This Is Sure to Infuriate the Pro-Abortion Lobby

Rabble contributor admits abortion debate is alive, if not necessarily well

Rabble contributor Mercedes Allen is officially off the reservation.

Pro-abortion activists in Canada have long insisted that there is no debate on abortion in Canada -- your not-so-humble scribe was once threatened with gun violence for merely pointing out that there is. Many pro-abortion activists have long operated under a mistaken belief that, if they simply refused to discuss the abortion topic as an issue of ideas, that there was no debate.

Logical people would know better. And even if one disagrees with Allen on any number of different issues, one at least has to respect her acknowledgement of the ongoing debate.

It doesn't necessarily mean that she's happy about it.

Allen is apparently frustrated with parents who oppose the institution of extreme and provocative anti-discrimination education curriculum -- similar to that administered by the Toronto District School Board -- while some Catholic schools in Canada are giving students course credit for protesting against abortion, as is happening at Christ the King school in Winnipeg.

"According to the Winnipeg Free Press, students are being given full credits for doing so, and principal David Hood is considering making it an official school activity," Allen fumes. "Christ the King School is a private Catholic school in St. Vital, Manitoba providing instruction to students ranging from kindergarten to Grade 8. It's a funded independent school, which means that it receives 50 per cent of student tuition from the province."

"In Canada, there have been renewed efforts to eliminate all funding for International Planned Parenthood, even for women's health initiatives in countries where abortion is banned," she continues. "The United Way similarly came under fire for women's health support and some Canadian hairstylists reportedly participated in a campaign to discuss pro-life beliefs with customers. The Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform has been picketing schools of all levels across southern and central Alberta and BC with graphic signs."

"Prime Minister Stephen Harper stated during the election that he wasn't interested in reopening the debate about abortion," she concludes. "But he doesn't have to, and Canadians no longer have that luxury."

Precisely. There is still a debate on abortion, no matter how badly pro-abortion activists would prefer there isn't, no matter how vociferously they demand that it not take place.

This is increasingly going to be a problem for a movement that has convinced itself that it enjoys near-uniform support among Canadians, even as they applaud the jailing of their adversaries, as was the case when longtime anti-abortion activist Mary Wagner was jailed for counseling women against abortion too close to an abortion clinic.

“Despite numerous warnings from judges to stop breaking the law, she continues to do so,” remarked Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada coordinator Joyce Arthur. “Judges have little choice but to send people to jail when they do that. Wagner is apparently willing to pay the price, and so she should. Wagner needs to take responsibility for her actions and the harms she inflicts on women.”

Apparently, for Arthur, being confronted with the idea that the life they are about to terminate is human "inflicts harm on women."

If this were merely about keeping anti-abortion activists away from abortion clinics, it would be one thing. But Arthur's applause of the jailing of Wagner is unsurprising when one considers her long history of advocacy in favour of denying on-campus anti-abortion groups the same access to student resources as their pro-abortion adversaries.

In the sad history of pro-aboriton authoritarianism, Arthur has been its leading figure. If Mercedes Allen's admission that the abortion debate is active is going to provoke an angry outburst from the pro-abortion lobby, Joyce Arthur should be considered the leading candidate to freak out.

There's plenty of room to debate whether or not Catholic school students should be given course credit for anti-abortion protest (in this author's view, they absolutely should not).

But Mercedes Allen is entirely right: there is a debate on abortion taking place, regardless of how loudly pro-abortion authoritarians like Joyce Arthur demand that it not.

The Pro-Abortion Lobby Undermines... Itself

ARCC defends infanticide law

For decades, it has been a staple argument of the Canadian pro-abortion lobby when resisting any idea that the unborn may have rights: the idea that unborn children are not legally considered "human beings" until they have emerged alive from the birth canal.

Now, in the horrific case of Katrina Effert, the pro-abortion lobby seems to have dispensed even with that argument.

In 2005, Effert, then aged 19, gave birth to a baby boy in the bathroom of her parents' home. She promptly strangled the child with her underwear and threw it over a fence into her neighbour's yard.

The boy never had a name.

In a truly disturbing ruling, Justice Joanne Veil referred to Canada's lack of abortion laws, and decided that "while many Canadians undoubtedly view abortion as a less than ideal solution to unprotected sex and unwanted pregnancy, they generally understand, accept and sympathize with the onerous demands pregnancy and childrbirth exact from mothers, especially mothers without support."

She issued a three-year suspended sentence for infanticide. Effert will not walk entirely free, but will not do any further jail time.

Many people are outraged at this decision, and justifiably so. The Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada, however, have reacted to the increasing numbers of wary eyes being cast toward Canada's lack of abortion law by suggesting there are good reasons for infanticide to be considered a lesser crime than murder.

As is typical of the pro-abortion lobby, they're refusing to answer any questions about what those reasons might be.

In light of the ARCC's dedication to the law defining legal personhood in Canada -- they cite it in their talking points opposing the Unborn Victims of Crime Act -- one would suspect that the ARCC should admit that using Canada's abortion law status quo to justify this decision is deeply troubling.

Instead, they're pushing for more, and advancing an argument that recently-born children should be considered lesser persons, with lesser rights, than those not-so-recently born.

It isn't enough for them that the unborn have no rights. They now seem bound and determined to justify extending fewer rights to those who already meet the law's ill-conceived definition of legal human personhood.

The fact that the infanticide scenario only strengthens many of the arguments of the anti-abortion lobby seems entirely lost on the ARCC. Perhaps deliberately.

If the pro-abortion lobby refuses to accept adoption as an alternative to abortion, perhaps they would at least accept adoption as an alternative to murder? Frighteningly, apparently not.

There's little question that Katrina Effert was in a deeply disturbed state of mind following this childbirth, and that her actions clearly reflect that. In light of this, even if Effert doesn't belong in prison -- she likely doesn't -- she should have been remanded for the necessary psychiatric care, provided she hasn't received it already.

Using Canada's lack of an abortion law to justify treating her unnamed baby boy as less worthy of justice, however, is a decision that absolutely cannot be justified. That the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada would fail to recognize this simply reveals them for what they truly are: manical pro-abortion zealots.

Diane Abbott Bloviates on Abortion Policy

Labour MP outraged over inclusion of anti-abortion group in debate

Debate on the topic of abortion is heating up in Britain, as the British pro-abortion lobby is making demands quite familiar to those who follow abortion in the rest of the world.

That demand is rather simple: groups who hold a differing opinion on abortion are to be denied a voice in the discussion.

Labour Shadow Minister of Health Diane Abbott is apparently quite apoplectic about the inclusion of Life, a British anti-abortion group, on a government advisory panel on sexual health.

