A senior government official also says that while the prime minister will not "whip" or demand Conservative MPs vote as he votes, it will be "very strongly recommended" that Conservatives vote to defeat the bill.
Over at ProWoman ProLife a blogger gets all riled up in a blogpost titled 'Well that's a bit much'.
In the comments, we get the Official TheoCon Party of Canada spin.
Veronique Bergeron on 22 May 2010 at 3:49 pmShorter Conservative Staffer: 'Silly fetus fetishists. Just because we've been stringing you along forever, you really expect us to endanger our chance at a majority? Keep sending money and voting for us, though, and we'll pat you on your pointy little heads occasionally.'
He is letting the MPs vote as they wish. That’s what “will not ‘whip’ or demand Conservative MPs vote as he votes” means , right? Full disclosure (for those who have not read my bio lately), I am a Conservative staffer for a pro-life MP.
On the question of why pro-lifers generally support the Conservative government (see the last comment here http://www.prowomanprolife.org/2010/05/19/we-are-not-over-reacting/)*, it is true that Harper’s Conservatives are not all that pro-lifers wish they were. But the “no new abortion law” position does exclude the co-existence of pro-life and pro-abortion positions within the same party. What makes the Conservatives the best option for pro-lifers – or the least bad option – is the possibility for pro-life MPs (and by extension the large swath of pro-life Canadians) to have their voice heard and their position considered politically. But it doesn’t mean that they should always get their way. That’s what democracy is all about, isn’t it?
There is a difference between welcoming the pro-life position and passing new abortion laws. By reflecting the spectrum of abortion positions that exist within the Canadian population, the Conservative government is the best home for pro-lifers. Because the Bloc Quebecois or NDP caucuses unanimously condemn the pro-life position doesn’t mean that there are no pro-life voters in Bloc or NDP constituencies. It just means that their voices are not heard. Ignoring the existence of pro-life voices in their constituencies was the downfall of Ignatieff’s Liberals on the infamous “abortion motion.” The critical mass of pro-life MPs on the government side of the House makes it impossible to ignore the way Michael Ignatieff ignored his pro-life MPs. At the political level, pro-lifers shouldn’t expect a democratically elected government to reflect anything but the mushy-middle-of-the-road view shared by most Canadians. But they are within their rights to expect their voices to be heard. Harper’s Conservatives are the only ones listening.
*That was moi asking if people thought Stevie Peevie was lying and if so are they OK with that. And if they don't think he's lying, are they really happy being patsies?
2 comments:
My blood pressure just shot up at the number of pro-life's in the piece. It's not the fault of Dammit Janet! who avoided the dread phrase.
There must be some way to re-frame the issue. These jokers are definitely not pro-life (many are pro-capital punishment, pro-war etc.) They are anti-choice and anti-woman. Let's make sure we identify them as such. Obviously, we can't control their rhetoric, but we can all certainly re-phrase it in reply.
These wingnuts are clear examples as to why legalized safe abortions are the best idea since the development of a cure to the clap.
Time to get nasty, I say...
Worthless pieces of Sh*t the lot of them fetus fetishes.
Post a Comment