Yes, because she brags about talking women out of abortions in her little speech to the nuns in London. She says that “no one in their right mind” can be for abortions. (Let me tell you, when I needed one, I was pretty damn for abortions!) She qualifies our right to choose to very limited, tragic situations. In order to be pro-choice, you should allow women that choice without any personal, moral qualifications, without pathologizing us, and without condescending.

I have one more. After reading May’s statement in her letter to the NatPo, do you still contend that she is anti-choice?

I ain’t tryin’ to be a smart ass. I really want to know if that’s how you interpret her statement. I can’t see it as anything but pro-choice but if you still think she’s anti-choice, as you said earlier, I want to know how you can come to that conclusion after reading her own words.

JB

Abso-friggin’-lutely! Her body, her choice, I don’t give a shit why. The moralizers (and this seems to include May) need to just butt out.

I am strongly in favour of a woman’s right to access a safe and legal abortion. However, I think the polarization of the issue does our society a disservice. We should be able, even on a highly emotional issue like this, to hold a respectful dialogue. Perhaps former U.S. president Bill Clinton expressed it best: “Abortion should be safe, legal and rare.”

Fairly pro-choice, wouldn’t you say?

When you said the “fiscal conservative says it all,” I took you to mean that it says it all. If you care about a lot more than that, perhaps you shouldn’t have said that it “says it all. I was only taking you at your word and telling you that, for me, fiscal policy does not “say it all.” I guess you’re now saying that it doesn’t “say it all” for you, either. That is a different position than your earlier one.

RE abortion, I realize men cannot have an opinion, but I’ll repeat the parts of May’s quote that your own blog emphasized and see if they mean what you’ve contended — that May is anti-choice and considers “women who’ve had abortions as either ‘crazy’ or ‘victims’.”

May: “I don’t think a woman has a frivolous right to choose.”

Obviously, the key qualifier is “frivolous”. I doubt that “frivolous” is defined in law but I’m no lawyer. I would posit that any surgical procedure is serious and should not be undertaken frivolously. Since you’ve emphasized this quote and you’re in disagreement with May, let me ask you a Yes or No question:
Do you think a woman has a frivolous right to choose?

May: “Abortions are legal because they must be to avoid women dying. But nobody in their right mind is for abortions.”

Being for the right to choose and being “for abortions” are two different things. Again, I speak as a man and I realize my limitations but I see abortion as a serious surgical procedure that, in most cases, could have been prevented by use of any number of widely available birth control methods. Let me paraphrase “Wars are necessary to to avoid agression, repression and genocide. But nobody in their right mind is for wars.” May did not say, as your smear contends, that women who’ve had abortions are “crazy.” She said that being “for abortion” is crazy.

May: “I cannot imagine the circumstances that would ever reduce me to it.”

Perhaps Elizabeth should consider the possibility of rape as such a circumstance. A pregnant rape victim would certainly be faced with a monumental decision. If she’s considered the rape possibility, May’s statement seems to indicate that, in her own personal case, she would not choose an abortion. Her body, her choice.

May has been unequivocal in her pro-choice stance and she’s supported the official pro-choice stance of the Green Party. The misinterpretations by the National Post and others with an anti-Green axe to grind are part of a disinformation campaign and are not backed up by the facts or by May’s own words.

JimBobby

It’s not an NDP smear campaign. It’s been a number of feminist bloggers who picked up on May’s horribly insulting remarks and pushed the agenda until the MSM picked up on it. Unfortunately, this isn’t an NDP issue, however, it *is* very much my issue. In fact, I’d like to see the NDP defend reproductive freedom more vigorously.

[quote comment="3583"]If “fiscally conservative” says it all, then I assume you don’t really care at all about social issues.[/quote]

No, I do care about social issues - but I care about a lot more than that. I guess that’s hard for the paleo-partisans to comprehend….

Also, Scott, this is usually IP’s argument, but coalitions take place after the people have expressed their democratic will. Arrangements beforehand aren’t coalition, but collusion.

That’s the reason the NDP doesn’t want her in the debates. They couldn’t come out without looking silly arguing that before the May-Dion pact, so they’re trying to use this as an excuse for their claiming she doesn’t belong there.

I repeat.. coalition governments with cooperating parties in Europe don’t prevent those 2 parties or multiple parties from participating in debates.. so Dion and May’s deal - which is on a FAR smaller scale then what you see in Europe where broader agreements are made between parties - is a poor excuse (yea.. excuse.. not reason) to be keeping May and the Greens out of the debate.

Ah, so the Greens are nothing more than holier-than-thou enviro-flakes with a Messiah complex. Give me a break. The well-being of the planet will not be greatly impacted by having a handful of Green MPs without official party status (or are they going to win 12+ seats? haha).

A politician is a politician is a politician, and May at best sometimes sounds like a lobbyist - which is precisely what she was until recently. She’s endorsed Dion for PM - has she ever criticized the Liberals for climate change inaction over the course of their 13 years in office? Since becoming GPC leader? Hmm?

Had she not made this deal with the Liberals, I might be persuaded that she belongs in the debate. As it stands, she does not, however.

The NDP smear campaign continues. First, she’s an American. Now she’s anti-choice. What’s next? Is she planning on blowing up some clinics?

Here’s Elizabeth may on abortion. If “fiscally conservative” says it all, then I assume you don’t really care at all about social issues. I do. Many otrher Canadians do too. A party’s fiscal policy does not “say it all” to me. Far from it.

JB