Abbott is apoplectic that groups such as life, or Conservative MP Nadine Dorries, would be allowed to have a voice on any kind of government panel.

"We cannot allow Nadine Dorries and some of the anti-abortion groups currently advising the government to turn the clock back for millions of women," Abbott declared. "Mainstream medical opinion is united in its agreement that, when carried out in a legal setting where sterile facilities are available, abortion is a safe procedure carrying a low risk of complications."

"And we must not underestimate the chilling news that the government has appointed anti-abortion group Life to their expert advisory group on sexual health," she continued. "This appointment, coupled with the retraction of an invite to the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, one of the UK's leading abortion providers, signals a dangerous move."

"Increasingly, people up and down the country are looking to take a stand against what they see as an attempt to chip away at abortion access for women in England, Scotland and Wales," she added. "There is a rising tide of opposition and concern about the agenda being pushed by figures in this Tory-led government, and David Cameron must come clean on where the Tories now stand on a woman's right to choose."

All of this over the inclusion of a few abortion-opposing groups on an advisory panel intended to represent a wide variety of views.

Perhaps it's time for Diane Abbott, Ed Miliband and the Labour Party to make something clear: do Britons have the right to have an opinion on abortion that differs from her own? And if they do, do they not have the right to be heard by the government?

Then again, perhaps Abbott has already made herself clear about that.

America Should Turn to Values

Over the next seventeen months, various left-wing gladflies will tut relentlessly every time a Republican declares that the United States should turn toward God, as former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty recently did at a Faith and Freedom Coalition convention.

It will be heard, time and time again. Whether or not the United States should "turn back to God" is extremely debatable. Some will confuse it -- some even deliberately -- for a voiced preference for theocracy, declaring it to a violation of constituionally-mandated church and state.

(They're mistaken. It's the shariah-promoting radical Islamist groups they so often champion that are the threat to separation of church and state.)

Lingering just under the surface of that message is an idea that is not as debatable: America needs to turn to its values.

Naturally, what those values are is a matter of intense debate. It should be. The more smug anyone, conservative, liberal, progressive, or otherwise, is in declaring what America's values are, the more they should be questioned.

Pawlenty's ideas on abortion and same-sex marriage should be the subject of every bit as much debate. Pawlenty should better define his vision for proper abortion legislation. Moreover, it could be said that he lacks the imagination necessary to realize that adopted children could be raised just as well within a household based on same-sex marriage as within a traditional marriage.

But the wonderful thing about an election -- even something a little murkier as a primary election -- is that people have the opportunity to listen to political candidates explaio their views, and then vote according to what they deem their values to be.

America should turn to its values. Whether that means America turns to God, or even turns to Tim Pawlenty, will be up to American citizens to decide.

Stephen Harper's New Challenge: The "Vision Thing"

Certainly, Stephen Harper has always been more of a Margaret Thatcher type than a John Major type.

But in the wake of winning his first majority government, Harper may be about to face his greatest challenge yet: the "vision thing".

Now, more than ever, Harper will have to navigate between the hopes of his supporters and the fears of his detractors. Harper, has to date, approached this majority government with humility, declaring that it's now up to his government to earn the trust of Canadians.

"My friends, it's been a long campaign but now we can turn the page on the uncertainties and repeat elections of the past seven years and focus on building a great future for all of us," Harper declared. "Canadians have chosen hope, a united Canada, a strong Canada. We must be the government of all Canadians, including those that did not vote for us. We shall be faithful to the trust that you have proposed in us."

But now Harper will be expected to deliver on the expectations of social conservatives. Admittedly, it's been these expectations that have been at the core of darkest nightmares of Harper's detractors.

According to Conservative Values of Canada executive director David Krayden, abortion is going to become an issue. It won't matter if Harper wishes it or not.

"Stephen Harper has said no (to abortion laws) but a lot of his caucus is pro-life, a lot of his supporters are pro-life," Krayden declared. "I think it's time for those who don't think abortion is not on the table to realize it's catch-up with the rest of the Western world where there are some restrictions on abortion."

Krayden's voice is joined by Joseph Ben Ami of the Canadian Centre for Policy Studies.

"I know professed atheists who are strongly pro-life and at least would like to see the government allow a dialogue," Ben Ami added. "If I had a wish list, top of my list would be the opportunity to have an intelligent debate about human rights commissions and tribunals."

"We should be having an open, honest and intelligent debate about immigration; I don't think we have a well-managed immigration policy," he added.

Both Krayden and Ben Ami seem to hunger for a government more conservative than Harper has been to date.

"This is an opportunity to have a truly conservative government," Krayden announced.

"At some point in time, you have to stand for something more substantial than the mere fact you are not the Liberals," Ben Ami agreed.

Krayden and Ben Ami may be pleased to learn just how many Canadians agree that these are issues that must be addressed. What Canadians have yet to make clear is just how far they think Canada should go on these particular issues. Neither David Krayden nor Joseph Ben Ami are likely to get everything they want on any of these issues. They will have to compromise.

By the same token, however, so will the social progressives who have championed the far-left cause. In fact, they will have to compromise for the first time in nearly forty years. It's far overdue.

But compromise is precisely what Harper's vision will have to be from this point forward. If he successfully reaches a compromise on the issues that truly matter to Canadians, it will be the gateway to a larger majority government. If he fails, it will be the gateway back to a minority, or to political oblivion altogether.

From 2011 onward, the "vision thing" matters more than ever. It's up to Stephen Harper to deliver.

How the Canadian Left Waged Inception Against the Public

In Inception, Dom Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) is an extractor. With the use of specialized equipment, he can slip into the mind of another individual and steal their secrets.

With a little more work, he can even plant ideas within the minds of his subjects.

The Canadian left has managed just such a feat within the minds of Canadians. But unlike Cobb, who uses a sleep-induction/mind-link machine, the "specialized equipment" of the Canadian left is the state itself.

The Canadian left long ago stumbled upon a subtle means on inception -- quietly installing their agenda as public policy, then allowing the Canadian public to justify it to themselves after the fact.

They accomplished this through a combination of expansion in the size of government and the subversion of civil society in order to meet specific ideological ends.

Barry Cooper refers to this as the "embedded state" - state organs dedicated to increasing the reach and influence of government throughout Canadian life.

Through a variety of QUANGOs -- quasi-autonomous non governmental organizations -- the Canadian left has embedded their own ideology within this embedded state.

They've used Canada's Secretary of State -- a rarely-scrutinized office empowered to disperse funding to civil society organizations -- to accomplish this end.

