[Newsbot]

Title: Topless pro-choice protesters interrupt anti-abortion rally
Category: Funny
Posted By: DrCaleb
Date: 2014-05-08 12:16:17
Canadian

[N_Fiddledog]

So if we're going to believe the CBC we're going to believe a handful of blouseless Marxists interupted this...

$1:

Update 3:25pm: Jim Hughes, national president of Campaign Life Coalition, told LifeSiteNews he counted 23,000 participants. As he does every year, Hughes stood at one spot along the route and counted marchers in groups of ten to ensure the most accurate count possible.

OTTAWA, May 8, 2014 (LifeSiteNews.com) On a beautiful sunny day in Canada's capital, thousands of pro-life citizens joined the National March for Life to urge Canada's parliamentarians to promote the right to life.

The march this year focused especially on urging Stephen Harper's Conservative government to reject the RU-486 abortion drug, which is currently being considered for approval by Health Canada.

Marchers were surprised to receive a personal message from Pope Francis supporting the event, read during the rally by Cardinal Gerald Lacroix of Quebec City.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/thousa ... n-capital/

Nice of the nudists to drop in this year, and force the CBC to admit the event was actually happening though. Tens of thousands come every year and mainstream coverage is sparse if existent. Add a couple femen though, and there's the CBC. Who knew? Should have told us years ago.

[Khar]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

So if we're going to believe the CBC we're going to believe a handful of blouseless Marxists interupted this...



<news article snipped>

Nice of the nudists to drop in this year, and force the CBC to admit the event was actually happening though. Tens of thousands come every year and mainstream coverage is sparse if existent. Add a couple femen though, and there's the CBC. Who knew? Should have told us years ago.

... yes, we should believe that they interrupted it, because according to the CBC article you posted, they rushed the stage and had to be hauled off by police. When you get naked on a stage in front of those thousands of people, you do tend to have that capacity to stop conversation anyways. Context is rather important. As an aside, it doesn't mean they stopped it. Interruptions at rallies or public speaking events aren't rare, regardless of the size. All it takes is a guy throwing a shoe (presidential speeches, if I recall correctly) or a woman yelling out something (like what was recently reported at Laureen Harper's event) to impact the flow of things.

As for your other comment, yeah, the mainstream media rarely covers this. Anti-abortion rallies are rarely announced or discussed by the CBC. Just because it is not front-page news doesn't mean coverage disappears into the ether. There is no shortage of articles about abortion debates, about placards used by anti-abortion protesters, or about politicians arguing against abortion. That list were the first results on a search with tens of thousands of pages from newspapers and television reports.

N_Fiddledog, a stance held most firmly by only 6% of the population (half the population says no restrictions at all) that abortion should not be allowed (27% in 2010 considered themselves some level of pro-life) isn't always going to be front page news, especially when all politicians in the country are not going to reopen the debate, but I, and I bet a lot of others, would say that abortion rights gets a lot of airtime here in Canada anyways. Source for 6% figure here (from yet another newspaper reporting on abortion).

When you pull articles you are interested in from sites specifically catered to your interests like lifesitenews (and not on sending out all news to all people) or political blogs you will find what you care about will comparatively not be discussed as much in the MSM. It does not mean it's never covered or covered too lightly if it isn't covering it as much as special interest or political sites. It's great if you want to keep up to date on similar views or on specific issues, but doesn't serve as a platform to comparatively find the MSM lacking in it's coverage, in my opinion.

I agree there are some issues within modern media, and those issues will likely persist for a long time, but this is not the hill to make that stand on. My opinion on this one anyways.

For sake of coverage, the RCMP reported 8 to 10 thousand from the CBC report, which also quotes the amount claimed by pro-life groups.

[Zipperfish]

Probly not the good topless kind either.

[BartSimpson]

Khar Khar:

When you get naked on a stage in front of those thousands of people, you do tend to have that capacity to stop conversation anyways.

Why do I have the disturbing feeling that this is reflective of personal experience on your part?

[martin14]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Probly not the good topless kind either.

I guarantee it.

No Ukrainian girls.
Only angry leftish SJW feminists.

[commanderkai]

Khar Khar:

N_Fiddledog, a stance held most firmly by only 6% of the population (half the population says no restrictions at all) that abortion should not be allowed (27% in 2010 considered themselves some level of pro-life)

I'm going to nitpick here. From the study you provided, half the population consider themselves pro-choice, not pro-choice with absolutely no restrictions. Kind of a big difference there.

