On The Fine Art of Jumping to Conclusions...

...And the notion of "Subversion"

The average day would seem all but incomplete without another typical offering of seething lunacy from the denizens of the Sycophantic Groupthink Temple and their preening stooges.

In this case, the matter comes back to a topic that should be considered predictable in the days following Dr Henry Morgentaler's controversial appointment to the Order of Canada -- Conservative MP Ken Epp's Bill C-484.

By their very nature, controversial moves draw controversial comments. So it's little surprise that the perennially crazed Lulu, the assiduously vicious Galloping Beaver's Dave and Unrepentant Old Hippie's JJ -- who, as Nexus readers will recall, is supportive of assaults on aging anti-abortion activists -- jumped all over comments in question, as reported in the Globe and Mail:

"'I think it's a sorry day when they give that man the Order of Canada … He's not deserving of it. What has the man contributed to this nation?' asked Conservative MP Art Hanger. 'Apart from providing a so-called service which I don't believe should be even offered in the nation, but is unfortunately, because we don't have a law governing the taking of life of the unborn.'"

While destined to be inflated into a greater controversy than they should otherwise entail, Hangar's comments aren't that uncommon. In fact, they're very typical of the short-sighted and small-minded opponents of abortion who seem to believe that all the problems associated with unplanned or unwanted pregnancies will magically go away if only abortion were simply outlawed.

But, as one should typically expect, Lulu, JJ and Dave want to take issue with the very idea of "a law governing the taking of life of the unborn". Lulu goes so far as to describe it as "subvert[ing] abortion rights in Canada".

Consider the following tirade from JJ -- the only one of the three of any actual substance:

"Let's parse this little pearl of wisdom.

Hanger, clearly a fetus fetishist, is against the award being given to Dr. Morgentaler because Dr. M has provided abortion services. Further, Hanger states that abortion shouldn't be "even offered" in Canada, but that it "unfortunately is" because "we don't have a law governing the taking of life of the unborn", a clear nod to Bill C-484.

Got that? Shorter Art Hanger: "Abortion is only available because we don't have a law like Bill C-484.""

Now, if only that were the case. But the simple fact of the matter is that 37 American states have enacted fetal homicide bills, bills similar to -- but possessing differences from -- Bill C-484. In none of those states has abortion become unavailable.

And furthermore, while Hanger's support of Bill C-484 certainly makes it perfectly reasonable to suspect that he may have had C-484 in his thoughts at the time of his comments, JJ and friends predictably make another grievous error in logic: that of assuming that Hanger is referring to C-484.

After all, it isn't as if theren't other ways of regulating the termination of unborn life.

To start off with, one only needs consider the continuing debate about how late into a pregnancy is too late to procure an abortion -- consider the case in Britain, where the most recent abortion-related controversy isn't whether there would be any limits at all, but rather whether Britain would maintain its current 24-week limit (no abortion on demand after 24 weeks), or reduce it to 16 weeks. British MPs opted to stay with 24 weeks.

As it turns out, Britain's legislation governing abortion is the most liberal in all of Europe. In France and Germany the limit is 12 weeks. In Norway and Sweden, the limit is 18 weeks.

Abortion certainly isn't at risk of disappearning in any of these countries -- three of them amongst the most liberal nations in all the world, let alone Europe.

In light of such facts, it must be considered that for Lulu, JJ and Dave to insist that such a feat would be accomplished here if any laws governing terminating unborn life were enacted is nothing more or less than shrill hyperbole beyond account.

JJ herself also seems to have her fair share of difficulties with the definition of what is and is not an admission:

"That's the first time I've seen an MP admit, openly and on the record, that Bill C-484 would affect abortion rights at all, let alone nullify them. I wonder if Artie realizes he's making a liar out of his fellow Conservative MP Ken Epp, who's long insisted Bill C-484 has nothing to do with abortion"

Considering that Hangar failed to mention C-484 by name, and instead commented on Canada's lack of legislation on an issue that has been legislated on in nearly every other country in the western world, one must also dismiss this particular claim as shrill hypberbole.

The legislation in the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Norway and Sweden have yet to result in an outright criminalization of abortion.

The sad fact about the matter, however, is that Canada's pro-abortion activists must know this -- they simply have to -- to be so woefully under-informed in regards to their own pet issue simply could not help but undermine the credibility of their entire movement.

So one may, in the end, be forced to recognize that perhaps the extreme positions being struck by these individuals may not simply be the result of naivete or misinformation. Their arguments are all too often being advanced under what one cannot help but regard as willful and deliberate dishonesty.

But that dishonesty is nothing new. To top it all off, it almost remains comforting to note that the most extreme leftists Canada has to offer have yet to lose their unique gift for hypocrisy:

"(Slightly off-topic, there's a poll on Dr. Morgentaler on the same page as that Globe & Mail article I linked to. You know what to do.)"

Of course, one almost wonders what to think of this when measured against the unique amount of whining and crying Canada's extremist left have engaged in regarding the so-called "freeping" of online polls by Canadian right-wingers. Then again, one is hardly shocked to find that -- as with so many other things -- they think it's perfectly acceptable when they themselves do it.

But, in the end, one actually knows what to think of it: it's simply the same dishonesty on a different day.