This began during the Prime Ministerial tenure of Pierre Elliot Trudeau. As Prime Minister, Trudeau directed the Secretary of State to fund and, if necessary, create NGOs.

This had two consequences. It eliminated the need for sivil society organizations to appeal to private citizens for financial support, and allowed the government to make choices that would ideologically benefit the governing party.

A key example is the public funding of pro-abortion organizations while denying funding to their anti-abortion opponents.

The result has been a status quo on abortion where Canada has no abortion law whatsoever. Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada national director Joyce Arthur suggests that groups that plan to change this should not only be denied public funding, but should also be denied the ability to raise funds as charitable organizations, while pro-abortion organizations should be allowed these privileges because their goals are "not political" because they reflect the view of "mainstream Canadians".

But according to a recent poll on the topic of abortion, that mainstream may be much smaller than Arthur believes.

A recent poll concluded that only 21% of Canadians are even aware that Canada has no abortion law.

According to that poll, sampled Canadians believed:

-41% of Canadians believed that abortions are only available within the first trimester.

-15% of Canadians believed that abortions are only available within the first trimester if a woman's life is at risk, if she was raped, or if her unborn child will be born with serious complications.

-10% of Canadians believed that abortions are only permissable if a woman's life is at risk, if she was raped, or if her unborn child will be born with serious complications.

Only 27% of those polled favoured the status quo.

Conversely, Arthur believes that abortion should be formally legalized within Canadian law, but that no restrictions should be placed upon it. She declares that restrictions on abortion would be "unnecessary, cruel, and discriminatory".

Clearly, 73% of Canadians disagree with her -- which would mean that, according to Arthur's bizarre definition of "mainstream" Canada, only 27% of Canadians are within that mainstream.

When polled, Canadians do voice their support for the status quo. The problem is that they don't know what that status quo is.

Arthur further insists that anti-abortion groups cannot justify charitable status based on their educational efforts. She declares them to be deceptive; propaganda. Yet, it seems that the "educational" efforts of groups like the ARCC are a good deal more deceptive.

The National Action Committee on the Status of Women funded many pro-abortion groups who have helped foster this particular rhetorical environment.

It's no wonder that so many Canadians seem to think they share what are actually the ARCC's extremist views on abortion: groups nestled close to the core of Canada's embedded state have spent a long time convincing them that they do.

That the Canadian government has been providing funding to such organizations created an artificial sense of respectability for them -- and considering the iron-fistedly censorious nature of Arthur and the ARCC (they've been involved in efforts to ban anti-abortion groups from University campuses), any respectability afforded is purely artificial.

The Canadian left resorted to these tactics because they must not have known that they couldn't achieve their agenda without monopolizing support from the state.

After 40 years of this kind of subtle manipulation, it's no wonder that the left has managed to convince Canadians that they share their agenda -- even when they apparently aren't fully aware of what that agenda really is.

As Stephen Harper continues to tighten the screws on this kind of ideological self-indulgence, Canada's left will have to begin to find its own resources, and start forging its own reputation as opposed to piggy-backing their message on the back of the government.

Keep These People As Far Away From Abortion Policy as Possible

In the most recent dispatch from Sister Sage's Musings, CK reminds us of why she and her cohorts should be kept as far away from abortion policy as humanly possible.

One would scarcely believe it if they hadn't read it with their own two eyes -- mostly because the pro-abortion lobby, if asked whether or not women have ever procured abortions for fickle reasons, tends to freak the fuck out over it.

And yet there it is, on one of the most feverishly incoherent pro-abortion blogs on the internet:

"Being pregnant would have been a huge embarrassment," the woman writes. "The other alternatives of keeping the baby and getting married, or giving the baby up for adoption did not appeal to me in the least."

This is a woman who had an abortion because pregnancy would have been too embarrassing for her. Allowing her child to live with an adopted family, or raising the kid within a marriage? Just not appealing. And this is who pro-abortion activists like CK want as the spokesperson of their movement.

It certainly isn't right that this woman was arrested for procuring an abortion. And while there are numerous good reasons for abortion to remain legal, providing women with a convenient out for avoiding having to admit the "embarrassment" of irresponsible sexual behaviour (perhaps using a condom just wasn't appealing) just isn't one of them.

Of course, abortion is a topic that really gives lunatics of various political stripes their time to shine. And when that time comes, CK tends to shine on like a crazy diamond.

Consider this particular post, a seething pseudo-rebuttal to an Examiner.com article wherein Brian Liley considers data from four separate abortion-related polls.

CK accuses Liley of being a sucky news reporter, and a sucky statistician.

Her argument is that she doesn't like Mike Duffy, Ezra Levant, Shona Holmes, Afghanistan, 10 percenters and corporate welfare. Ergo, Brian Liley sucks.

And yet Liley's conclusions from examining four different polls on abortion likely sound far more like the opinions of most Canadians on abortion than CK is likely comfortable with:

"If we put all four polls together what we find is that Canadians likely find abortion to be morally wrong, something they think should be restricted at some point before birth, something that should receive limited public financing, something that should remain legal and a true hot button issue as to whether Canada should fund abortions overseas."

That may sound far more like the opinion of most Canadians on abortion than anything that has ever been produced at Sister Sage's Musings, or by CK's fellow Chickenwankers at Unrepentant Old Hippie or Dammit Janet. So CK's apparent response is to scream "I hate all of these things, ergo you suck!" at any journalist who draws any conclusion other than "Canadians think abortion is nifty".

It's frightening to think of where Canada would be if individuals like CK got their wish and the abortion debate were reduced to this kind of level -- one where in journalists are forbidden from exploring the nuances of Canadian attitudes on the issue, simply because it doesn't advance the pro-abortion lobby's extreme ideological agenda.

Fortunately, a great many Canadians aren't prepared to simply allow the erstwhile "cultural warriors" of the far left to have their way on this issue: no matter how much they may demand it.

You, Murray Dobbin, Own This

As Canadians continue to wonder precisely what they should make of Frank Graves' recent suggestion that the Liberal Party should provoke a culture war for political gain, one should take some time to remember some of Canada's other erstwhile cultural warriors.

"I told them that they should invoke a culture war. Cosmopolitanism versus parochialism, secularism versus moralism, Obama versus Palin, tolerance versus racism and homophobia, democracy versus autocracy," Graves told Lawrence Martin.

People like Murray Dobbin.

Nexus readers may remember a recent article about Dobbin's objections to a poll commissioned by the Manning Institute that indicated Canadians' political attitudes were becoming more conservative.

As it turned out, Frank Graves featured prominently in Dobbin's original article.

