Friday, February 6, 2009

Pro-Aborts And Their Lies

A radical pro-abort Joyce Arthur is once again trying to convince us that the abortion debate is over. That's what she titles her Winnipeg Free Press column. And then she talks about MPs and ordinary people debating abortion - be that introducing pro-life bills and motions or speaking their minds publicly or (something Ms. Arthur is unwilling to notice) - educating the public on life issues. If that's no longer a debate - then what is it?

Ms. Arthur begins by claiming that the issue was "settled" by the Supreme Court in 1988. Well, if she's such a strong believer in the infallibility of the Supreme Court, I wonder if she dares to consider herself a person. Because according to the very same Supreme Court - she isn't. Luckily for her, back in 1927 Canadians still had the right to appeal Supreme court decisions. (A right that was taken away from us 20 years later.) But I bet, even back then, there were more than enough people telling the Famous Five that the issue had been "settled" because "the Supreme Court had said so".

Apart from the "court has spoken" mantra, Ms. Arthur is clearly running out of arguments. She refers to the recent poll findings that 92% of the respondents are simply unaware that Canada permits abortion at any time from conception up to the moment of birth as "garbage in, garbage out", claiming the statement isn't true. Then in the very next paragraph she admits that Canada is currently "without an abortion law of any kind". So it turns out there are no laws banning abortions at any time from conception up to the moment of birth after all, isn't it? And if there are no laws then what exactly makes the above statement untrue?

Instead of answering that, Ms. Arthur claims that "the main effect of anti-abortion laws is to kill and injure women in large numbers because they resort to unsafe abortions", suggesting that "anyone who wants to restrict abortion implicitly wants to make it unsafe and endanger women's lives". Well, Ms. Arthur should have checked out the Real Choice Blog which explains in all the details how "safe" those legal abortions truly are. I'll also let Christina Dunigan, the author of the Real Choice Blog to respond to Ms. Arthur's suggestion that we should improve access to what Ms. Arthur calls "abortion care".
Abortion isn't care. It's denying the woman real care and just shutting her up so she stops bugging you with her problems. If we want to address the serious problems faced by women, we'd address the problems that are leading them to the abortion table and FIX THEM.
Finally Ms. Arthur implies that Canada has a "91 per cent pro-choice majority". Oh, really? She should have checked the actual numbers for the poll she quotes, rather than just relying on a brief summary. The lion share of those 42% that would allow abortion only under certain circumstances (whom Ms. Arthur automatically lists as "pro-choice") only support abortions in case of rape, incest or when mother's life is in danger.

So even if we take those numbers as accurate (Angus-Reid polls rarely go beyond 1000-1200 respondents,) the actual number of those supporting unrestricted abortions on demand, according to this poll is 46%, with another 19% supporting abortions on demand up to a certain point. The remaining 35% either support abortions in exceptional circumstances only or support none at all. Ms. Arthur wants their opinions to be ignored, claiming that the debate is "over". Wouldn't that be just too many people to ignore?

No comments: