see the keyboard!

quote:

---

The stories are vivid - true - and heart wrenching. The images we share with you are graphic.

It has been said that without a knowledge and understanding of the mistakes of the past, we are doomed to repeat those mistakes.

Unless post-Roe generations come to intimately know the history of illegal abortion, the havoc on women's lives it reeked - the number of women's lives it took without saving any "baby" - a history silenced by fear and intimidation, they will unwittingly allow abortion to be criminalized again and again thousands upon thousands of women will die.

That's inevitable.

---

Women on Waves
- Abortion Facts

Women on Web
- Show Your Face

remind, I expect you were especially disturbed by the photo of a woman dead on the floor. She deserves to be more than a sensational image:

quote:

---

Geraldine Santoro
August 16, 1935 - June 8, 1964
The photo of Geraldine Santoro dead on a hotel room floor has become a symbol for the horror of illegal abortion. Gerri, as she was known, lived on her family farm in Coventry, Conn., with her two daughters. At the age of 28, separated from her abusive husband, she became pregnant by another man, Clyde Dixon. Afraid that her husband would kill her if he found out, she and Dixon looked for ways to terminate her pregnancy. With no other options, they attempted to perform the procedure themselves. When the operation went awry, Dixon fled, leaving Santoro behind where she bled to death. A chambermaid found her body the next morning.

In Remembrance: Women Who Died from Illegal and Unsafe Abortions, NOW

---

[ 17 December 2006: Message edited by: writer ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by writer:
I expect you were especially disturbed by the photo of a woman dead on the floor. She deserves to be more than a sensational image:

---

Yes, she does, and the picture of the beautiful girl standing there could have been my daughter.

But also, I was speaking of the erroneous pics, and that were debunked there, that are commonly used by those who want to control self determination and put out garbage to do it.

The debunking section is very powerful, I agree.

But I didn't find myself crying till I toured this section of Women on Web:

I had an abortion

[ 17 December 2006: Message edited by: writer ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by writer:
The young woman standing in the long dress is part of a dramatization (just in case you thought otherwise).

The debunking section is very powerful, I agree.

But I didn't find myself crying till I toured this section of Women on Web:

I had an abortion

---

Oh goodness, was wondering, did not realize!

quote:

---

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 20, 2006

Access to abortion in the province has become critically limited, according to a group of women concerned with the issue, including the Advisory Council on the Status of Women, the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada and the National Abortion Federation.

"For the last couple of weeks, referrals for abortions in the province have not been possible. No referrals are accepted until mid January by the two physicians who provide the service, and the provincial government is not providing alternate arrangements," said Ginette Petitpas-Taylor, Chairperson of the New Brunswick Advisory Council on the Status of Women.

"There have been several cases of appointments cancelled. These women are not then referred to any other service. Women are not being referred to hospitals outside the province. New Brunswick does not have reciprocal billing arrangements. Those who can pay make their way to the Morgentaler clinic. That clinic is struggling to keep up with a 25% increase in procedures."

"Last week I had yet another patient turned away," said Dr. JoAnn Majerovich of Fredericton. "She actually was given an appointment to have the procedure done and then the hospital cancelled on her. The government is adding psychological insult to injury by creating a climate of fear and shame around a legal procedure. The government of
New Brunswick has recriminalized abortion through the back door by using the Medical Services Payment Act to restrict funding through situations it can control, like hospitals, ultimately limiting access to abortion. In doing so New Brunswick is discriminating against women and especially those who are the most vulnerable."

According to Ginette Petitipas-Taylor, "Access to abortion should not depend on the schedules of two physicians. It must be a service provided by the public health system. The government must create access points for women who have no family doctor, who have an anti-choice doctor or who are faced with impossible waiting times for a hospital abortion. As a nurse has written to us, requiring written consent, especially when so many people do not have a family physician, restricts access for the most vulnerable, the young and the isolated - the very same women who are the least able to cope with an unintended pregnancy and an unplanned child. The written approval of two doctors should not be required to have the procedure and general practitioners should be allowed to perform abortions in the public system."

"New Brunswick does little to prevent unwanted pregnancies, and then we make abortion only available to a few. The Advisory Council promotes a planned pregnancy initiative."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by writer:
The government is adding psychological insult to injury by creating a climate of fear and shame around a legal procedure. The government of New Brunswick has recriminalized abortion through the back door by using the Medical Services Payment Act to restrict funding through situations it can control, like hospitals, ultimately limiting access to abortion. In doing so New Brunswick is discriminating against women and especially those who are the most vulnerable."

