Pro Choice To The MAX!!! 60 Year Old Gives Birth To Twins

Canadian Press is reporting that a 60 year old Alberta woman has given birth to twin boys. Apparently the woman and her husband had tried unsuccessfully for years to conceive, both naturally and with medial help. Undeterred the couple traveled halfway around the world to India where they tried yet again, this time successfully. The woman was implanted with donor eggs and became pregnant with triplets. One of the fetuses was aborted however to ensure the survival of the other two.

A Globe & Mail article reports that a Canadian fertility clinic refused treatment, which prompted the trip to India. The woman's own obstetrician is quoted as saying he has ethical concerns about providing fertility services to a woman of advanced years, as was the case here. The article goes on to state that in Canada the age cut off for fertility treatment is 50.

I don't get it??? Why does Canada impose limits on a woman's reproductive rights? If a woman decides she wishes to become pregnant at 50, 60 or 70, heck why not 80... and can find a doctor willing to provide the service, why should she be refused? Why is this country forcing women to travel great distances and incur significant expense to obtain services that could be made available right here?

Some might try to make the point that it is not "as" safe for a post-menopausal woman to have a baby as opposed to younger mothers, but that doesn't mean it can't be done. So long as a woman is made aware of the risks involved shouldn't she be left to make the determination in consultation with a doctor? And if her doctor refuses she should have leave to find a physician who agrees with her choice and is willing to provide treatment. Would it be unreasonable to mandate that Doctors must be willing to provide such services regardless of their own moral or ethical concerns? I don't think so.
(Blog entry continued after advertisement)



This could be a potential growth industry. We should strive to make Canada the geriatric fertility capital of the world! With an aging population surely this couple's situation isn't unique, there must be countless other couples who would love to be raising children while their friends worry about keeping regular and where they left their teeth.

I know some will bemoan the potential health difficulties of the children conceived by Moms who are senior citizens, and the strain in could place on our Health Care system. But this is Canada, where individual rights and security of the person are enshrined in our Charter. If we're willing to fund abortion procedures then surely our system can handle the costs associated with the potential health complications these kids might have.

Let's can the debate over morals and ethics, those are matters of personal choice in this country. If there are women out there willing to pay the bucks to undergo fertility treatments we shouldn't be restricting access on the basis of something as arbitrary as age. The state has no place legislating a woman's reproductive rights.

Globe & Mail Story
Canadian Press Article

Comments are welcomed, I read them all. Feel free to pass this blog entry along via email or through a social network like FaceBook, just click on the ‘Share This’ icon below.



Back to Canadian Soapbox Home

Will Christian Right Stick With Harper's Conservatives?

Stephen Harper's Conservatives have done very well in attracting Canada's Christian constituency. In our most recent federal election polling indicated that Harper's Tories garnered roughly 75% of the votes among those who attend Evangelical Churches. That percentage is roughly equal to the number of Evangelical Christians who typically vote Republican south of the border. VANCOUVER SUN STORY

The obvious question is...Can it hold?

Harper has done nothing on issues important to Christian voters, and by all indications he has no intention of touching any of the contentious issues near and dear to many social conservatives. Two of the biggies are obviously Abortion and Same-Sex Marriage, but Harper never addresses either of these concerns. Christian voters must be deeply disappointed in a Prime Minister who won't even discuss many of the issues they feel most passionate about, let alone act on them legislatively.

Of course some might ask if there's any other alternative. Disaffected Progressive Conservative Christians were a major part of the impetus which saw Preston Manning's Reform Party vault to national prominence, which in turn nearly wiped the old PC party off the political map. Manning though was never able to achieve the political power Stephen Harper has achieved, and yet Christian voters continue to see their concerns ignored.

So what will it take? Does another Preston Manning have to emerge on the scene, creating a new party for Canada's social conservatives? Perhaps not. There is already a party which would likely appeal to many of Canada's devoutly Christian voters.
(Blog entry continued after advertisements)



The Christian Heritage Party has been around since 1987, fielding its first candidates in the 1988 general election. It was de-registered for a while, during the time when the old Reform/Alliance parties were attracting a lot of social conservatives. It was re-registered in time for the 2004 election and has continued to field candidates ever since. In the 2008 federal election the CHP received over 26,000 votes nationally, roughly the same number they had in the 2006 election when overall voter turnout was much higher.

In 2008 they elected a new party leader in Jim Hnatiuk, a veteran of Canada's Armed Forces who is currently a deacon with Emmanuel Baptist Church. There is a complete platform available on their website: http://www.chp.ca which includes a Pro-Life stance on abortion as well a commitment to the traditional definition of marriage.

For those concerned that the CHP doesn't have policies outside of the socially conservative Christian realm, don't worry...they do. Their policies cover everything from Economy to Immigration, from Foreign Affairs to Resource Management:

http://www.chp.ca/en/policy/policy_index.html

Rather than waiting and hoping in vain for Stephen Harper and the Conservatives to bring attention to the issues most important to socially conservative Christians, maybe its time to rally behind a party that won't bend to political expediency. I don't think any rational individual would hold out any hope of the CHP achieving overwhelming electoral success when we next go to the polls. But even the election of a single MP would give the CHP a platform from which to speak, and the ability to bring issues such as Abortion and Same-Sex Marriage to the table. Something the Conservative Party of Canada in general and Stephen Harper in particular are totally unwilling to do.

Comments are welcomed, I read them all. Feel free to pass this blog entry along via email or through a social network like FaceBook, just click on the ‘Share This’ icon below.



