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.)

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.

They Truly Are Everything They Claim to Abhor

Anyone who follows the abortion debate in any way, shape or form -- or even watches the news in general -- remembers the pro-abortion lobby's reaction to the murder of Dr George Tiller.

Naturally, they expressed outrage. Normally, there would be nothing at all wrong with this. After all, Dr Tiller's murder was an act of domestic terrorism and any proper-thinking individual should be outraged at it.

The problem with the outrage of the pro-abortion lobby over the matter was that it was entirely feigned. They blamed the pro-abortion lobby as a whole for inciting the murder of Dr Tiller.

Violence, one would think, is where the pro-abortion lobby would draw the line in terms of acceptable action.

Think again.

When 60-year-old James Canfield was nearly run over by an SUV while protesting at an abortion clinic, JJ from Unrepentant Old Hippie immediately moved to try to minimize the incident as much as she could.

As with the previous case of Ed Snell, JJ's attempts to sweep this example of violence against pro-abortion protesters under the carpet was nothing if not utterly revelatory regarding her true attitude regarding violence centred around the issue of abortion:

"It's OK when we do it."

JJ's near-tragic hypocrisy is now on display once again as she mocks another blogger, Jill Stanek, for writing about another case of violence against an anti-abortion protester, yet another one involving a deadly weapon.

The case involves the matter of a man pointing a gun at a pro-abortion protester outside of a Planned Parenthood clinic. Apparently, what she had done to justify the assault is hand the man a pamphlet.

And JJ apparently seems to feel it very much is justified. One only has to look at her comments on the matter:

"Stand back! Looks like some of us are losing our patience."

As if this weren't bad enough, one only has to read on:

"When it comes to firearms, I follow one simple rule of gun safety: never point a gun at something you don’t intend to shoot."

Only in the mind of someone whose views on the topic of abortion are hopelessly extreme could an attitude like this be tolerated.

But one would think that the simple, basic hypocrisy of all of this would at least rend on JJ's conscience, just a little. Anyone who thinks this would be sorely overestimating this individual's self-awareness:

"Anti-choicers seem to think that because they lamely 'denounced' the May 31st murder of yet another doctor by one of their own, everyone will forgive and forget and they can just pick up where they left off on May 30th and carry on with the hateful rhetoric and clinic protests as usual. They don’t seem to realize that for some, Dr Tiller’s murder might have been a game-changer. It might have awakened people to the fact that the violence inherent in the fringe of the anti-choice movement isn’t a series of random one-offs, but part of a larger pattern, and that 'mainstream' anti-choicers share a lot more with their fringe than they’d willingly admit. People are frightened and they’re responding accordingly — that’s why it’s called 'terrorism'."

The twisted logic in a statement like this is nothing if not a little frightening.

JJ's preferred response to the terrorist violence being perpetrated by extremists within the anti-abortion movement is to attempt to embrace violence within the mainstream of those who support abortion.

At least the anti-abortion movement, as a whole, has the class and dignity to push violent anti-abortion activists as far away from their movement as they can and denounce them.

Yet individuals like JJ refuse to perform the same act. There are two reasons for this:

First, individuals like JJ -- and her would-be "sergeant at arms", Mike from (ir)Rational Reasons -- are individuals whose views on abortion are so incredibly extreme that no rational individual would ever find much in common with them on that topic.

Secondly, individuals like JJ -- and Fern Hill, and the rest of JJ's cohorts -- are shameless hypocrites. They are more than willing to embrace violence if it suits their purposes of shutting down debate on the topic of abortion.

This, of course, makes them every bit as bad as the man who murdered Dr George Tiller. They know this. They understand this. They simply refuse to admit it publicly, pretending as if that somehow makes a difference.

It doesn't.

The Not-So-Fine Art of Keeping Your Fucking Story Straight, For Fuck's Sake

Pro-abortion zealots can't seem to stick to one reason to try to label all anti-abortion activists as terrorists

The sad, sad story to emerge out of the assassination of Dr George Tiller only continues to unfold. Perhaps this man's martyrdom will continue into perpetuity.

In the immediate aftermath of Dr Tiller's assassination, various pro-abortion bloggers tried to pin it as squarely on the anti-abortion movement as a whole as they possibly could.

Their argument at the time was that the "abortion is murder" rhetoric employed by so many members of the anti-abortion lobby was responsible for encouraging -- perhaps even mandating -- Dr Tiller's murder.

Consider this particular passage from Mike from (ir)Rational Reasons:

"I cannot express in words the rage I am feeling right now.

