Pro-abortion hysteria so over the top it turns off even supporters
By Dave Andrusko
When a Canadian friend forwarded me some newspaper columns based on the reaction to Wednesday night’s vote in the House of Commons, I wrote back that it reminded me of the title of a book written about the tumultuous post-World War II era, “Present at the Creation.”
As you may remember, the Canadian House of Commons voted on Conservative MP Stephen Woodworth’s “private member’s motion” to create a parliamentary committee that would study the question of when life begins. Currently, as hard as it is to believe, a child becomes a ‘human being’ within the homicide provisions of Canada’s Criminal Code at the moment of complete birth!
No one expected the measure to pass. Whenever Americans are tempted to think the pro-death ethos is deeply entrenched in the United States, they should consider Canada where abortion on demand has reigned without the slightest limitation since the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the Criminal Code’s abortion provisions in the 1988 R. V. Morgentaler decision.
But as Mike Schouten, Campaign Director, WeNeedaLaw.ca, wrote in NRL News Today,
“The defeat of Motion 312 in the House of Commons yesterday afternoon is not the end of a conversation. Rather, it should be seen as a huge step forward in the ongoing debate regarding the status of children in the womb. Canadian pro-lifers do well to remember the words of Sir Winston Churchhill: ‘This is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.’”
However, wouldn’t you expect a pro-lifer to come to that conclusion? Yes, even though that is a fair assessment of what is taking place. What’s more significant is that even those who are not particularly pro-life—or even actively pro-abortion—were completely turned off by the response of the Abortion Establishment.
For example, there is Jonathan Kay, writing at http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/09/27/jonathan-kay-canadas-pro-choice-culture-warriors-have-lost-their-sanity. He observes
“Abortion-rights purists accuse Mr. Woodworth of seeking to build support for an abortion law. They are surely correct in this regard — and have every right to argue their view that the current anything-goes abort-at-will legal vacuum in Canada is preferable to the sort of regulatory scheme that exists in other nations. But their critique goes beyond that: Many suggest that the mere fact of the motion (which went down to defeat 203-91), and the yea vote by some Conservatives, constitutes a gesture of hatred.”
That is a common theme—disbelief that pro-abortionists are so wedded to “the current anything-goes abort-at-will legal vacuum in Canada” that is really a form of hate speech to even TALK about, let alone set up a committee, to consider the status of the unborn. Female pro-abortionists, in particular, loudly berated any woman who voted in favor (she must be motivated by “self-hatred”) and in event believe any limitation is “a form of female slavery.”
Even an out-and-out militant pro-abortion columnist such as Chris Selley of the National Post began his column (headlined “What’s so outrageous about debating abortion?”) with the observation that
“There was something almost pitiful about the New Democrats’ efforts to drum up outrage over Motion M-312, backbench Conservative MP Steven Woodworth’s private member’s motion that would establish a parliamentary committee to consider the legal age of personhood. That it seemed to have little chance of passing would not dampen their shrillness.”
Selley appears both bemused and slightly angered by the ginned up outrage; and he actually believes there is nothing wrong with individual members of the House of Commons offering a motion: that’s what Canada HAS “private member’s motion.” Moreover, since Selley is convinced “There is no realistic prospect of draconian abortion regulations, or even non-draconian ones, being imposed in Canada,” while go nuclear?
Obviously I know little about the Canadian situation, but I do know something (a) about the militant pro-abortion mind and (b) the slippery slope (in this case, operating in reverse).
To this kind of mind, OF COURSE legal protection should kick in (if it kicks in at all) only when the child is fully expelled from his/her mother. Many pro-abortionists here at home actually believe this, but pretend otherwise; that’s why they always come up with a hundred excuses why there can be no limitation ever!
But in a sense you can understand why: fear. While they insist that there is no support even for “non-draconian” regulations, they also know when polls get specific there IS support for restrictions. And they worry that once the absolute “right” to a dead baby is qualified, what starts as a smaller stream of legal protection will eventually become a gusher.
Says something about their insecurity and even more about the power of the law to educate, doesn’t it?
See also “Joyce Arthur is an embarrassment to feminism.”
Your feedback is very important to improving National Right to Life News Today. Please send your comments to firstname.lastname@example.org. If you like, join those who are following me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/daveha