Friday, October 19, 2012

Most Canadians calling for review of the definition of human being are WOMEN

A press release issued by MP Maurice Vellacott. Received by email:

For Immediate Release October 19, 2012

OTTAWA – Today, in the House of Commons, MP Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon-Wanuskewin) tabled several petitions from constituents who wanted a review of the 400-year-old definition of “human being” that exists in Canadian law. He said:

Mr. Speaker, the petitioners are all Saskatoon constituents. The majority of them are women with names like Muriel, Maria, Suzanne, Celine and Madeleine and on it goes through these names. They are asking for a review of the 400-year-old definition of “human being” which says a child does not become a human being until complete birth. The petitioners are asking that, being it is Parliament’s solemn duty, we look at that [definition] to confirm that every human being is recognized by Canadian law as human by amending section 223 of the Criminal Code in such a way as to reflect 21st century medical evidence.

I have a second petition from mostly women and these are 475 petitioners mostly from Saskatoon. Along that same line, they are asking for a review of Canada's 400-year-old definition of “human being”.

As well, I have another 50 constituents from Saskatoon, the majority again being women.

Last, I have from the communities of Warman, Canwood and Sherbrooke, et cetera, petitioners with names of Susan, Shirley, Linda, Christine, Susan, Nora, Myrna, Jacqueline, Ruth and so on. The petitioners here are mostly women as well, and they are asking for a review of that 400-year-old law, and suggesting it should be changed so that every human being is recognized by Canadian law as a human by amending section 223 of our Criminal Code so as to reflect 21st century medical evidence.

– 30 –

For further comment, call (613) 992-1966 or (613) 297-2249

This brings me to another point.

One of the most common memes brought up by feminists when they raise the spectre of criminalized abortion is that the pro-life movement is looking to enslave women.

I have question.

Do pro-life women look enslaved to you?

Does Linda Gibbons, Mary Wagner, Andrea Mrozek, Stephanie Gray, Ruth Lobo, Gwen Landolt, Alissa Golob -- just to name a few pro-life women-- look enslaved to you?

Do they look like they are subjugated to some man, doing his bidding like a mindless robot, regardless of what they really want?

We need to have that conversation in the pro-life movement and call feminists on their BS. There are people who really believe (or who make themselves believe) that we're barefoot, pregnant and getting our hubbies a beer.