Good bye Globe and Mail

Dear Mr. Stackhouse,
It is time that we and the Globe and Mail parted ways.

My husband and I have subscribed to your newspaper for many many years. Our current subscription expired on June 4, 2010 and we will not be renewing it.

The Globe and Mail has regressed steadily to the left over time and basically there is little left that we care to read anymore. My husband still enjoys Neil Reynolds, Christie Blatchford and John Ibbitson but has completely stopped reading your editorials, Jeffrey Simpson and Lawrence Martin. For me, I have grown weary of your anti-pro-life bias and in fact your general anti-religious bias.

Pro-life articles or letters to the editor are rarely published by the Globe. In fact I'm not sure I have ever seen a pro-life article in your newspaper. Recently when Lysiane Gagnon and Margaret Wente both wrote pro-abortion articles, there were no letters published that refuted what they said. Did you not receive any? I understand that not all letters can be published but surely a newspaper as reputable and as old as the Globe and Mail could at the very least have the journalistic integrity to print alternate view points some of the time.

We now subscribe to the National Post which is not only more in line with our points of view, but it does have the courage and journalistic integrity to publish letters on both sides of any topic including abortion and religion.

Sincerely,
Patricia Maloney

Woman the barricades

Look out. Lysiane Gagnon says that Quebecers will be at the barricades to protect Canada's any-time any-reason no-reason abortion freedoms if
"In the very unlikely event the Harper government would be foolish enough to raise the issue of abortion in the Commons."

Sounds like a threat to me.

Ms. Gagnon sounds pretty self-righteously confident. What, with "consensus" from Jean Charest and his National Assembly on abortion, which, don't you know, apparently mirrors Quebec's consensus on abortion (any Quebecers out there like to speak up for themselves?), AND the pillorying of Montreal's Cardinal Marc Ouellet for his brave and principled stand against abortion, Ms. Gagnon does a pretty good stand-up "I am woman hear me roar" primal scream.

But I don't understand this statement:
"Indeed, it’s hardly surprising that a Catholic bishop would condemn abortion. If someone thinks human life starts at conception, then of course he will see abortion as murder whatever the circumstances."

Ms. Gagnon, did you just say what I think you just said? If human life begins at conception then abortion is murder? I don't want to put words in your mouth but does this mean you don't believe human life begins at conception? That maybe it begins at say, 36?

Well no need to argue. Since Science tells us that human life does begin at conception, I guess that's when human life begins and I guess the Cardinal was right after all.

The she says:
"The large majority of practising Catholics are in favour of access to abortion, at least during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy".

Hold the phone please. Stop the presses. Back up. "Practising Catholics" means you practise the Catholic religion. To practise the Catholic religion, you must adhere to Catholic doctrine. Catholic doctrine is against abortion. Got it?

And then we cap the whole thing off with the other end of the bookend, with that threat thing again:
"No government that wants to get re-elected would dare touch the explosive issue of abortion – at least when it concerns Canadian women. The foreign women to whom the Harper government is refusing to fund access to safe abortions don’t vote here, so there is no political cost in denying them a right granted to Canadian women two decades ago. How illogical! And what a scandal it is."

Well, let me see. I am a woman. I am a Canadian woman. I would re-elect the Harper government in a nano-second if Mr. Harper were to "touch the explosive abortion debate". And I would be joined by at least another few million Canadian women.

Sorry Ms. Gagnon, your paternalistic dogma doesn't work for me.