Considering the definition of democracy, and considering that they are both vying to head this democratic country, is it not the antithesis of what democracy is?
There is a vast grey area between the two sides of “pro-life” and “pro-choice”. Issues such as when a man – in an act of maniacal violence against a pregnant women – murders a full grown unborn baby without any legal consequence for that baby’s life. Where do such issues reside in the hearts and minds of these parties? Can a cause such as pre-born human rights exist independently of either side of abortion politics, or will they continue to insist that the grey is black and white?
When such a crime goes against both “choice” and “life”, will these parties continue to lump any law against it into an issue of abortion? Even though to do so requires one to disregard the platform for which they stand to protect?
That being said, regardless of anyone’s beliefs, I hope that every Canadian can see that to create such a party rule is misrepresentative of what democracy is supposed to be. Imagine there was a party that made a rule that no one could represent woman’s rights, or environmental issues?
This is not a rule to ban chewing gum in parliament. This is about justice and decency and civility for the ones without a voice. Isn’t democracy about finding balance amongst the varying opinions, regardless of what they are? How can a party leave one voice out, a most sensitive and controversial voice, and still call themselves democratic?
The only country in the world that has zero rights for unborn babies is Canada. This means that if a baby dies as a result of it’s pregnant mother being murdered, Canadian law turns a blind eye. Is to not be “allowed” to talk about such a sign of a healthy democracy?
Murdering a pregnant woman is not an abortion. Canada treats it exactly as such – contrary to the rational that it is a crime committed simultaneously to both choice and/or life, Canada ignores it as a crime committed on the baby’s life – a crime against the choice of its mother. The law simply pretends the unborn baby does not exist.
If such a thing falls into the category of “abortion issues”, and we are not “allowed” to discuss such issues in our official democratic forum, I can’t help but wonder how we can consider our government to be operating under democratic ideal. Any such rule is just the opposite to the fundamental idea of democracy.
And here is a case where the result of such a “rule” makes it impossible for a rational, socially balanced response.
I have wondered how Cassie’s choice – Molly’s life – doesn’t matter to them… but then I realized, its their way of doing “democracy” that doesn’t allow them to.