Newsflash! You can be a woman and not support abortion on demand

- September 28th, 2012

Rona Ambrose

My goodness, we have a kerfuffle on our hands. Status of Women Minister Rona Ambrose voted in favour of Motion 312 (in favour of creating a committee to look into the definition of human being), in good part because she is worried about the problem of sex-selective abortion, and feminist groups demand she resign.

Why? Because for most feminists, in order to be a real woman you have to be in favour of abortion on demand. Sad, isn’t?

Also, thoroughly wrong. A few years ago I helped start a website called ProWomanProLife which was about – you guessed it – being both pro-woman and pro-life. At the same time, I mean. A lot of those pro-life women are now getting organized on social networks to support Rona Ambrose.

Whatever your position on abortion, know this: There is no such thing as a consensus on the issue, whether you’re a man or a woman.

Categories: Conservatives

Subscribe to the post

11 comments

  1. Bzzytoday says:

    This is the first time I have ever agreed with Rona Ambrose on anything. Good for her. Finally, someone daring to question the Pro-Woman Pro-Abortion mentality. No, she should not resign. So sick and tired of the same old arguments about abortion. As a feminist and a woman I say no.

  2. Paul Kennedy says:

    Thank you for this observation, Brigitte. You’ve got it. And the tragic irony is that a feminist group really isn’t about women feeling free to make their own determinations. Just another group (like pro-abortion) who are too insecure and absorbed in their own agenda to allow anyone to oppose or reject them. Commending you (and women like Rona Ambrose) for the confidence you embody and the courage to express it.

  3. Lee says:

    This is much better, have a woman telling a woman what to do with her body……NOT!!

  4. P2BCanadian says:

    Ambrose has a duty, as a cabinet minister, to uphold democracy, human rights, and freedom of choice. Her vote was based on conservatism ideals to reopen the abortion to make it a crime.

    Her vote was personal, and political. She was not representing her constituency or Canadians. Debating when a human being is considered a human can be done outside the political arena, and she knows this.

  5. Bobby Joe says:

    Brigitte is right on the mark. I’m sick of hearing so-called feminists dragging up the freedom thing for women. Of course we’re free to make our choices. We are also free to use birth control methods of choice so we don’t become pregnant and then have to choose to have an abortion vs. carrying our child to term and caring for it.

  6. Steve Thorpe says:

    Brigitte, you and your like-minded cronies are the reason I left Alberta 12 years ago. Only bible-thumping, yankee-loving, right-wing fascists and Albertans believe that this ploy by the Conservative Party is not a way to open up the abortion debate, with the one goal of enslaving women again. Abortion is a women’s decision, period. Get over it! You poor bastards lost!

  7. Steve d'Eça says:

    There will never be a consensus on the subject of abortion. There will always be a pro-choice and the anti-abortion factions. Let’s resolve to leave things the way they are and agree to disagree. [I understand why Harper didn't want to "go there"!]

  8. Russ N says:

    This is a vote to set up a committee, what’s the problem?
    As far as abortions go, I’m not for them. My child has a heart defect, requires lots of medications and help with learning disabilities. A lot of his costs are not covered by Alberta Health. BUT, someone can get an abortion (usually as a form of birth control) and it is covered. This makes no sense to me.

  9. AF says:

    I believe this is just a good excuse to try and take some of the heat off of her. But of course all Sunmedia worshippers will jump on this as the excuse and reasoning.

  10. Jasmine says:

    It does not matter if you are pro or against abortion when it comes to this bill. At the end of the day, it’s a waste of time and money to put together a committee to take God knows how long to figure out “what is a human being” … are you kidding me? As a taxpayer, I would vote no to that regardless of my feelings on abortion, especially considering that this is obviously a stepping stone to another action (another bill that will be proposed as a result of whatever definition this “committee” comes to – who is this committee comprised of, anyway?). The problem is, we don’t know what snowball effect this committee’s definition will have in the form of another bill (ie, abortion is criminalized because they decide the fetus is a human the second the egg is fertilized). If she’s concerned about sex-selective abortion, she needs to find another way to get her message across because this is just an expensive back-door way to make abortion “bad” (whether just by messing with the ‘moral’ ideals by their definition of a human being or by another bill or law being passed because of it). Why is that a bad thing? Because there will still be women who will find other ways to get abortions. History shows that women will always find ways to get rid of unwanted pregnancies, including dangerous and often deadly “back-door” abortion methods. So why would we vote for this bill, for any reason, which could result – one way or another – in women resorting to that kind of thing and killing not only the fetus (potentially the “human” in them depending on one’s OWN definition) but also potentially killing themselves in the process, or being punished by the government if it is made illegal. You would have a lot more deaths to account for, and a lot more people in prison or fined or whatever who probably don’t really deserve that kind of punishment. Not worth it.

  11. JWM says:

    Ironic it is, that we North Americans condemn the mysogyny in cultures that kill their women in “honour killings”, the same cultures that the women raise the sons to treat the women with total disrespect. yes that’s right, the women raise these boys, and at times even participate in the violence against their own gender.
    Ironic as well, that there are so many in North America that do not have the brain capacity to figure out the moment a human “egg” is fertilized we now have another human life-its alive and its human, so that makes it a human life.
    The fact that a human would rather risk accidental suicide, rather than allowing another human life to live is indeed a concern. But this does not justify the current state of affairs where the wholesale legal murder of pre birth humans is so rabidly defended by the pro death crowd.
    Will changing the laws fix the problem? not a chance, people still murder post birth humans. When a human wants to kill another human bad enough, no law will stop them.
    What this does prove, is that the majority of North Americans will not defend the defenceless.
    Bottom line, we are really no better than those cultures we so often condemn.

Comments are closed.