---

This is sickening beyond belief, women had better start standing up and quickly.

[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

[ 22 December 2006: Message edited by: writer ]

In Sullivan's case, a quadriplegic became Mayor, and this, I felt, was a great leap in terms of societal acceptance that disabled people (I am one; I wear hearing aids and without them my effectiveness is sharply diminished) could be just as capable of great things as "normal" people.

In May's case I suspect Rebick was referring to the fact that a woman, on her own merits, managed to gain visibility from a very marginal portion of the political spectrum. That's a pretty notable achievement, but it seems that since then the luster has fallen from May.

Elizabeth May and Helena Guergis: Social Conservatives' Women of 2006

[ 24 December 2006: Message edited by: writer ]

But I would really like to know how one is supposed to do this power relationship sharing of a foetus?

quote:

---

...it sounds like you and "it's my fetus/body and i'll do what i want to" feminists suffer from penis envy. Otherwise, the power relationship between men and women through child baring would be more equally shared.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Debra:
Excellent post on reproductive rights

---

Thanks Debra, it is a superb little treatise. I really enjoyed this:

quote:

---

...I think that Mary is actually the perfect symbol for reproductive freedom.... God chooses Mary and sends the angel Gabriel to tell her. Mary asked how this would happen, and Gabriel told her, "The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee and the power of the most high shall overshadow thee." Mary then said: "Let it be done according to Thy will." I’m directly quoting the Anglican Parish of Camp Hill with Norman Park, part of the Diocese of Brisbane, Australia on this next part: “This one simple action of saying "Yes" to God changed everything. Mary became the mother of the Lord.” Mary made a choice. In her case, she said she’d be willing to have a child that she didn’t plan, but it was still a choice.

So this Christmas, I am making the (potentially blasphemous) argument that if Mary was allowed to make a choice as to whether she’d be willing to carry God’s baby to term, all women are allowed to determine what is best for themselves. No one has the right to force any woman to bear a child. Even God abided by that principle, and if it is good enough for God, it should be good enough for his people. Merry Christmas!

---

quote:

---

There’s a public debate underway at the moment between Elizabeth May and Judy Rebick, the latest installment (Dec 22, rabble.ca) of which ends with May giving Rebick a virtual hug. Oh, please.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by writer:
Sheila Wilmot, Weighing in on Rebick vs May

---

Another great blog, she covers it mosty clearly! This is pretty much terrific!

quote:

---

please, let’s not pretend that ‘dialogue’ with those that control ‘the economy’, those that control the definitions and access to recognition of social and human rights, those that are in power, that is – let’s not pretend that making nice with the ruling class is going to bring about the sexual and other equality May refers to.

---

quote:

---

The last word on abortion

For some of the gender Stalinists around, there is only one position on anything permitted. The word "pro-choice," in their hands, is fast becoming a cultish password to determine who is an in-group purist and who is the enemy.

---

Oh, and for all of Dr. Dawg's tisking about the hardliners silencing his nuanced ass here and at EM, check this out: Dr. Dawg drives out progressive feminist bloggers from "Progressive" Bloggers.

Yay! More room for the guys to hold forth about how they can't hold forth enough because of prissy moderating and hysterical complaining ultra-feminists! Let me guess: "prissy" was a well-chosen word to label a female moderator! Let me guess: this is FUCKING SEXISM.

Dear baby Jesus and Mother Mary: I am so sick of idiot sexism my eyes are beginning to bleed. I suspect I am not alone. Miracle, please.

[ 26 December 2006: Message edited by: writer ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by DrConway:
In May's case I suspect Rebick was referring to the fact that a woman, on her own merits, managed to gain visibility from a very marginal portion of the political spectrum. That's a pretty notable achievement, but it seems that since then the luster has fallen from May.

---

What was Rebick's reaction, for example, to the accession of Kim Campbell to the leadership of the Conservative Party, when she gained visibility from a not-so-marginal portion of the political spectrum?

But I will say that I am delighted, by inference, and by inference a whole lot of the rest of us, to have been called a "gender stalinist". And by none other than that very same nuanced, moderate fellow who so much desires respectful debate.