Back To Canadian SoapBox Home

Iran Flexing Its Muscle, Wants U.S. Apology

Iran launched its first ever satellite yesterday, an achievement which has many western nations fearing the military capability that could ensue. The timing coincides with Iran's 1979 revolution which overthrew the U.S. backed Shah. It also comes as Barack Obama is attempting to foster diplomatic negotiations in an attempt to halt Iran's alleged nuclear ambitions.

Obama, as he stated during his campaign, is willing to engage Iran in direct talks. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is quoted as saying, "We are reaching out a hand, but the fist has to unclench". Iran however is apparently insisting that the United States, often referred to as the "Great Satan", must first apologize for past wrongs.

What wrongs has the U.S. committed against the people of Iran? A good starting point might be the overthrow of democratically elected Prime Minister Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh

Mossadegh had nationalized Iranian oilfields, which resulted in the British and American governments conspiring to overthrow the democratically elected PM in a plot code named Operation Ajax. After the successful coup the hated Shah of Iran was installed as a western friendly dictator. Mohammad Rezā Shāh Pahlavi, better known as the Shah Of Iran, was a tyrant...so much for the U.S. promoting democracy. Anyone who did not join his Rastakiz Party was a traitor.

To quote 'The Shah' directly:

"A person who does not enter the new political party and does not believe in the three cardinal principles will have only two choices. He is either an individual who belongs to an illegal organization, or is related to the outlawed Tudeh Party, or in other words a traitor. Such an individual belongs to an Iranian prison, or if he desires he can leave the country tomorrow, without even paying exit fees; he can go anywhere he likes, because he is not Iranian, he has no nation, and his activities are illegal and punishable according to the law”

(Blog entry continued after advertisement)


If that's not sufficient then there's the U.S. backing of Saddam Hussein when he launched an invasion against neighbouring Iran. The result was an 8 year war which is said to have killed 500,000 soldiers and civilians. There was a time when Iraq had weapons of mass destruction as well as chemical warfare agents like mustard gas, they'd been supplied by the Americans to be used against Iran.

It would seem there's plenty the U.S. should apologize for, but doing so would probably be political suicide for America's new President. Obama though could point to the apology already offered back in 2000 by then US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright during the first Clinton administration wherein she called Operation Ajax. "a setback for democratic government".

Obviously the Iranians are not about to be bullied by the west, they've already been down that road and I doubt they want to go back. They've opened their own Oil Exchange or Oil Bourse, which refuses to deal in U.S. dollars, something Iraq did just prior to being invaded.

Obviously the launch of a satellite is of concern, there are only 9 countries which have accomplished the feat. And of those 9 only Japan has not later developed missile technology.

Comments are welcomed, I read them all. Feel free to pass this blog entry along via email or through a social network like FaceBook, just click on the ‘Share This’ icon below.



Back to CanadianSoapbox Home

NY Times & Manhattan Blog Laud Ignatieff - Comparisons to Obama

I heard this on the radio yesterday, about a NY Times article on Ignatieff entitled: "Running On Book Sense And Charm" and about a popular NYC blog called gawker posting an entry with the title: "Is Michael Ignatieff Canada's Barack Obama".

The comparisons are inevitable, Canadians often use the U.S. as a measuring stick, especially with politicians. I myself couldn't resist Iggy-Obama musings back on December 10th when I posted this entry: Will Canadians Get Jiggy With Iggy

Now that we've seen far more of both Ignatieff and newly installed President Obama...I don't think the comparisons hold water at all. Barack Obama is hip and cool in ways that no 61 year old former career academic can be. On top of that Obama's speeches can send chills down my spine, his keynote address to the Democratic convention in 2004 is still one I enjoy listening to. Ignatieff is far too pragmatic and middle of the road to stir any passion. Obama is willing to stake out his ground and lead, Ignatieff strikes me as one who prefers to keep his options open while he surveys the lay of the land.

Its a function of two different cultures. Americans believe in E Pluribus Unum, or "out of many, one". Canadians though take one and make many. Despite his popularity here, I highly doubt a leader of Obama's stature could ever emerge on the Canadian political scene. Imagine Obama addressing a cross section of Canadians and trying to unite us in common purpose as he did at the 2004 DNC.

"We are one nation, one people".
Comment? Je comprends pas, il faut le dire en francais M. Obama!!!

If Obama tried to bring Canadians all together under one tent, Quebecers would say they need their own tent. After proving their constitutional right to such a tent Alberta would start muttering under her breath about how Quebec always gets preferential treatment. Obama is in favour of restricting access to Late Term Abortion, so he'd be tarred and feathered by the Pro-Choice Lobby here.
(Blog entry continued after advertisement)


Our political cultures are different. While American politicians are constantly talking about the divisive nature of partisan politics, we in Canada have it entrenched in our system. Newfoundland MPs wishing to vote against the Conservative budget required special dispensation from Ignatieff or ran the risk of being kicked out of the Liberal caucus, or even possibly the party.

I'd like to see more passion from our politicians, and passion combined with intellect is a winning combination. But Ignatieff strikes me as far too cautious to be passionate about anything. I think his book: "The Lesser Evil" says it all. Rather than stake out ground on principal and conviction Ignatieff prefers to seek middle ground...which actually has been the secret to Liberal success for the better part of our history.

Barack Obama he ain't.


Comments are welcomed, I read them all. Feel free to pass this blog entry along via email or through a social network like FaceBook, just click on the ‘Share This’ icon below.



Back To Canadian SoapBox Home