In particular, Dobbin took exception to the Manning Institute poll's conclusions on abortion, which indicated that 60% of Canadians considered it to be immoral. He countered that with results from an EKOS poll that concluded that 52% of Canadians describe themselves as "pro-choice", 27% described themselves as "pro-life", 10% answered "neither", while 33% declined to provide an answer.

Dobbin and Graves seem to suggest that only one of these polls can be correct.

But in order to accept their conclusion on this matter, one would have to overlook that the question of whether or not abortion is immoral and whether or not women should be allowed to choose are actually two very different questions.

If a belief on the part of Canadians that abortion is immoral automatically meant that Canadians believed that Canadian law should not allow women to make this decision for themselves, Canadians would be adopting a strictly moralistic attitude toward the law.

That polls could indicate that the majority of Canadians believe that abortion is immoral while also believing in the right of women to make their own choices about moral behaviour could be argued to indicate that Canadians do not hold a strictly moralistic attitude toward the law.

In other words: that Canadians believe that morality shouldn't dictate legality, and that legality doesn't dictate morality.

Each poll clearly asked different questions about abortion. One asked whether or not Canadians considered abortion to be immoral, and another asked them whether or not Canadians favoured a woman's right to choose. The very different conclusions reached by each study demonstrate how the questions asked shape the answers received.

Dobbin and Graves make it clear that their greatest objection to the Manning Institute study is that they don't approve of the questions that it asked.

Dobbin and Graves must know that by defining what questions may be asked about abortion, they stake out that issue for themselves. This is a hegemonic tactic that forgets the most important element of hegemony as defined by Antonio Gramsci -- the notion that hegemony is not dictated, but rather is negotiated.

Instead of hegemony being a remarkably democratic concept, hegemony instead becomes dictatorial.

What is a culture war if not the exploitation of negotiated hegemonic ideas in order to be able to dictate those ideas in future?

One should direct their attention toward the values that Graves advised the Liberals to divide Canadians over: Cosmopolitanism versus parochialism, secularism versus moralism, tolerance versus racism and homophobia, democracy versus autocracy.

Cosmolpolitanism, secularism, tolerance and democracy are all hegemonic ideals of Canadian society, socially negotiated between Canadians through their day-to-day interactions for decades.

By invoking these values as part of a culture war, Graves has suggested that the Liberal Party identify a group of Canadians they will allege do not share these foundational values. By doing so, the Liberals will brand these individuals as cultural outsiders within Canadian society.

Graves has made it clear who he wants to identify as such outsiders: the Conservative Party of Canada. In time, his strategy will not only counter-brand card-carrying Tories as outsiders, but will in time counter-brand anyone who votes for that party as outsiders.

In the end, that will likely amount to approximately 30% of Canadians. That is a lot of Canadians to attempt to force to the periphery of Canadian culture through a culture war.

But once the Liberal Party have branded themselves as the altar keepers of Canadian values, they will have made a bid not only to make themselves the standard bearer of that culture, but also to empower themselves to define what Canadian values are, without the participation of the so-called "outsiders".

Should the Liberals embrace Frank Graves' potentially destructive advice, their goal will become attaining the power to themselves define -- in effect, dictate -- Canadian values. The same Canadian values that form the hegemonic basis of Canadian culture.

So, judging from the title from this post, one may wonder precisely how Murray Dobbin has to take ownership of this purported culture war.

Dobbin takes Graves' upcoming EKOS poll -- which, as already demonstrated, distorts many of the answers in accordance with the questions it asks, and how -- as triumphal proof that Canadian political values are not, in fact, "blueing".

Dobbin thus infers that if Canadian political attitudes were in fact shifting toward conservatism, it would be a defeat for he and his ideological cohort, and that anything Frank Graves could do to stem perceptions of such a shift would be a good thing.

Dobbin's commentary on Graves' promised forthcoming polling results indicates that he has believed there is a culture war at the centre of Canadian politics for quite a while.

So as Canadians wary of the social damage a culture war would inflict begin to wonder who else is in favour of such a conflict, many Canadians should wonder how badly Murray Dobbin has wanted such a culture war, and for how long.

It may not be unfair to suspect the answer is "very badly", and "very long".

Legalize It (?)

Joyce Arhtur calls for formally legalized abortion, and more

When the Canadian Supreme Court struck down Canada's abortion law in 1988, abortion under demand, under any circumstances and for any reason, became legal in Canada.

In the years since, few governments have dared venture anywhere near the abortion issue. Brian Mulroney's government attempted to legislate a new abortion law only to be stopped by a deadlocked caucus.

Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada director Joyce Arthur, however, thinks this state of affairs has gone on long enough -- and that Canada needs an abortion law.

Unshockingly, Arthur thinks that Canada should formally legalize abortion. She's actually right about this. But after a few more small details, that's where it ends, and Arthur's ideas diverge into pro-abortion authoritarianism.

Arthur is actually right to insist that provincial health ministries should ensure that abortion is available in each region of their province for those women who need them.

But Arthur's other proposals for such a law are fraught with problems.

For example, Arthur insists that all medical students should be required to be trained in abortion. She suggests that governments should be required to fund abortions, and that provinces be required to pay for reciprocally-billed abortions.

She suggests that the law limit conscientious objection by doctors, and ban abortion protests outside of clinics.

Clearly, it's Arthur's latter two suggestions that are more troublesome.

Arthur isn't only in favour of shutting down anti-abortion protest outside of clinics. She's also in favour of shutting down anti-abortion groups on university campuses, denying them both funding and club status.

It seems that Arthur is full of all kinds of ideas to curb the debate on abortion -- so long as it's her opponents who are being silenced.

The suggestion regarding limited conscientious objection is even more alarming. For one thing, Arthur declines to define under what circumstances she believes an appropriately trained physician could decline to perform an abortion. Her insistence that all medical students, even those specializing in otherwise-unrelated fields, be trained in abortion would confront a great many more doctors with that choice.

(Requiring doctors who decline to perform an abortion to refer appropriately is actually a reasonable requirement.)

Moreover, Arthur's proposed law speaks nothing to any kind of limit on abortion. The word "limit" appears only within her suggestion to limit consientious objection, and "late-term abortion" appears not at all.

If Canada were to legislate on abortion without including a limit on abortion on demand, it would be the only country in the developed world to do so.

Moreover, it's unlikely that any government could manage to pass such a law without any kind of limits on on-demand aboriton. It's actually unlikely that any government could pass such a law with such limits, as the Mulroney example clearly demonstrates.

Perhaps Arthur imagines that her the Liberal Party decline to nominate any candidates who are not pro-abortion fits in with this proposal.

That the Liberal Party could not win a government without tolerating dissent on the topic of abortion seems to escape her -- as does the right of others to disagree with her.