You know, such breathtaking defensiveness really makes me think that a nerve got struck. I would have hoped that someone who had spent so many years working for CARAL and on choice issues might have absorbed a little bit of feminist discourse analysis, and a bit of an understanding of how language such as his can be silencing of women. Perhaps not.

[ 26 December 2006: Message edited by: Tehanu ]

quote:

---

You've opened my eyes. I think the guys on the 'right' are less dangerous than you people.

You have lost so many of us...don't count on us to build critical mass against your ping pong match against the right of the blogosphere...Don't count on us to shut up and sit pretty.

We're on to you.

---

Irrational and churlishly girlish, I know.

A stroke of moderating brilliance on Dawg's part: whine about the insensitive, brutal and oppressive moderation of other boards, then shut down debate on your own because, y'know, it's critical of you and your pals.

Whaa. Whaa. Whaaaa. But gosh, he did stand beside Judy Rebick once, vying for the mike. Glorky. I will do better to know my place. Before the airbrush comes out and I'm removed from the picture.

Edited to add: and Tehanu, just to be clear, here, you are female, right?

[ 26 December 2006: Message edited by: writer ]

quote:

---

Edited to add: and Tehanu, just to be clear, here, you are female, right?

---

You betcha. Otherwise I wouldn't be being incivil. I'd be using fewer polemics and more nuance when it comes to reproductive rights. And I'm sure I would be able to be quite so prissy (or use so many italics) if I were male.

• Okay: A guy proposing that women (voluntarily!) pull their uteruses out as a form of birth control.
• Okay: A guy joking about women's gut feelings (cause the discussion is about abortion, get it?)
• Not okay: Humourless sexist feminist suggesting an anti-feminist, nuanced sorta-but-not-really anti-choice dullard can suck her dildo, then return it clean and unscathed.
• Not okay: An angry woman with a nasty chip on her shoulder objecting to a reactionary man's cartoonish rape fantasy postings used as an argument for gun deregulation.

I do hope they come out with a handbook or something, so we can learn to be good little feminists.

Loved your post on EnMasse, BTW.

Say it with me! We are man-hating vagina-warrior gender Stalinistas!

Edited to fix the EM URL - thanks, T!

[ 27 December 2006: Message edited by: writer ]

For JBaglow aka Dr Dawg, it seems well..nigh impossible! I invite you DrDawg/JBaglow to come back and read you posts, you did the attacking pal, not the other way around!

Indeed he had the gall to say this after the heinous way he behaved here, in his blog and at the progressive blogger site:

quote:

---

Our styles became different: we stopped the ritual denunciations and public humiliations, and began to talk to people, in all of their complexity, contradictions and diversity--and, with differing degrees of success, to listen to them too.

---

Oh yes, he certainly tried to "talk", NOT, and if this is the way his lack of "public denunciations" are, hell, his public denunciations must be breath taking!

I mean, he goes on at off topic length at progressive bloggers (another place I will stay away from) and then he chastizes everyone else for degenerating the thread into

quote:

---

a series of accusations and namecalling. There is little to be gained by more incivility of this kind.

---

Apparently, us feminist women are getting a little too uppity for him so now he has to label us in such useful terms too. Glad he allegedly is on "our" side. In fact, so much so I wonder what name he posts under at the dark site?

This all come back to the fact, that not only is May not progressive and not pro-choice, neither are her knights in shining armour who defending her.

Apparently, he, the baglow, learned nothing during the "70's, 80's and 90's", perhaps even he was not there to do so, only foster himself as a political entity? Because I cannot believe someone who is a committed progressive for decades can say:

quote:

---

For trying to inject the notion that one could be pro-choice and anti-abortion

---

[ 26 December 2006: Message edited by: remind ]

quote:

---

Anger is neither inappropriate nor enough. It is not time for nuances nor debates.

It is time to choose up sides, you believe that women have the right to live as autonomous human beings or you do not. You believe our society is better served when all people are free and equal or you do not. You believe that women’s voices are important or you do not.

---

Wow, I feel humbled by Debra's words. They need to become part of literature for a larger campaign about the regressive component pretending to be progressive.

quote:

---

This even as they claim that their voices are being silenced.

We are allowed to be feminists just as long as we are nice little feminists who listen when the boys tell us what feminism means, how feminists should act and what issues we should see as meaningful.

