Skip to main content

To: Mr. Michael Ignatieff, Member of Parliament for Etobicoke—Lakeshore and Leader of the Opposition:

Mr. Michael Ignatieff, Member of Parliament for Etobicoke—Lakeshore and Leader of the Opposition:
As I have now moved my residence to your district, you are now my representative in Parliament and working for me as part of the community you represent.

Let me start this ‘relationship’ by bringing to your attention the article in LifeSiteNews.com; First Debate on Canada’s Coercive Abortion Bill Set for Monday. This talks about introduced legislation as private Bill C-510, attempts to protect women against coercion to abort, or more clearly to terminate pregnancy.

It is absurd enough to consider that in Canada, no legislation does exist to protect any human being from the beginning of life, which unless you can prove differently; start at conception and goes all the way through natural death. We all know, even if as it appear to be, under constant denial, that abortion is about destruction of life, as an assault on human dignity, not just that of the woman as a direct protagonist of such a barbaric act but especially and most particularly on the dignity of the human person in the body of that woman. It is definitively a matter of choice but is also a crime, because it involves the murdering of a baby. Criminals have free choice as well, otherwise the law would be persecuting people just for the crimes they might commit instead of everyone being innocent before being proof guilty.
Of course, the are the ones advocating this ‘right’ which women already have, advocating as well the irresponsibility of the women so that they can remain unaccountable for what they choose, yes, there is the case of rape, but the victim of a rape where the woman becomes pregnant is not just the woman, but also the innocent human being in her womb, should her the decision be to eliminate him/her so that she can be ‘free’, while abdicating the role of victim on behalf of her selfish preservation of her own life style.
What it becomes problematic about this bill is that it is already a crime to coerce anyone to do something against his/her will. In any free society as Canada claims to be, it should not be require to protect anyone from being coerced to ‘accept’ to remove a ‘tissue’, as the advocates of the so called ‘freedom of choice’ claim, let alone the fact that it is a human being who gets murdered by that choice.
We’ve been there before and over and over again. Why is it that the law is being twisted on behalf of selfishness and crime being covered just because of protecting life styles while life is threatened and freedom coerced and then our representatives, including the Prime Minister, seem to feel themselves threatened on their peace cowardice while the law is being so much altered?
We can notice a similar situation with all the efforts put for the destruction of marriage and family, it seems that certain individuals who by choice, opt for a degrading and destructive life style; they must be protected over and above everyone else even trumping individual freedoms and so new bills need to be presented to accommodate these newly invented ‘rights’.
If the need exist for such a bill, because women can have rights only for some things but not for others and so they could be legally coerced for some things but not for others, so be it in the name of the ‘slavery’ we are suffering, otherwise, that means that no such need exists to provide extra protection to anyone because that provision already exists and if so, the matter is of protection life, again, form conception to natural death and, now that we are on that, of the family and marriage as the only possible definition, as the union of one man and one woman before God, and nothing else.
I hope you all consider the illogical trend to be established should this bill be rejected, because women would be bound to obey whatever anyone else decides on their bodies, which sounds kind of the anti-thesis of what the so called ‘pro-choice’ movement predicates, except that this bill too, establishes the intention of a woman to really protect their babies in their own womb and so, to reject or accepted will reflect the hypocrisy of a system that see women as a piece of meat, politically exploitable and sexually profitable and human beings over all as nothing but commodities to be manipulated, degraded to inhuman levels that go even lower than most animals or species populating the earth.
As my representative, I am asking you to vote in favour of this bill C-510 while it is only a protection for something already available but politically nullified. by correctness, the dignity of women and babies and the freedom to be accountable and responsible for the choices exercised under that freedom.

César Fernández-Stoll

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

When God is offended, should we become violent?

Our God is all love and truth, who asks from us humility and forgiveness. Our God is the only living God. He has the word of eternal life. Observing the process of the current protests in the Middle East and many other places in the world by the so called followers of Islam, presumably outraged because they do not like what is being presented in a film about their prophet; it is interesting to distinguish that factual truth, about what is missing in the whole staging of these protests and it is precisely, truth, love, humility and forgiveness and it is not precisely from the ignorant mobs perpetrating the assaults under the direction of their evil leaders, but from the ones supposedly protecting the basic and fundamental freedoms we all in the western civilization which is founded in Christianity, have for granted.

Common Good

It is often found commentaries that describe common good as extremes of anarchy, as expressions that on one end present a justification for system interference and on the other as an idea of omnipotence over the people who is typically labeled as mediocre and incapable of deciding on their own about their matters and circumstances. However, common good is divine a mandate we all have as individuals; to aim for and to work towards. It is what defines the relationship between science and reason, because a science where its object is to benefit only the self or to enhance the egos of the recipients is what defies reason and so it segregates itself from faith which is what make us creatures of God with dignity, identity and individuality because care exists for our neighbor and peer. Common good cannot be taking or confiscating from some to give to others or to pretend that by robbing from the ones that have to presumably give to the have not, the issue is fairly addressed. On the contra...

He said this to test Philip, for He himself knew what He was going to do

Gospel text ( Jn  6,1-15) :  Jesus went to the other side of the Sea of Galilee, near Tiberias, and large crowds followed him because of the miraculous signs they saw when He healed the sick. So He went up into the hills and sat down there with his disciples. Now the Passover, the feast of the Jews, was at hand. Then lifting up his eyes, Jesus saw the crowds that were coming to him and said to Philip, «Where shall we buy bread so that these people may  eat ?». He said this to test Philip, for He himself knew what He was going to do. Philip answered him, «Two hundred  silver coins would not buy enough bread for each of them to have a piece». Then one of Jesus' disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter's brother, said, «There is a boy here who has five barley loaves and two fish; but what good are these for so many?». Jesus said, «Make the people sit down». There was plenty of grass there so the people, about five thousand men, sat down to rest. Jesus then took the loaves, ga...