Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« While pro-aborts celebrated downtown | Main | Social conservatism and libertarianism »

Tuesday, January 29, 2008

Putting on blinders to avoid seeing the truth

The National Post's Jonathan Kay is appalled that Canada has no law regulating or outlawing second- and third-trimester abortions, and wonders how this has come to pass. He thinks he found his answer at a Toronto "symposium."

He writes, "Locked in what they feel to be a tribal culture war against pro-lifers, the pro-choice camp allows itself no nuance. This is essentially the reason Canada has no abortion law: Any stirring of legislative action arouses such tribal war fury among pro-choicers as to send politicians scurrying."

In other words, the pro-aborts are fanatics.

Posted by Terry O'Neill on January 29, 2008 in Current Affairs | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e5500f90708834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Putting on blinders to avoid seeing the truth:

Comments

Given that I was once a part of that pro-abortion movment I can give sound support to what Terry said. The most vocal and ardent pro-aborts out of Toronto and the former Ontario Coalition for abortion clinics are strong lesbian communists.
That is no cliche it is the honest truth. Apart from Judy Rebick who did once adress a convention of the Communist party of Canada, the others were and are members of the International Socialists.
I speak of Carolyn Egan, Michelle Robideux and Sherie Mcdonald. I knew them all well and worked side by side for over 4 years.
These are people who see this as a war against Christians and are dogmatic in their pro-abort fanaticism.
What we need to do is fight as hard a they do and interrupt a sitting of parliment from the visitors gallery like they did in when Mulroney attempted to make changes to the then abortion law. I was one of those in the gallery.
No more playing nice with the Lennists. It is a sick and depraved ideology with the full support of communists.
Did any one see last Sunday night the interview with Morgantaler who admited to being a womanizer and ego maniac who searches and needs the love of woman. In some weird freudian logic he feels his mother did not love him.
Whoa there is a reason to kill babies I guess eh Henry?
He finishes off with a poem about the godess "the breast" and his need to suck on it.
This is the champion of abortion on demand folks.
Its time to kick their lenninist asses back to where it belongs. We can win this and we must win it!

Posted by: Merle Terlesky | 2008-01-29 12:39:51 PM


One more thing, the point is that these people are a small group, but they are LOUD and not afraid to make their point and be heard.
Are we? Will we fight like they do?? We must

Posted by: Merle Terlesky | 2008-01-29 12:43:05 PM


I saw the interview and it was sickening how egotistical and mentally whacked out this"but my mommy liked my brother better"poor excuse for a man he truly is.
How many Auschewitz survivors embrace a career choice that destroys human life?

Posted by: Bocanut | 2008-01-29 12:57:49 PM


There may be no need to emulate them, Merle. By most accounts new physicians are increasingly reluctant to perform the procedure. Society is slowly coming to see these people for who they are--as grotesque, self-serving narcissists who consider their own pleasure first, last, and only. Their own excesses will discredit them and the process is already underway. Only by taking the high road can we hope to receive a more favourable verdict from history than they.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-01-29 12:58:53 PM


Good point Boc- he is a sick and depraved man indeed. I pray he finds Gods forgiveness before he dies. He will one day meet all those babies he has killed. He can then tell these babies why he killed them.
I met Henry on a few occasions and yes he is weird.

Posted by: Merle Terlesky | 2008-01-29 1:00:50 PM


It is interesting (to me, anyway) how the abortion debate sometimes mirrors the American version of the gun control debate. Some proponents of their being no restrictions at all on gun ownership really are fanatics, but many more are people who don't really think there is anything wrong with restrictions on things like cop-killer bullets or bazookas, they just worry that if they allow a foot in the door on these types of weapons the next step will be restrictions they don't accept. So they adopt the radical position to stop the slippery slope from beginning to slide.

In the US there have been many pieces of legislation designed to carve at the edges of Roe v Wade in restricting access to abortions or types of procedures. Some Canadian pro-abortion advocates really are fanatics even about late term abortions, but many more see these movements in the US as the foot in the door and the next step will be restrictions they don't accept. So they, too, adopt the radical position to stop the slippery slope from beginning to slide.

The nuanced position is only politically available if one is confident that that is not just the starting point, but the potential end point as well. When the people calling for nuance - either on the issue of guns or abortion - actually hold an unnuanced opinion of their own (ban all guns or ban all abortions) then there is at least some reason to think the call for nuance is disingenuous and only the first step on the road to something far worse.

In 2001 statscan reported that 96.7% of abortions happened in the first trimester, so opposing laws restricting late term abortions does not present a great practical dilemma. They are rare (and when they do happen often because of risks to the mother's safety), so the potential risk to retaining the right to have first trimester abortions outweighs allowing legal restrictions on late term ones. While the position may be described as "fanatical" by opponents, those who hold that position politically may be far from fanatical themselves.

Posted by: Fact Check | 2008-01-29 1:46:16 PM


From what I saw at the "Morgentaler Symposium" save for a few exceptions, the majority of abortionists and their academic enablers appear to be lesbians. I am admittedly speaking based on imperfect evidence (the appearance of these women and in some cases, information from their colleagues). I will leave it to a more articulate poster to explain why so many abortionists are lesbians, but if anyone knows, I would really like to know.

Posted by: Ricky | 2008-01-29 2:44:23 PM


First of all, Fact Check, the gun-grabbing lobby is based not on fact, but emotion. There is NO such thing as a “cop-killer bullet”; that was a fiction popularized by Hollywood. Any centrefire rifle cartridge, even the lowly 218 Bee, will penetrate the armour issued to any officer in the country, even using a normal hunting soft point. And there are very few criminals out there interested in acquiring a bazooka, because the concealability thing just can’t be worked around. However, these facts did not deter the anti-gun lobby; when the facts failed to deliver the required emotional punch, they simply lied.

Abortion is another practice for which there are no rational or ethical justifications, only emotional ones, with the added burden of being strongly tainted with the stench of selfishness and pathological denial. They argue the fetus isn’t alive despite brainwaves and heartbeat. They argue it’s a formless blob even though it has fingerprints. They argue it isn’t human when it has their own DNA and is their own flesh and blood. All to avoid a little temporary discomfort and the inability to wear a bikini for a summer because they were too lazy, too stupid, or too reckless to use protection properly.

Moreover, you should mind who you call fanatics. In contemporary politics, is it the Left wing or the Right wing you see marching in the streets? Burning people in effigy? Attacking police? Overturning cars? Smashing windows? Trashing frankenfood and animal-experimentation labs? Spiking trees? Vandalizing industrial equipment? Preaching doom and gloom from every soapbox on every streetcorner? How is it you can focus like a laser on a handful of pro-life zealots, but fail to detect the howling hordes in your own camp?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-01-29 3:14:46 PM


Hey fact check you are dead wrong on the issue of late term aborrtions as there is an abortionist in the U.S. who does only those and no life threat to the mother is needed.
Its always an easy out for pro-aborts to say most abortion are done in the 1st trimester.
SO WHAT!! Its still killing an innocent baby 1st 2nd or 3rd.
Shane Matthews in his last paragraph is 100% on.
I was in the pro-death culture for many years so I know.

Posted by: Merle | 2008-01-30 9:12:17 AM



The comments to this entry are closed.