---

Oh, and let's just throw this in for the heck of it:

quote:

---

Prominent environmentalist, Elizabeth May, has been creating a lot of headlines since she was elected leader of the federal Greens. But that election wasn't without controversy. A 24 hours' investigation raised questions about a cross-country climate change tour May undertook while she was running for that post. May initially said that tour - set to be funded by an American charitable foundation - wouldn't be counted toward her campaign expenses because it wasn't a campaign event. But those climate change tour talks were advertised on May's website as "future campaign events" - a mistake according to the future party leader.

She later agreed to include part of the costs of the climate change tour as a campaign expense.

24 Hours Vancouver

---

And this! Push back against the holiday shop-a-thon: "Gift memberships in worth-while organizations, like the Sierra Club of Canada, are a great choice and can be managed over the web (www.sierraclub.ca). "

quote:

---

Originally posted by writer:
We're in Italy: Green Party Slammed after Leader Elizabeth May Suggests Personal Dislike of Abortion...Not mentioned by Ms. May: that she used to run the Sierra Club! So clean. So pure. So moral. So worth a discussion.

---

Wow, Italy? Who would've thought? And all links to discussion, even BnR and Lifesite.

And I see that Lifesite had to label Judy as a "militant" feminist 2 times in the first 2 sentences.

So, I guess that makes May, Ms. I want to dialogue on your rights as a human, an "acceptable" non-militant feminist.

Lifesite does an attempted juxposition hereof what is a "suitable to society" feminist and what isn't.

May is being portrayed by Lifesite as the "Barbie" of feminism as she is a self professed: "Christian", "feminist","environmentalist" and just recently announced herself "anti-choice". That type of portrayal, and May's commentary, won't go over well in the Green feminist world anymore than it did here at home!

quote:

---

Pregnant women entitled to 'all options'

Centacare, the Catholic church's health and welfare arm, has reportedly won part of the Federal Government's $51 million pregnancy counselling contract aimed at reducing the number of abortions.

The Daily Telegraph, Australia

---

The first one being the obvious fact the Catholic Church, has commenced another phase in its campaign against women's self determination and now are doing it with a world nation's government a complicit partner, a true faustian pact:

quote:

---

Senator Stott Despoja said women have the right to transparent information and any advice offered by the Catholic church would not be.

.."If the Government is committed to a diverse range of agencies being involved in the counselling process, then the remaining funds should be awarded to genuinely non-directive and dedicated counselling services: those that do provide information and referral on all three options

---

Secondly, see the new face of corporate/political and religious NGO's/NPO's.

Accent on the religious.

Here in BC, contracts to run BC's Low Income Housing were given to various church organizations to manage and maintain. Most likely a pay off for delivering votes from the pulpit.

As these man driven cults, supported by unliberated women, are working their way into our government control and branches, we are going to be seeing more and more of this. What do the heads of all these religious orgs talk to political leaders about once a week afterall?

May,is just the precursor of others, like her, that are moving into positions of power and regard, that are so indoctrinated by their "faith" they cannot see how regressive and controlled they are.

I have been watching this phenom grow here in BC over the last 6 years or so with government contracting out to religious orgs.

Women across Canada that consider themselves permanently self determined, had better start paying attention to anti-choice buzz phases and words and calling people on each and every one, if they are not already.

If people are not doing this, and are calling themselves progressives and pro-choice, they then need to realize; silence or the planned ignoring of anti-choice rhetoric is equivalent of ignoring bigoted and racist slurs, at the very least, and/or giving tacit approval for the abolition of a person's rights, at the very worst.

[ 03 January 2007: Message edited by: remind ]

quote:

---

Zip up the political rhetoric

The recent flare-up over ad lib comments made by rookie Green party leader Elizabeth May to a bunch of nuns during the recent federal by-election in London underlines again why Canadians are fed up with camp-centred politics. In a rather rambling answer to a nun's question about abortion, May allowed that while her party has no intention of ever reopening the abortion debate and that she herself supports a woman's right to choose, she could never imagine a circumstance where she would opt to have an abortion. Choosing her words quite poorly, May has inflamed the blogosphere by saying "no one in their right mind would want to have an abortion- and that she doesn't think women "have a frivolous right to choose.-

Famed feminist and founder of lefty website Rabble.ca Judy Rebick shot back an open letter to May saying, "You have questioned the most important victory of the women's movement of my generationÉ. Since you have so little respect for me or for the women's movement that mobilized for so long to win this hard-earned right, I hope you will understand that I ripped up the cheque I had written to the Green party and you can no longer rely on me for support.- Perhaps Rebick hadn't read May's clarification of her comments in a blog post on the Rabble site a week before she tore up her cheque. In it she says, "I personally strongly support legal access to abortions for any woman (under whatever circumstances) who chooses to have one. What I was trying to suggest was that slogans distort the reality that there are moral dimensions to both positions."

It's a reasonable position and probably reflects what most pro-choice Canadians think: women must have the choice, but abortion often is a difficult psychological experience. It makes sense to say "Abortion is legal; now, how do we create a society where fewer women need to have one."

Rebick is having none of it, but her position, like partisan brinksmanship, strikes me as similar to the Bush doctrine of "If you aren't with us, then you are for the terrorists."

Say what you want about the Greens, and there is much to question about their supposed progressive credentials, but May gets the drift that we're at the end of the era of the slogan.

By ANDREW CASH
Now Magazine

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by writer:
Zip up the political rhetoric......but May gets the drift that we're at the end of the era of the slogan.

---

Oh great, another man weighs in and tells us women what we women probably think/feel, and speaks for most pro-choice Canadians too!

quote:

---

It's a reasonable position and probably reflects what most pro-choice Canadians think: women must have the choice, but abortion often is a difficult psychological experience.

---

I am getting so sick of this BS rhetoric, it is unbelievable in its unsupported assumptions and content.

Plus Andrew lies about time frame, he says May answered at Rabble before Judy wrote her the letter? WTF?

quote:

---

Perhaps Rebick hadn't read May's clarification of her comments in a blog post on the Rabble site a week before she tore up her cheque.

---

Now, let's talk about May's slogan comment to which Andrew cash refers:

quote:

---

What I was trying to suggest was that slogans distort the reality that there are moral dimensions to both positions."

---

Oh really, just where were her examples of slogans? Where did she mention slogans distort the reality in her dialogue with the nuns?

Notwithstanding is the fact it is HER opinion there are "moral dimensions". Who is she to decide what is mine, or anyone else's morality? The fact that she does this is just another point showing how NON-progressive, non pro-choice she is.

Elizabeth May Answers Abortion Questions

[ 04 January 2007: Message edited by: writer ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by writer:
remind, Cameron W did post what he said was May's response.

---

Elizabeth May Answers Abortion Questions

Oh yes, I know, and am fully aware that CameronW did post what he told us May's response was. I just do NOT ever take hearsay postings, or commentary as hard evidence of anything or put solid credence to it. Now, if CameronW had held a press conference saying this is what May’s response was I would have put store in it. So truth be told, May said nothing about her words to the nuns until she responded to Judy, until then it was a; CameronW said that May said those things, kinda situation.

Sorry, I thought I was clear on that at the end of my first post to Cameron on that thread when I said:

quote:

---

BTW Cameron "mr message man", May should be speaking to this herself here, her inability to do so says much in itself. Having a man do her talking says even more IMO!

---

Andrew used Cameron’s quote as May’s words, I am merely pointing out that indeed they were NOT May’s words. May's "own" words did not actually happen until after Judy's letter to her.

[ 04 January 2007: Message edited by: remind ]

[ 04 January 2007: Message edited by: minkepants ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by minkepants:
Remind, why do yo bother to post on discussion boards which allow men to comment if men, in your view, have nothing to contribute to the discussion?

---

As for why I don't get lost; am I not entitled to see the preservation of my sisters liberty as crucial to the preservation of my own? To see the extension and maximization of her liberty as both a good in and of itself as well as a precursor to my ability to live in greater liberty, justice and freedom?

Without personalizing it to me specifically, what right, if any, does a man have to question a dialogue on a forum without a gender barrier? Any at all? Do I have any right to question whether a conversation is being dominated by the angriest rather than the best arguments?

[ 04 January 2007: Message edited by: minkepants ]

[ 04 January 2007: Message edited by: minkepants ]

[ 04 January 2007: Message edited by: minkepants ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by minkepants:
Remind, why do you bother to post on discussion boards which allow men to comment if men, in your view, have nothing to contribute to the discussion?

