Wednesday, June 02, 2004
Harper let the provinces decide if they want abortion?
It is time people and the press start reading between the lines. A reporter yesterday asked specifically Harper how he would respond if one of his MPs brought forward a private members' bill to cut funding for abortion. He responded by saying "I would oppose that. I think health-care money should go to the provinces for them to decide how to run a health care system.” The reporter did not think to ask the obvious follow up question. Namely, would he oppose a province (e.g. Alberta) that wanted to ban abortions?
Now, taken alone perhaps Merrifield’s comment does not mean all that much (Merrifield said that women must undergo counciling before undering an abortion), but given Merrifield’s past it should be setting off all kinds of alarm bells. After all, as health critic, he seems well positioned to become health minister if the conservatives, god forbid, were to win.
Indeed, it should not surprise anyone that Merrifield is staunchly “pro life”. He had this to say about stem cell research. “We asked to be shown why stem cells were needed. We asked why as a nation we should go to the place where human life would be destroyed for the sake of others. The science is not there. Scientists said they were needed because stem cells from embryos are more elastic and therefore they might be capable of being triggered to grow into any organ of the body. I challenged them by asking them to show us in animal embryos where that was a possibility. If it is a possibility then maybe we should go there even though it would be difficult for many Canadians to destroy human life for the sake of others.
Perhaps there would be some scientific validity to it if we want to change the ethic from where we protect human life from beginning to end, which has been a fundamental principle for Canadians for as long as Canada has been a nation. The legislation would change that ethic to “for the greater good of society”, which would change the ethic from protecting human life regardless of the cost. We should do the math and see whether we should proceed or not, and if it is for the greater good rather than the negative, then perhaps the math will be the guiding principle. If this becomes just about math, then we are on a very slippery slope in this nation. Not only will we be destroying human embryos, but as health dollars become precious in the upcoming years, we will be going to the place where we will perhaps be making decisions as to whether or not grandma should have hip surgery or heart surgery, or whether we look after comatose patients or the physically and mentally challenged individuals in our society.”
It is time people and the press start reading between the lines. A reporter yesterday asked specifically Harper how he would respond if one of his MPs brought forward a private members' bill to cut funding for abortion. He responded by saying "I would oppose that. I think health-care money should go to the provinces for them to decide how to run a health care system.” The reporter did not think to ask the obvious follow up question. Namely, would he oppose a province (e.g. Alberta) that wanted to ban abortions?
Now, taken alone perhaps Merrifield’s comment does not mean all that much (Merrifield said that women must undergo counciling before undering an abortion), but given Merrifield’s past it should be setting off all kinds of alarm bells. After all, as health critic, he seems well positioned to become health minister if the conservatives, god forbid, were to win.
Indeed, it should not surprise anyone that Merrifield is staunchly “pro life”. He had this to say about stem cell research. “We asked to be shown why stem cells were needed. We asked why as a nation we should go to the place where human life would be destroyed for the sake of others. The science is not there. Scientists said they were needed because stem cells from embryos are more elastic and therefore they might be capable of being triggered to grow into any organ of the body. I challenged them by asking them to show us in animal embryos where that was a possibility. If it is a possibility then maybe we should go there even though it would be difficult for many Canadians to destroy human life for the sake of others.
Perhaps there would be some scientific validity to it if we want to change the ethic from where we protect human life from beginning to end, which has been a fundamental principle for Canadians for as long as Canada has been a nation. The legislation would change that ethic to “for the greater good of society”, which would change the ethic from protecting human life regardless of the cost. We should do the math and see whether we should proceed or not, and if it is for the greater good rather than the negative, then perhaps the math will be the guiding principle. If this becomes just about math, then we are on a very slippery slope in this nation. Not only will we be destroying human embryos, but as health dollars become precious in the upcoming years, we will be going to the place where we will perhaps be making decisions as to whether or not grandma should have hip surgery or heart surgery, or whether we look after comatose patients or the physically and mentally challenged individuals in our society.”
Comments:
Post a Comment
