Looks like supporters of publicly funded abortions in New Brunswick simply have no other arguments. That was my impression from the radio debate on "The Afternoon News with Tom Young" yesterday afternoon. Yes, I must admit, it is a rare occasion when a pro-life speaker like Beth Crouchman, former president of the New Brunswick Right To Life is given the opportunity to speak on the radio and the microphone is cut after the most important has been said, not before. Let alone that since I was lucky to be among those three callers who had the opportunity to comment on the issue, it brings the total number of pro-life speakers to two.
At the same time I could hardly say that Tom Young was neutral during the discussion. Not sure if he wanted to trick Beth Crouchman into saying something which most of the listeners would find controversial or if he just wanted to find a question to which she couldn't give a straight answer. But the interview sounded more like an exam with a strict professor that is just looking for an excuse to give the student a failing grade.
Tom Young concluded by mentioning that according to Michelle Caron, most New Brunswickers support publicly funded abortions on demand. This wasn't something for Beth Crouchman to comment on. This was a closing statement - one which is usually the most remembered. So I decided to comment on it in my call. I decided to speak his language and I asked whether there is any particular reason why should an elective injurious procedure such as abortion on demand be paid with the taxpayer's money.
Instead of answering, Tom Young asked me back whether a knee replacement is medically necessary in my opinion. I didn't expect that. So I asked once again, why should the province pay for 600 or so abortions that couldn't pass as medically necessary even under the watered down rules set by the government of New Brunswick. And why should the pro-abortionists be entitled to publicly funded abortions on demand while lets say someone who's got a sore tooth has to pay the full amount out of his pocket? I got mostly questions in response. "So you don't think the government should be paying for abortion?", was the final question. "Absolutely not", I replied and Tom Young ended the call.
The person who did answer my questions was the third caller. Too bad I didn't write down his name. He was clear - it's better for a child to be aborted than "unwanted". It's better for the government to spend $750 on abortion than spending $100,000 on raising and supporting someone who's not going to succeed in life. His views didn't see much opposition from Tom Young who's mentioned earlier (while he was still interviewing Beth Crouchman) that he is glad his wife had a miscarriage so they didn't have to care for a disabled child. So there was none of the exam attitude anymore and there were no tricky questions. Tom Young let the caller reiterate a few times that it's better for the child to be dead than miserable -- and then went on to another subject.
So it looks like their only argument is that killing an unborn child solves the problem. At least they believe it does, so they want abortion to be publicly funded without restrictions. Stalin often said that if there's no human -- there's no problem. The "pro-choicers" believe that such "troublemakers" better be destroyed before they even born.
1 comment:
The most hardcore poor-choicers say that even if the unborn child is a person, it's still okay to kill him.
Because it's the woman's autonomy that's important.
People don't know this. People don't know a lot about the nuts and bolts of the fetal rights debate.
Post a Comment