---

No, its okay unionist, I can handle this one, because it's so very nice having to explain things over and over.

Men are not allowed to comment in the feminist forum only, except from a pro-feminist point of view.

WHY?

Because they, men, have NOTHING to contribute to the topic other than give unquestioning, unequivocal, unstinting and unfettered support for: a woman's, NOT a man's, right to self-determine, women to engage society for equality rights and freedoms in a manner that we women, NOT men, see fit to do.

Everywhere else at babble men can give themselves unequivocal, unstinting and unfettered support for whatever they choose to dialogue on, as it is their right to do. Just a I can.

BTW, glad to see you joined and made your first post to me on the feminist forum yet. And that it as a request of me to defend why I do things, made it even more enjoyable!

Edited to add unquestioning.

[ 04 January 2007: Message edited by: remind ]

Many thanks for the gacious withdrawal.

[ 04 January 2007: Message edited by: writer ]

I don't see what changed in the post i have left to make it less "derailing" in your opinion, than the rough post I originally posted. I think I changed the sentence structure for clarity perhaps. perhaps you would like to clarify what component is "derailing" as this would seem equivalent to calling it deliberately disruptive

[ 04 January 2007: Message edited by: minkepants ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by writer:

[email protected]

---

Here is mine:

First of as a man, Mr Cash had no business weighing in on feminist issues and women's rights.

Secondly, Andrew's article was wilfully misleading, un-factual and distorted.

Initially, he sets the tone by trying to portray May as a naive rookie. May is not a rookie in the political arena; she was an advisor to Brian Mulroney. He paraphrases May's words while directly quoting Roebuck’s.

Not only that, he accuses Ms Rebick of not paying attention to May's words on rabble of a week prior. That is disengenuous, the words he quoted were actually not from May’s hand, they were send hand from a poster who said May had given him the email and the right to post it. At best it can be considered hearsay. To ask, or expect, anyone to respond to hearsay, especially a clear-sited and even minded professional such as Ms Rebick is not only foolishly immature, its unprofessional.

Ms Rebick could only officially make comments on what Ms May herself said to the nuns. Too bad Mr Nash does not understand legalities and ethics, he might not be so hasty to cast aspersions from a position of ignorance on both.

Thirdly, he is trying to make a case for partisanship occurring rather than acknowledging women across Canada are expressing justifiable outrage over May’s words. He belittled our anger and tried to minimize her words by saying “they were poorly chosen” and “rambling” and then he furthers this by inferring that he knows “what most pro-choice Canadians think” and that May’s views are reasonable. If he did he would not be having dialogue on it all.

In conclusion, it appears that Mr Nash is using a topic he has no business discussing in order to bash/discredit Ms Rebick and indeed feminists across Canada. I mean; “slogans are dead” as an excuse to discuss, when he uses the most over used slogan of all to conclude with.

quote:

---

Rebick is having none of it, but her position, like partisan brinksmanship, strikes me as similar to the Bush doctrine of "If you aren't with us, then you are for the terrorists."

---

There are some postshereon opinions of Andrew's weighing in, and some good comments that were written to Now.

[ 04 January 2007: Message edited by: remind ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
Oh really, just where were her examples of slogans? Where did she mention slogans distort the reality in her dialogue with the nuns?

---

If you cut through all of the extra verbiage, I think that she was actually suggesting that the term "pro-choice" is itself a slogan (one that make her "queesy", because she doesn't believe that there is "a frivolous right to choose").

Andrew's political analysis is usually much better than this. It appears that he's been sucked in by May's (and others') suggestion that the reaction to her comments is an NDP-inspired plot to score political points. It's not.

[ 04 January 2007: Message edited by: Scott Piatkowski ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scott Piatkowski:
If you cut through all of the extra verbiage, I think that she was actually suggesting that the term "pro-choice" is itself a slogan (one that make her "queesy", because she doesn't believe that there is "a frivolous right to choose").

---

Well, I think she used all the extra verbage in a foolish and frivolous manner. The slogan explanation never arose until after the fact.

quote:

---

Andrew's political analysis is usually much better than this. It appears that he's been sucked in by May's (and others') suggestion that the reaction to her comments is an NDP-inspired plot to score political points. It's not.

---

Well, as I normally do not follow him, I have to take your word on that.