[andyt]

Only half are pro-choice? Canada is evenly split between pro and anti-abortion vies? I would doubt that. I find Khar's posts just too much to read, can you point me to where it says that?

[ShepherdsDog]

commanderkai commanderkai:

Khar Khar:

N_Fiddledog, a stance held most firmly by only 6% of the population (half the population says no restrictions at all) that abortion should not be allowed (27% in 2010 considered themselves some level of pro-life)

I'm going to nitpick here. From the study you provided, half the population consider themselves pro-choice, not pro-choice with absolutely no restrictions. Kind of a big difference there.

As I've said in the past when this topic has arisen,pro choice doesn't mean pro abortion. It means that the woman should be allowed to choose. Many who are pro choice would never choose to have an abortion, but would not deny that choice to someone else. It's not some monolithic bloc that believes in killing a fetus.

[Freakinoldguy]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

commanderkai commanderkai:

Khar Khar:

N_Fiddledog, a stance held most firmly by only 6% of the population (half the population says no restrictions at all) that abortion should not be allowed (27% in 2010 considered themselves some level of pro-life)

I'm going to nitpick here. From the study you provided, half the population consider themselves pro-choice, not pro-choice with absolutely no restrictions. Kind of a big difference there.

As I've said in the past when this topic has arisen,pro choice doesn't mean pro abortion. It means that the woman should be allowed to choose. Many who are pro choice would never choose to have an abortion, but would not deny that choice to someone else. It's not some monolithic block that believes in killing a fetus.

Far to much rhetoric in the article and far to few pictures. No wonder the CBC is losing jobs, they've lost all ability to judge what the important part of the public wants.

[Brenda]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

As I've said in the past when this topic has arisen,pro choice doesn't mean pro abortion. It means that the woman should be allowed to choose. Many who are pro choice would never choose to have an abortion, but would not deny that choice to someone else. It's not some monolithic block that believes in killing a fetus.

That is exactly how I feel about it.

[andyt]

Actually I would deny that choice to a woman wanting abortion on demand after a certain period of gestation. I've always thought 12 weeks, but seems consensus is more around 20 weeks, before the fetus is viable. We should have some restrictions. Everybody else does.

[wildrosegirl]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

As I've said in the past when this topic has arisen,pro choice doesn't mean pro abortion. It means that the woman should be allowed to choose. Many who are pro choice would never choose to have an abortion, but would not deny that choice to someone else. It's not some monolithic block that believes in killing a fetus.

That's true, but we're all pretty well educated these days, so every woman knows, no matter what precautions you take, there's still a risk of becoming pregnant every time you have sex.

If you're 100% sure you don't want a baby, you have two choices:

1)Permanent measures (surgery)
2)Keep your pants on.

Problem solved.

You want to take the risk, accept the consequences.

[andyt]

The hardcore anti-abortion people are actually shooting themselves in the foot. By not being willing to allow choice with reasonable restrictions, they make sure that nobody is willing to open the question at all, so we stay with no law at all. And they just don't have the number to force what they want.

[commanderkai]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

commanderkai commanderkai:

Khar Khar:

N_Fiddledog, a stance held most firmly by only 6% of the population (half the population says no restrictions at all) that abortion should not be allowed (27% in 2010 considered themselves some level of pro-life)

I'm going to nitpick here. From the study you provided, half the population consider themselves pro-choice, not pro-choice with absolutely no restrictions. Kind of a big difference there.

As I've said in the past when this topic has arisen,pro choice doesn't mean pro abortion. It means that the woman should be allowed to choose. Many who are pro choice would never choose to have an abortion, but would not deny that choice to someone else. It's not some monolithic block that believes in killing a fetus.

Exactly. I, personally, am pro-life. Beyond extreme cases (medical necessity/rape) I would be happy in a world without abortion, ever. I'd love for a birth control that is 100% effective, with no side effects, and it allows prospective parents to get off said birth control with no risk of infertility or other effects.

However, I'm not exactly blind that we don't live in a perfect world. I'd personally prefer limiting abortions to first trimester (12 weeks, as andy said) except in such extreme cases (say, the Castro case in Cleveland where he held girls for years. If they escaped with one girl in her second or third trimester, I would not be opposed to an abortion in that situation) and in medical situations. That would, technically, make me pro-choice.

Pro-life is basically no abortion, except maybe in extreme situations. As much as I wish for such a world, we are not at that level of development, yet.