Liberal Party To Keep Shooting 'Till They've Blown Their Feet Right Off

  
Ralph Goodale practically swears revenge on dissident Liberals

Liberal Party leader Michael Ignatieff apparently just can't control his caucus.

During a whipped vote on a Liberal motion to include contraception -- and, in thinly-veiled words, abortion -- as part of Canada's commitment to Prime Minister Stephen Harper's G8 maternal and child health package, several Liberal MPs either skipped the vote or openly defied the party whip.

Liberal House leader Ralph Goodale promised "consequences" for those involved.

"When that happens on votes that do involve the whip process then there are internal consequences," Goodale said. "That's something that the party administration will take care of through the whip's office. It's a matter of internal discipline."

"Members know that when they go against what is the official position of the party on a vote that is a matter of principle, like this one, that they will perhaps satisfy the consequences," Goodale continued. "Their perks of office my be constrained."

Among those "perks" are included the privilege of lobbing queries during question period.

"This will be dealt with," Goodale promised. "It will be dealt with effectively."

It would be difficult for Goodale to be more transparent: the message the Liberal party seems to be poised to send to MPs like Dan McTeague, Paul Szabo and John McKay is that when Michael Ignatieff decides to use abortion as a wedge issue, they will disregard their conscience and vote how Ignatieff tells them to vote.

That won't go over well in a Liberal caucus -- and, evidently, Liberal Party -- that is far more divided on the topic of abortion that Michael Ignatieff had given credit for.

It's the kind of thing that may leave one wondering how long it will be before MPs like Szabo, McTeague or McKay may consider crossing the floor to sit with the government -- or at least leaving the Liberal caucus to sit as independents.

And just as pro-abortion advocates must be asking themselves about the precise level of commitment the Liberal Party holds to their agenda today, anti-abortion Liberals must be asking themselves how welcome their views are within that party.

With an extreme kee-jerk reaction to their self-inflicted humiliation, Michael Ignatieff and Ralph Goodale may reveal deeper cleavages wtihin the Liberal Party than they had ever imagined before.

Michael Ignatieff With (Fertilized) Egg on His Face

  
Liberal Party scandal mongering falls short

When Prime Minister Stephen Harper called upon the G8 to undertake a maternal and child health initiative, Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff seemed to think he had been handed a golden opportunity.

By calling on Harper to ensure that the maternal and child health initiative included funding for abortion, Ignatieff must have imagined he could paint Harper as a right-wing extremist and pander to the pro-abortion movement by re-opening the abortion debate.

That move has left Ignatieff with egg on his face, as his party narrowly lost a non-binding motion to ensure that abortion and contraception were included in the plan.

Read that again: Ignatieff couldn't even pass a non-binding motion on the topic.

A number of anti-abortion Liberal MPs declined to show up for the vote, and three Liberal MPs -- Paul Szabo, John McKay and Dan McTeague -- voted against the motion.

"We've been very clear from the outset that this package, this program, would not include abortion," Conservative MP Candice Hoeppner said recently. "That's not what we want to talk about. It's not the direction that we want to go."

Unfortunately, Ignatieff very much did want to go in that direction, and fell short in his blatant attempt to pander to the pro-abortion movement -- a great many pro-abortion activists must be asking some rather serious questions about the Liberal Party's commitment to their starkly ideological agenda today.

Hopefully, Michael Ignatieff will think twice before he so obnoxiously attempts to exploit the perpetual controversy of abortion again.

Strawman Argument Epic Fail

Enormous Thriving Plants' Audrey apparently wants to mock Jill Stanek for making a "potential people" argument that Audrey doesn't find compelling.

Unfortunately for Audrey, there's just one problem:

Yep. That's Audrey, who loves to accuse her opponents of making strawman arguments, but indulges herself in them at every opportunity she gets.

Enormous Thriving Plants: dishonestly blogging about February 9's news today.

They're Just Out of Touch With Canadians

Joyce Arthur perplexed by rejection of abortion-centred controversy-mongering

Writing on the arch-leftist website Straight Goods, Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada director Joyce Arthur just doesn't seem to understand why so many Canadians would object to Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff's attempt to stir up abortion-centred controversy in the face of Prime Minister Stephen Harper's call for a global maternal health care strategy.

"A bewildering firestorm of media controversy has erupted over Michael Ignatieff's strong and principled statements about women's reproductive rights overseas," Arthur complains. "The Liberal Opposition Leader has been urging Prime Minister Stephen Harper not to exclude abortion and contraception from his surprising plan to become a champion of maternal and child health in developing countries."

Arthur does go so far as to admit that Ignatieff is simply playing dirty politics, but then goes on the demonstrate that she doesn't understand even the idea of "maternal and child health".

"Ignatieff is a politician, and bringing up abortion is no doubt a political strategy in part — but it's also the absolutely right thing for him to do," Arthur insists. "It is impossible to tackle maternal health without addressing unsafe abortion, which is a leading cause of maternal death in most developing countries."

Harper recently called for the wealthy countries of the world to impliment a maternal and child health strategy, aimed at reducing the infant mortality rate in developing countries. (For the record, criticisms that the Canadian government isn't doing enough to reduce the infant mortality rates in aboriginal communities is entirely legitimate.)

A maternal health strategy implies that the women involved are mothers. A child health strategy suggests that those involved are children.

Therein lies the rub for Canada's pro-abortion lobby, of which Arthur is a central leader. After all, it's the disinformation tactic of the pro-abortion lobby that a woman is not a mother until after she has given birth, and that a child is not a child until after it has been born.

If Arthur wants to insist that abortion should be part of Harper's maternal and child health strategy, then perhaps it's time for her and her cohorts to admit that pregnant women are mothers even before giving birth, and that unborn children are more than simply "a clump of cells".

Moreover, Harper and company are only doing what Arthur and her cohorts have long suggested that they do -- focusing on the already born.

Take, for example, the woman pictured left. From the look on her face, one can tell that she thinks she's being quite clever.

But it's simply astounding how quickly the pro-abortion movement's talking points can shift once they think that government policy isn't doing enough to impliment their ideological agenda, then suddenly the government is not supposed to focus on those who have already been born.

Suddenly, they're supposed to focus on those who have not been born, and impliment a global health strategy that would make it easier for their mothers to abort them.

Moreover, Arthur doesn't seem to understand one basic truth about Canadians: their preference that their government pursue foreign policies that are constructive rather than destructive.

Canadians would much prefer that their government impliment a strategy that will care for human life, rather than aid in the termination of it.

