Then follow me this way for a sec:
Mary Talbot met personally with Prime Minister Stephen Harper during the election campaign to press for just this change.
Kim Campbell [note: the last Conservative Prime Minister] was also approached by someone personally when she served as minister of Justice. A woman wanted a retrial of her son and Campbell said if said person really wanted justice they would not approach her personally. Later the person approached PM Mulroney [who conceded to this personal request]. Harper made no committments [during an election] and also promised not to introduce any abortion legislation in the C- governments first go at it. So to compare these ethical viewpoints, and demand the non-discontinuity of the difference-blindness promise sold to us for our taxes, it is noteworthy that Campbell was the only one to uphold such a guarantee. Mulroney, why did he do it? Old-World patronage politics of the gentle statesman dishing out coins to the beggars? Was he so accustomed to his position and power in life that this endearing transition towards his public was so unquestionable? That in Ottawa he became so insulated by his power that personal requests and favours and the justice system were exchangable? ... What about Mr. Harper, I haven't forgotten about him. Harpers specific non-committal to either ethics is his ethics, especially during election time. In this way he is neither a statesman or philosopher king; Mulroney the former Campbell the latter [in case you were wondring].
Eberts agrees with Benoit, who cites studies of a higher rate of abuse toward women who are pregnant.
What? A higher rate of abuse toward women who are pregnant?
---So as far as empirical studies can tell me, women are abused more when pregnant?
------as far as I am concerned, there is something rotten in the state of the y-chromosome's mind. Not all y-chrome types, but the fact of the empirical increase in abuse against women who are pregnant [assumingly by men] implies a defect in the logic or non-logic of some male members. Maybe it's the sex. Maybe it's our capitalist [monogamous] relationship structures. Well I'd rather have him with other women. Better than being abused while carrying his rotten seeds any further. Hopefully he doesn't make another y-chrome seed-host-beating lunatic. But lo, this kind of behaviour is categorically not considered insanity, just a crime. A choice one can make and be punished for but still be considered worthy of punishment and thus sane enough to carry on after. When I menstruate, however, I am definately the social pariah lunatic with no real excuses for my blunders other than a cycle I inherited and a pattern of behaviour with scarce violent massacres-genocides-homicides-regicides-infanticides... except for of course, the infanticide of not keeping his property inside my belly.
She says it is "not a pro-life bill at all, and I think if people are seeing it that way they are getting a little paranoid.
-Or, you are stupid to think what you thought and anyone who says this stupid thing is hyperparanoid. What about describing people who suggest a certain argument as paranoid, instead of retorting sufficiently to the argument in question. Isn't that logically, er, paranoid?
Meanwhile the sun came up over Toronto and I must go dream dream dream.
No comments:
Post a Comment