Les gauchistes crackpots pensent que je suis un dangereux Néandertal parce que je dis que nous devrions idéalement adopter des politiques sur l’avortement similaires à celles des pays suivants :
Allemagne
Belgique
Danemark
République tchèque
Grèce
Hongrie
Italie
Irlande
Norvège
Finlande
Suisse
Et bien d’autres
🤷🏻♂️
Allemagne
Belgique
Danemark
République tchèque
Grèce
Hongrie
Italie
Irlande
Norvège
Finlande
Suisse
Et bien d’autres
🤷🏻♂️
🔥22💯7❤🔥1
I am so honoured to have the support of these Portage-Lisgar residents I met at our rally in Winkler yesterday!
👍60❤🔥5👏5
C’est un grand honneur d’avoir l’appui de tous ces résidents de Portage-Lisgar rencontrés à notre rassemblement à Winkler hier!
👍28❤4❤🔥1
I bet most supporters of late-term abortion agree that there should be laws against animal cruelty, and don’t realize how absurd and inconsistent their opinions are.
💯85🔥2❤🔥1👍1
Je parie que la plupart des partisans de l’avortement tardif sont d’accord qu’il devrait y avoir des lois contre la cruauté envers les animaux et ne réalisent pas à quel point leurs opinions sont absurdes et incohérentes.
❤16💯12❤🔥1
Margaret Somerville, former director of the Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law at McGill University:
“The facts on late-term abortions are intentionally made difficult to obtain. (…) The unavailability of this information makes the pro-choice lobby’s claims that late-term abortion is rare and that there is a consensus on abortion in Canada, much less likely to be challenged, and, therefore, bolsters its case that we do not need any law on abortion.”
-Canada needs a national debate on abortion, The Montreal Gazette, June 3, 2010
https://mercatornet.com/canada_needs_a_national_debate_on_abortion/10121/
“The facts on late-term abortions are intentionally made difficult to obtain. (…) The unavailability of this information makes the pro-choice lobby’s claims that late-term abortion is rare and that there is a consensus on abortion in Canada, much less likely to be challenged, and, therefore, bolsters its case that we do not need any law on abortion.”
-Canada needs a national debate on abortion, The Montreal Gazette, June 3, 2010
https://mercatornet.com/canada_needs_a_national_debate_on_abortion/10121/
MercatorNet
Canada needs a national debate on abortion | MercatorNet
Two assumptions favour the pro-choice stand in Canada: that late-term abortion is rare and that there is a consensus on current practice. They are myths.
💯37👍5❤2🔥1
According to the twisted logic of pro-abortion fanatics, late-term abortion when both the mother and child are healthy is so rare that we don’t need a law.
Then I guess we don’t need a law either against murder, since it also happens rarely. We should just trust murderers!
Then I guess we don’t need a law either against murder, since it also happens rarely. We should just trust murderers!
💯64👍3❤🔥1
Selon la logique tordue des fanatiques pro-avortement, l’avortement tardif lorsque la mère et l’enfant sont en bonne santé est si rare que nous n’avons pas besoin d’une loi.
Alors je suppose que nous n’avons pas besoin non plus d’une loi contre le meurtre, car cela aussi arrive rarement. Nous devrions simplement faire confiance aux meurtriers!
Alors je suppose que nous n’avons pas besoin non plus d’une loi contre le meurtre, car cela aussi arrive rarement. Nous devrions simplement faire confiance aux meurtriers!
🔥15💯15❤1❤🔥1👍1
#FlashBackFriday
The PPC is where irrational taboos on public policies are being questioned.
I have been calling for a debate on late-term abortion since May 2019.
The PPC is where irrational taboos on public policies are being questioned.
I have been calling for a debate on late-term abortion since May 2019.
👍61💯10❤6🤔3❤🔥2🔥1
Contrary to what some people claim, there is absolutely no contradiction on my part when I defend bodily autonomy against vaccine mandates, and I then say that abortion must be restricted.
I defend individual rights and freedom. At the beginning of pregnancy, I agree that the right of the mother to choose what to do with her body is predominant.
But at the end, there is another human being who needs society’s protection. It’s not “her body, her choice” anymore. Defending freedom and bodily autonomy means protecting this unborn child from harm.
The vast majority of people agree with this common-sense view.
The controversial issue to be settled is where to put the dividing line. I believe it’s abhorrent that our laws put that line at the minute when the baby is born, and do not recognize it as a human being deserving protection before that instant.
The purpose of my private bill is to kick-start this debate by pushing back that line to the beginning of the third trimester (after six months or 24 weeks).
Those who oppose this modest proposal (that is, the whole political establishment) must be shamed and forced to explain why they condone infanticide. I cannot understand how any decent person can find it acceptable to kill an almost fully developed and healthy baby at this late stage (apart from exceptional medical circumstances).
The cutoff line that I believe would constitute a reasonable compromise for the vast majority of Canadians is at the beginning of the second semester (after three months or 12 weeks), when the fetus’ brain is sufficiently developed that it can process pain. The moral imperative to protect this being from harm then becomes paramount, again allowing exceptional medical circumstances.
This is what the law says in most other developed, civilized countries, such as in Europe. Canada is an outlier. Those who support the current situation are the extremists.
I respect those who would put the line earlier or later. It should be debated. A PPC government would allow MPs a free vote on this.
But we need a law on abortion. It’s time to stop the infanticide. We must join the civilized world.
I defend individual rights and freedom. At the beginning of pregnancy, I agree that the right of the mother to choose what to do with her body is predominant.
But at the end, there is another human being who needs society’s protection. It’s not “her body, her choice” anymore. Defending freedom and bodily autonomy means protecting this unborn child from harm.
The vast majority of people agree with this common-sense view.
The controversial issue to be settled is where to put the dividing line. I believe it’s abhorrent that our laws put that line at the minute when the baby is born, and do not recognize it as a human being deserving protection before that instant.
The purpose of my private bill is to kick-start this debate by pushing back that line to the beginning of the third trimester (after six months or 24 weeks).
Those who oppose this modest proposal (that is, the whole political establishment) must be shamed and forced to explain why they condone infanticide. I cannot understand how any decent person can find it acceptable to kill an almost fully developed and healthy baby at this late stage (apart from exceptional medical circumstances).
The cutoff line that I believe would constitute a reasonable compromise for the vast majority of Canadians is at the beginning of the second semester (after three months or 12 weeks), when the fetus’ brain is sufficiently developed that it can process pain. The moral imperative to protect this being from harm then becomes paramount, again allowing exceptional medical circumstances.
This is what the law says in most other developed, civilized countries, such as in Europe. Canada is an outlier. Those who support the current situation are the extremists.
I respect those who would put the line earlier or later. It should be debated. A PPC government would allow MPs a free vote on this.
But we need a law on abortion. It’s time to stop the infanticide. We must join the civilized world.
💯69🔥15👍8👏3❤🔥2🤔2🙏1