Most of the talking points that Arthur covers in her article don't in any way apply to a maternal and child health program. But Arthur is precisely right about one thing: the destructive influence of illegal abortions -- often referred to as back-alley abortions. This would be much more welcome within a more general women's health care strategy -- something that the Canadian government should pursue if they can impliment a successful maternal and child health strategy.

But Joyce Arthur's obsession with the topic of abortion seems to demand that the government impliment her pro-abortion agenda in all quarters, and at all costs.

While the majority of Canadians continue to favour legalized abortion, only Arthur and her cronies truly believe that abortion should be outright promoted.

That is what demonstrates that they're out of touch with Canadians.

Yup, They All Needed a Feinting Couch Over This...

Although some petulant cry-babies would likely beg to differ, Hunter at Climbing Out of the Dark got the Tim Tebow Superbowl ad unequivocally right.

The sheer scope of the whining that preceded the Tim Tebow anti-abortion ad during the Super Bowl would have had a great many people expecting something truly virulent.

Instead, what was delivered was an entirely benign and civil ad in which Tebow's mother Pam recounted the challenges she faced during her pregnancy.

"I can remember so many times when I almost lost him," she said. "It was so hard. You know, with everything our family's been through, you have to be tough."

At which point Pam is suddenly tackled to the ground by her son, whom she admonishes.

"Timmy! I'm trying to tell our story, here."

At which point Tebow apologizes and hugs his mother.

And that is what the pro-abortion movement has been freaking out over all this time.

One can say whatever they wish about Focus on the Family -- and following Pat Robertson's vile comments regarding the earthquake in Haiti, many of them can be justified.

But the Tebow ad is clearly a stroke of genius on their part. For years, the pro-abortion movement have portrayed the anti-abortion movement as virulent and oppressive. Many of the more authoritarian elements of the pro-abortion movement have attempted to deny the anti-abortion movement any opportunity to voice its views (part of the faux-outrage over the Tebow ad).

Focus on the Family seems to have exploited this meme brilliantly. By producing an ad as civil and benign as the Tebow ad, they have effectively counter-branded these hysteric elements of the pro-abortion movement for precisely what they are: authoritarians who can broach no public opposition whatsoever regarding the topic of abortion.

Institutional Censorship of the Pro-Abortion Movement

Banning anti-abortion groups violates civil liberties

Across Canada, anti-abortion groups on various University campuses have been under fire.

Where pro-abortion groups fail and students' unions decline to run pro-abortion groups off campus, they settle for simply disrupting any events they disagree with.

In the latter case, it's censorship by deeply-institutionalized means.

Fortunately, the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association is prepared to take a stand on the matter, they're preparing to intervene in a case involving the University of Victoria Student Society and an anti-abortion group by the name of Youth Protecting Youth.

The argument is that anti-abortion activism "inherently discriminates" against women.

It shouldn't be thought that the BCCLA necessarily agrees with Youth Protecting Youth -- they merely believe that their freedom of expression should be protected.

"We're pro-choice nuts over at the civil liberties association," explained BCCLA spokesman John Dixon. "We would like to persuade the university students society to relent -- that's the course we're pursuing for now."

"This is a public institution and an organ of the government of British Columbia. Students are forced to pay fees to fund the Students Society."

It's on that note that the members of Youth Protecting Youth pay funds to an organization that has acted to deny them the freedom to express themselves because pro-abortion busybodies like Joyce Arthur -- who is representing pro-abortion group Students for Choice in this matter -- believe that expression "inherently" oppresses them.

Dixon insists that the U Vic Students' Society is wrong to attempt to censor the group. He quite rightly notes that silencing Youth Protecting Youth doesn't in any way settle the abortion issue.

"They can't punish, denounce, discipline a group who, in a very civil way ... try to persuade people not to have abortions. It isn't as though the entire Western world has settled all these bioethical questions about the beginning of life and end of life -- they're live issues."

Barry Cooper has often theorized about what he calls the "embedded state". He describes the embedded state as politicized institutions that operate for the preservation of its own powers, often in support of partisan or ideological interests.

The behaviour of the students unions that rush to run anti-abortion groups off their campuses demonstrate that the embedded state is alive and well on university campuses across Canada.

These organizations have given themselves the power to censor student groups on their campus in direct contravention of civil liberties. It's entirely understandable that zealots like Joyce Arthur either do not understand this or simply don't care.

Fortunately, the BCCLA seems to be prepared to stand up to these organizations -- at least within the province of BC. The time is long overdue that civil liberties groups in other provinces take a similar stand.

Like It Or Not, It;'s Time to Debate Abortion

Canadians have the right to weigh in

Conservative MP Rod Bruinooge already knows how he wants to kick off the new year, and the new decade.

He has puiblicly stated he wants to re-open the abortion debate in Canada.

“I was born in the post-Morgentaler era, and I think I come to this debate under a different context,” says Bruinooge. “I believe that having open debate on important topics like this is essential for any democratic movement. It's a democracy, and we are putting our ideas out for debate.”

“I'm under no illusions that this is going to be an easy course,” he continues. “There are some parties that suppress pro-life thinking. There could be consequences for those MPs in other parties. I know there have been some political parties that have chosen to remove their members for having a certain philosophical viewpoint.”

“The bottom line is that people like myself are not going to stop until, at the very least, unborn children have more value than a Canadian kidney,” Bruinooge concludes. “Your kidneys have more protection than an unborn child until the moment it is out of the woman. I challenge anyone to debate me on that point, because I don't think you can. It is very true. There is no legal value to an unborn child in Canada. I just don't see that as a good bioethical position for anyone to have, let alone a country.”

For their own part, Canada's pro-abortion lobby doesn't want a debate on abortion. Joyce Arthur, the national coordinator for the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada, insists that the majority of the Conservative Party caucus is "publicly anti-choice" (a common epithet the pro-abortion movement uses against their opponents), and insists that Canadians don't want to debate abortion.

“It's something that the Conservative Party is out of touch with, because Canadians don't want to go back to the abortion debate,” Arthur insists. “People are happy with the status quo. It's working well.”

But Arthur shouldn't be nearly so fast to speak for all Canadians. In a 2008 poll, 49% of Canadians wanted abortion to remain legal "under any circumstances". Comparatively, 42% of Canadians wanted abortion to remain legal, but "only under certain circumstances", and 5% wanted abortion to be illegal under all circumstances.

In other words, Canadian society is far from united behind the status quo. Rather, Canadians are divided over this issue, and as is the case in any democracy, are entitled the opportunity to debate the issue, both inside and outside of Parliament.

Why Joyce Arthur and her pro-abortion compatriots are so afraid to debate the issue is a matter they'll have to resolve themselves.

