Abortion bubble zone goes after Catholics - Michael Coren

"fundamentalist fanatics"

"angry zealots"

"right-wing fringes of Christianity"

"arch-conservative views"

"protesters howling"

This is what Michael Coren calls pro-life people. Naturally he agrees with the abortion bubble zone law.

I'd love to know where and when Coren has witnessed this kind of behaviour from pro-life people. Because I never have.

I think Coren may have learned the pro-choice chauvinist lingo from his new friends on the far left. Maybe he's had writing lessons from say Heather Mallick. Or maybe Joyce Arthur. Or maybe even Fern Hill.

Whoever it was, they taught him well. I hope he enjoys his new company.

How pro-choice people get it wrong

Dear Heather Mallick,

Last week in the Toronto Star you wrote a story about an abortion protester outside the Morgentaler clinic in Ottawa. You think abortion protesters are "creepy, some unwell, and some threatening". You make all sorts of nasty unproven allegations in your opinion piece.

Cyril Winter's responded to your article here when he called into Mark Sutcliffe's radio show. Winter says he doesn't spit on anyone and doesn't speak to anyone unless he is spoken to. He says he is peaceful.

Dear Carol Anne Meehan,

You believe that people who peacefully protest outside abortion clinics are "religious fanatics" (as you said to Mark Sutcliffe on 1310 news radio on Friday). 

To both of you I would like to say this. We have rights in this country called freedom of speech and freedom of assembly and freedom of religion. In a democracy these rights are given to us all--and this may shock both of you--but these rights are even given to pro-life persons. When we encounter injustice to pre-born human beings we protest, we speak, and some of us may even depend on our religious beliefs to peacefully act thus.

You seem to think that pro-life people do not care about the women who have an abortion. You could not be more wrong. If this is what you honestly believe you have no idea of what being pro-life is all about.

Sincerely,
Patricia Maloney

When writers drool

I'm no fan of Stephen Harper. Not since he threw social conservatives over the cliff, down the embankment, and into the river.

And I think that Justin Trudeau will probably be the next prime Minister of Canada. Not because he's got anything to offer as a leader, but for reasons that I or anyone else, can't seem to quite figure out. Never mind that pro-life persons need not apply to be a Liberal candidate in the next election--discrimination by any other name.

But then I read Heather Mallick's gushing compliments about Trudeau. It makes me yearn for a political leader who isn't even on the political scene: anyone else.

Mallick thinks Trudeau is fantastic because he is/has

"intelligent, humane, self-confident, a Québécois, a most marvellous family, a sophisticated career-minded wife, three adorable young children with interesting names, an English degree, a UBC teaching degree, intellect, wit, good looks, warmth, can wear a suit."

Oh. And Mallick also likes that he can dance. All very important qualities for the next leader of Canada. Especially the dancing part. And that English degree and suits. Important stuff for sure. Now I know why I would never vote for Trudeau.

But when Mallick then proceeds to personally attack Stephen Harper, it makes me want to vote for him next time round. I actually feel embarrassed for Mallick.

Does she actually read what she writes? Does she have an editor? Or does she do this all on her own?

Henry Morgentaler

Brian Lilley's thoughts on the recent death of Henry Morgentaler (see full video below). Lilley says:

"Henry Morgentaler was not a great man, he was a mistaken man. He brought great evil to this country."

...while Heather Mallick is worried about women being "frozen in shock" and crying on their keyboard.

Oh dear. My keyboard is dry.

The pro-abortions are right

Why does the Toronto Star print this drivel (Conservative anti-abortion MP has new ultrasound plan)?

This op-ed's sole purpose is to allow pro-abortion extraordinaire, Heather Mallick, to ridicule, make fun of, and otherwise mock MP Mark Warwara motion M-408 which states:
"That the House condemn discrimination against females, occurring through sex-selective pregnancy termination.”

Even just suggesting that sane people might want to condemn sex selection abortion is like drinking bleach to these people. Why is that? Do the pro-abortions think sex selection abortion is okay? Or are they just so caught up in their abortion ideology that they can't even comprehend that it might be something even they can condemn?

If they can't bring themselves to condemn sex-selection abortion, at the very least could they give us a couple of reasons why they can't. Maybe defend their position for a change. You know, with some good old-fashioned arguments. Okay, how about just one argument?

But no, making fun of people with whom they do not agree with is a lot more fun. Reminds me of bullying: let's just figuratively beat the crap out of people who say things we don't agree with. Wow that's funny. Guffaw. Haha. LOL.

Maybe the pro-abortions could use a good old fashioned Dale Carnegie course in how to make friends and influence people.

Wait a minute. What am I saying? On second thought, I changed my mind. Maybe this extreme abortion doctrine is a good thing.

The actual pro-choice people of this world might begin to notice this extreme pro-abortion doctrine and start to rethink whether or not they like being on the same side of the abortion divide with the Heather Mallicks and Joyce Arthurs of this world. Hmm...okay. I changed my mind. Come on Heather. Bring it on. Let us know what you really think.

Debate: Should physicians provide, or refer for, abortion? (who declined to debate)

A "pro-choice" commenter to my blog said that:
"this debate was a total set-up. no one from the pro-choice community in ottawa was asked to participate in the debate. while it was nice that jovan accepted the non-invitation, he did not have the background or experience to argue from the perspective of the pro-choice movement and ended up making some pretty oppressive and ineffectivley thought-out arguments. stephanie spends her entire career articulating these issues, of course she "won". but the pro-life side certainly didn't gain any credibility for such a poorly run event."

So I checked it out, to see exactly who was invited to debate Stephanie Gray.

Here is the list of people who either declined, or did not reply, or ignored the organizers' invitations.

i. Dr. Henry Morgentaler (declined to debate)

ii. Heather Mallick ("pro-choice" columnist for the Toronto Star) (no reply to invitation)

iii. Hon. Dr. Hedy Fry (MP) (declined to debate)

iv. Hon. Dr. Carolyn Bennett (MP) (declined to debate)

v. Dr. Kathryn Treehuba, Uof Ottawa professor (Obs-Gyn), and Ottawa-area abortion provider (no reply to invitation)

vi. Dr. Fraser Fellows, UWO professor (Obs-Gyn), and London-area abortion provider (no reply to invitation)

vii. Federation of Medical Women of Canada (declined to debate)

viii. Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada- Joyce Arthur (declined to debate)

ix. NDP Party (no reply to invitation)

x. Canadians for Choice (declined to debate)
xi. Action Canada for Population Development (no reply to invitation) 

xii. Hon. Dr. Keith Martin (MP) (No reply to invitation)
xiii. Planned Parenthood Ottawa (Heather Holland - Executive Director- Declined to debate)
xiv. Canadian Federation for Sexual Health (no reply to invitation) 
xv. Professor Sanda Rodgers (University of Ottawa) (declined to debate)
xvi. Professor Wayne Sumner (University of Toronto) (declined to debate)

If the "pro-choicers" were not happy with Jovan Morales representing their position, they have only themselves to blame. They were given plenty of opportunity to participate, and declined to.

I guess they thought they could shut down the debate this way. Well, how well did that work out for them? Not too good I'd say.

Maybe they'll think twice next time, before rejecting or ignoring invitations to debate.