by John Robson
Despite Parliament debating whether to figure out when human life begins, the sky failed to rain down on Canadians’ heads in savage blue chunks. Who saw that coming?
Not pro-choicers. Even though the PM personally opposes the motion, they shrieked about the Conservatives ripping up the social fabric, destroying the “consensus” and hurling women into Handmaid’s Tale-style oppression.
What I want to know is, what were they so frightened of? After all, if there’s a consensus the Tories could only hurt themselves by standing up against it, and they want the Tories to hurt themselves.
Besides, Ontario backbench Tory MP Stephen Woodworth simply wants a parliamentary committee to take a scientific look at the Criminal Code section saying a baby only becomes human when it fully exits the birth canal.
I can only see two possible outcomes of such a study. On the one hand, it might turn out the foetus is not a live human but, say, a rock or a sea turtle. If so, the pro-choicers win.
On the other, scientists might turn out to share the idiot conviction of pro-life, anti-woman, anti-sex killjoys that foetuses have beating hearts and human DNA. But so what?
We all know that anyway, don’t we? We just don’t care. We have sexual pleasures, lifestyles and whims to attend to and nothing must stand in their way. So again, the pro-choicers win.
Just possibly they fear a third outcome. It might leak out that the insistence on a “consensus” in Canada is a double lie. First, polls routinely show almost two-thirds of Canadians want some protection for the unborn. Second, if this invented consensus did exist, it would be neither wicked nor antisocial for people to challenge it. Indeed, the left normally applauds dissenters.
Can the pro-choicers be so shrill because they know their position is both wrong and brittle? The only other time a civilized society debated whether something was human, 19th-century American racial slavery, those who favoured “choice” over conscience were angrily terrified of calm, open discussion because their worst enemy was the truth and deep down they knew it.
For the same reason, their best ally was timid mainstream politicians. Back then, the only thing more unpopular than slavery was abolitionists, and reputable pragmatists insisted their own party shut up about it for fear of annoying voters by reminding them that they were tolerating a great evil. That’s why nobody dared call themselves “proslavery” then, or “proabortion” today: not consensus but guilty conscience.
Typically, Quebec NDP MP François Boivin tried to frame it differently, calling the motion “a full-frontal assault on a woman’s right to choose.” Personally I cannot help thinking gender-selective abortion is something of a blow to a baby girl’s right to choose… or breathe… or not be snipped up. But you know what socially disruptive kooks we pro-lifers are.
I’m so nutty I think the Prime Minister should be more worried about Revelations 3:16 and Matthew 18 than NDP rhetoric or target demographics in swing ridings. He is, after all, a declared Christian, and I cannot believe on the Day of Judgement Jesus will turn out to favour political expediency over the lives of tiny babies.
Of course, I also had trouble following Conservative whip Gordon O’Connor raving “I cannot understand why those who are adamantly opposed to abortion want to impose their belief on others by way of the Criminal Code.” Can he understand why those adamantly opposed to murder want to impose their beliefs on others by way of the Criminal Code?
Duh. Because taking innocent human life isn’t a valid moral or legal “choice”. If, that is, what’s in there is human and alive.
Would the sky fall if we let MPs take a look?
Categories: Contributor Columns