The Philosophical Dilemma of "Pro-Choice"

"Pro-choice" movement decries doctor's right to choose

While the topic of abortion has proven to be a matter of intense interest for a great many Canadians, the topic of the rhetoric surrounding the debate can prove much more interesting still.

The people most emotionally invested in the issue have divided themselves up into opposing camps, calling themselves "pro-choice" (those favouring legalized abortion) and "pro-life" (those who oppose it). Conversely, each lables their opponents as "anti-choice" or "anti-life".

Each label is designed to give its camp a rhetorical advantage. The "pro-choice" movement insists that what they are really is in favour of is freedom, and their opponents reject it. The "pro-life" movement insists that what they are really in favour of the preservation of human life, and that their opponents are inhuman nihilists.

Each label is, in its own small way, a canard.

For example, the "pro-choice" movement isn't always fully in favour of choice and freedom. While they favour women's freedom to seek an abortion and the ability to legally receive one, they don't always necessarily favour freedom on this topic. For example, they tend, oddly enough, to not favour doctors having the right to choose whether or not they'll administer abortions, or whether or not they'll administer any particular abortion.

In the city of Saskatoon, in particular, many doctors have placed a 12-week limit on abortions, after which most doctors will decline to perform the procedure.

Naturally, some members of the "pro-choice" movement don't like that.

"I speak to women on a weekly basis who pass the cut-off and have to go out of the city," explained Evelyn Reisner, the executive director of Saskatoon's Sexual Health Centre.

"It can be quite a problem for low-income women," Reisner continued. "The reality of the situation is that it becomes a scramble. If a women needs an abortion, she'll make it happen ... often in an unsafe or illegal manner."

And while many members of the "pro-choice" movement refuse to support the notion that a doctor should have their right to choose protected. Moreover, they've often suggested actions -- such as entrenching the "right" to an abortion in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms -- that would make protecting a doctor's right to choose not to perform an abortion they consider to be unethical, or otherwise objectionable.

Fortunately, not all members of the "pro-choice" lobby are so resistant to other people's right to choose. For her own part, Evelyn Reisner seems to believe that the solution to the effect of these 12-week limits on abortion is for more doctors to choose to extend it.

"More pro-choice doctors need to consider making [abortion services] a part of their practice," Reisner suggested.

Which would seemingly make Reisner something of a rarity -- an actual, honest-to-God, pro-choice activist -- as opposed to those who would selfishly strip doctors of their right to choice, who could be described as pro-abortion at best.

A Medium the Pro-Abortion Movement Cannot Silence

Law and Order discusses abortion

A recent episode of Law and Order has apparently provoked quite the controversy amongst the pro-abortion movement.

In the episode, Detectives Cyrus Lupo (Jeremy Sisto) and Kevin Bernard (Anthony Anderson) are investigating the murder of Dr Walter Benning, an abortion doctor killed while attending his church.

Dr Benning is clearly a stand-in for Dr George Tiller, who was murdered earlier this year while attending his own church.

Eventually, they identify Wayne Grogan (PJ Sosko) as their suspect. Grogan is defended by Roger Jenkins (Richard Thomas), who also acts as the legal advisor for a Crisis Pregnancy Centre.

He defends Grogan with a justification defense. They argue that, as Grogan was -- in his own mind, at least -- acting in defense of a single viable unborn child set to be born with a medical condition that would render her skin fragile, although she could survive the condition.

Based on the survivability of the condition, the judge in the case allows Grogan and Jenkins to present their justification defense.

The battle lines over the case are clearly drawn between the characters. Bernard is fervently anti-abortion, Lupo is pro-abortion. Executive Assistant District Attorney Michael Cutter (Linus Roache) is anti-abortion, and Assistant District Attorney Conny Rubirose (Alana De La Garza) is stridently pro-abortion.

Despite the fact that both Bernard and McCoy oppose abortion, they pursue Dr Bennet's murderer to the fullest extent of their ability. McCoy even helps suppress knowledge that Dr Benning had apparently finished an abortion after a child was born live during a partial-birth abortion.

Oddly enough it's Rubirose, who is so strongly in favour of legalized abortion that she refers to the anti-abortion movement as "anti-choice", who discloses the matter to the defense.

While the pro-abortion movement is decrying the episode as presenting "almost every deranged anti-abortion talking point can be found in the episode — comparing anti-choicers to the civil rights movement — with little or no pro-choice rebuttal," they're overlooking the fact that virtually every argument of the pro-abortion movement is presented.

Numerous women in the episode note that seeking an abortion is the most difficult decision they will ever face, and many women display the emotional distress that many women feel after the fact. Even witnesses on the stand who oppose abortion agree that doctors such as Dr Benning provide a necessary medical service for the women who need it.

In the end, Grogan is quite rightly convicted. Even if Dr Benning was performing illegal abortions, Grogan's act was still an act of terrorism, and had to be treated accordingly.

What individuals like JJ are really outraged about isn't that the anti-abortion case was presented without pro-aboriton rebuttal, but rather that it was presented at all.

It's one thing for pro-abortion protesters to show up at an anti-abortion speech and disrupt the event so that the presenter cannot speak. It's entirely another for the pro-abortion movement to attempt to barge into the living rooms of every home watching Law and Order and prevent them from watching the show because it presents sides of the abortion debate that they don't want to be heard.

They can accomplish one of these things -- they cannot accomplish the other, and it seems to positively embitter them that the anti-abortion message has (although not unopposed within the episode itself) found a medium that they cannot silence.

(Although the producers of Law and Order may want to watch out for this lunatic sitting behind them in church.)

Eeeeeeek! It's Christians! And They're Praying!

Antonia Zerbisias offers an odd definition of "intimidation"

Toronto Star columnist Antonia Zerbisias has long been a not-so-subetly-kept secret of Canada's loony left (a category of left wingers who should be considered a subcategory of the hateful left, themselves a category of left wingers).

Parading her political thought under the guise of mainstream respectability, Zerbisias has, on occasion, let her true nature slip through the facade -- such as when she suggested Dick Cheney should shoot Michelle Malkin in the face and more recently, when she questioned Irwin Cotler's loyalty to Canada on account of his children volunteering for the Israeli Defense Forces.

But, as is so often the case with individuals such as Zerbisias, it seems that whatever lunacy or silliness (however the case may be) has transpired to date may only be the tip of the iceberg.

Zerbisias recently suggested that Christians embarking on an ambitious new protest campaign against abortion are actually out to intimidate women seeking abortions.

"The birds of `pray' who will be targeting women's clinics in Canadian cities for the next 40 days really don't care about saving lives," Zerbisias wrote. "If they did, they wouldn't be so much about intimidating the desperate women and girls who are seeking abortions."

Intimidation? That sounds truly horrible. Certainly, any rational person would want to know precisely what it is that these "birds of pray" are doing that is so intimidating.

As it turns out, Zerbisias' comments refer to the 40 Days for Life campaign being staged by various anti-abortion groups. For 40 days they'll be praying and fasting outside of abortion clinics, as well as conducting a door-to-door petition.

Intimidation!

Of course, any rational individual would wait for actual violence to occur as part of the 40 Days for Life campaign -- or at least some kind of threat -- before accusing them of indimidation.

Perhaps something like one of the participants in the 40 Days for Life campaign were to pull a gun on a woman seeking an abortion. It isn't as if Zerbisias' cohorts in the extreme pro-abortion movement haven't made any excuses for such incidents.

Hell, some of them have even participated in acts of intimidation.

Zerbisias seems to conclude that the praying protesters only want to take women's rights away.

"No matter how much they will attempt to cloak their vigils outside two Toronto clinics with solemn vows to 'never stop defending life,' their true agenda is unveiled by their lack of support for babies once they're born, their often impoverished mothers and the kind of sex education and contraception accessibility that would avoid abortion in the first place," Zerbisias insists. "Nowhere on 40DaysForLife.com is there any discussion of any of these matters."

"That's why it's easy to assume that what the anti-choice movement is really about is exactly that: no choice for women," Zerbisias continues. "No choice when it comes to their reproductive rights, no choice when it comes to being free to pursue independent lives, no choice to have careers, no choice at all."

In the wake of the revelation that the 40 Days for Life website doesn't address post-birth support for single mothers, contraception or sex eduation, one may be willing to say "fair enough" (at least to that fact, if not to her rhetoric).

But then one would wonder what Zerbisias would have to say about anti-abortion organizations -- such as Feminists for Life that do have something to say about the matter.

Among the various resources available via the FFL website include calls to change cultural attitudes toward single parents to create an environment more conducive to single parenthood, notes on how to raise children inexpensively, and advice on how to cope with an unplanned pregnancy.

When writing about Feminists for Life, Zerbisias has failed to mention these things.

For her own part, this isn't particularly damning. But some of Zerbisias' compatriots in the pro-abortion movement have more deliberately overlooked such things. In a column appearing on the Talking Points Memo website, Ruth Rosen accused FfL of being "cleverly disingenuous".

As anyone who paid attention to the various controversies that swirled around former US Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin knows that FfL's slogan is "women deserves better choices".

That at the very least, is something Feminists for Life and the pro-abortion movement should be able to agree on, even if they fundamentally disagree on abortion.

But despite the fact that FfL's website does address some of the issues that Zerbisias criticizes 40 Days for Life for not mentioning, Ruth Rosen makes a rather unsurprising conclusion.

"In the end, I decided that Feminists for Life is neither about feminism nor about choice," Rosen writes. "It is a cunning attempt to convince young women that choice means giving up the right to 'choose.'"

So, it would seem that no matter who is writing, and no matter what the conditions, the pro-abortion movement insists that the anti-abortion movement simply opposes choice -- that they oppose freedom.

Against this general rhetorical backdrop it's hard to treat Zerbisias' commentary as anything other than disingenuous.

In this particular column, that disingenuity begins when she accuses Christians publicly praying of "intimidating" women, and takes deeper root when she follows the typical pro-abortion rhetorical tactic of accusing them of simply hating freedom.

How Myopic!

Sometimes the lack of self-awareness of Canada's extreme left is nothing short of astounding.

That lack of self awareness is particularly evident when one examines the pro-abortion movement. And when one is talking about pro-abortionists who lack self-awarness, one of the first to come to mind is none other than JJ, the proprietor of Unrepentant Old Hippie

In a recent post at that particular percolating cesspool, JJ makes it evident that her ire has been drawn by Lila Rose, whom JJ describes as an "anti-choice fascist" (which is an ironic accusation coming from someone who applauds violence against her anti-abortion opponents).

Rose recently suggested that all abortions be "conducted in the public square".

"I don’t see misogyny behind every tree, but for a few seconds there I saw a hatred of women so raw it was like a slap in the face," JJ writes. "It really makes me wonder about the origins of Ms Rose’s crusade against Planned Parenthood; what she experienced that filled her with such loathing for her own sex."

Ironically, JJ refers readrs to a post at Reproductive Health Reality Check in which Mandy Van Deven sheds some light on JJ's particular affliction.

Of course Van Deven likely doesn't realize how perfectly she's describing the Unrepentant one -- and herself. She's actually writing about Lila Rose when she says:

"Twenty-year-old Lila Rose suffers from a condition that afflicts many new activists, a condition known as myopia. Those who suffer from myopia experience an inability to see nuance in the world and seek comfort in absolutes. While thought to be more pronounced among the young, myopia can infect people of all ages with varying results, and the results of Rose's particular strain of this cerebral infection have only just begun to make themselves known."

The real hilarity ensues once one notices that Van Deven has labelled her post "anti-choice activists".

Like many pro-abortion activists -- and, like JJ -- Van Deven insists on pretending that there can only be one thing that anti-abortion activists really oppose: choice. The argument is that the anti-abortion movement simply opposes freedom.

In the minds of such people there certainly couldn't be anything morally or ethically repugnant about abortion that they oppose. No. To individuals such as JJ and Mandy Van Deven, people like Lila Rose are merely authoritarians seeking to enforce their beliefs on other people.

Likewise, in JJ's mind, Rose couldn't possibly have a moral or ethical objection to abortion -- she simply hates women.

It isn't, after all, as if there are human lives embroiled in the abortion debate -- and more than simply the lives of the mothers carrying these children. In particular, JJ and her ilk have yet to admit that unborn children are human life forms, not merely "clumps of cells".

Lila Rose's rhetorical recommendation that abortions be conducted in the public square -- and it is simply that, a rhetorical tool -- will never be implemented, and with good reason.

But there is one thing to say about the idea, and how it pertains to the wider debate over abortion: it would give people a wider understanding of precisely what abortion entails. This would apply to both early- and late-term abortion. It would very likely have the effect of galvanizing public opposition to late-term abortion, and also increasing permissiveness toward early-term abortion.

There's a reason why the pro-abortion movement is so insistent on preventing the general public from understanding the various nuances of abortion. It's because this kind of understanding threatens the monopoly on the debate they believe they're entitled to.

The truth is that the pro-abortion lobby isn't merely myopic in its very nature, it also wants to spread that myopia to as many people as possible. They've thrived off of it.