Not just at the fact that Dr. George Tiller, an abortion provider specializing in medically-necessary late-term abortions, was murdered today. No, I am enraged by those who whipped the hatred against this man, who did everything to encourage his murder, are suddenly pretending they had nothing to do with it.

Damn them all. All of them.

Randall Terry. SUZANNE. The Catholic Church. The Army of God.

All of them. They are the same. They purposely espouse violent rhetoric, celebrate past perpetrators of violence and murderers as 'martyrs' and try to create false moral equivalence with a medial procedure and a planned premeditated murder of a 67-year-old professional, father and grandfather."

Interestingly enough at least one of the individuals Mike points his spiteful finger at denounced Dr Tiller's murder in no uncertain terms.

But for Mike, it didn't matter. Suzanne Fortin had, in the past, argued in the "abortion is murder" vein, and so was responsible for Dr Tiller's murder.

JJ from Unrepentant Old Hippie, at the time, echoed those sentiments.

Yet when one considers a post from Unrepentant Old Hippie today, one has to recognize the extent to which their story has changed. Now, the anti-abortion lobby isn't responsible for Dr Tiller's murder as a result of "abortion is murder" rhetoric. Now, they're being held responsible because not enough anti-abortion activists have denounced the act:

"While it would be oversimplification to suggest they’re all terrorists, there’s no doubt that the anti-abortion movement harbours a disproportionately high number of them, and too few who unequivocally condemn the violence and actively work to marginalize such people. Some call that 'giving safe haven'. I call it 'being onside'."

Naturally, that brings one to the recent case of the vehicular assault on James Canfield.

As with prior incidents of violence perpetrated against anti-abortion activists, JJ herself has failed to condemn this act.

In fact, it's much, much worse than that. Compare what actually happened:

"According to witness statements gathered by police, Haver allegedly tried to strike 60-year-old protestor James Canfield with a 1991 GMC sports utility vehicle at the Planned Parenthood office on Vallombrosa Avenue. "

With JJ's description of it:

"Following in the footsteps of the infamous Ed Snell, a couple of days ago in Chico California yet another old fetus fetishizing fart, writhing in the throes of an indignance high in front of the local Planned Parenthood he was harassing, was uninjured but shaken after an SUV passed in his general vicinity."

Apparently, not only will JJ not condemn the violence against Canfield, but she won't even discuss the incident honestly for what it was.

So herein lies the problem with JJ's particular line of argument: if the anti-abortion movement is responsible for the murder of Dr Tiller because too few of its members denounced the violence, how can it be that JJ and her cohorts would expect to argue that they aren't at least partially responsible for the violence against James Canfield?

They've not only failed, but refused to denounce that kind of violence in the past. They attempt to minimize it terms that are nothing less than absolutely shameful -- imagine their outrage if some anti-abortion dingus had suggested that the bullet that killed Dr Tiller had just "passed too close to his general vicinity".

But therein lies the rub. The outrage over abortion-centred violence seems extremely selective to this particular crowd. If the violence is being perpetrated against them, they milk it for maximum rhetorical advantage.

If the violence is being perpetrated against their opponents, they cheer it.

The saddest part of all is that they can't even keep their fucking story straight while they're doing it.

So Let's Talk About This "Depressing Regularity" Thing

Either pregnant women and unborn children need protection, or they don't

Those who pay any amount of even passing attention to Unrepentant Old Hippie JJ may recall her response to Bill C-484, also known as the Fetal Homicide Bill, or the Unborn Victims of Crime Bill.

For her own part, JJ was against it. She fell in with a broader movement of pro-abortion advocates insisting that such a bill wasn't necessary. Among some of the arguments offered by that movement was that attacks on pregnant women don't happen often enough to warrant special legal protection.

Fast forward to today, when JJ declared her support for a bill in Oklahoma that would allow women to use deadly force in defense of their unborn children:

"I’m absolutely all for people having the right to self-defend, and I unequivocally support the choice of women to carry their pregnancies to term, and to protect themselves doing it. Though being armed and full of rampaging hormones doesn’t sound like the best possible scenario, this law is clearly meant for at-risk women (ie. in bad relationships) so we’re unlikely to see a 'maternity holster' anytime soon. Although it’s disheartening that there’s even a need for such a law, given the Michigan story and the fact that pregnant women are attacked with such depressing regularity, maybe it’s not such a bad thing."

It's an interesting view on the issue that JJ's taken here.

Certainly, there's no reason in the world why women shouldn't be allowed to decide whether or not they'll carry a pregnancy to term -- at least within reasonable limits based on the unborn child's stage of development. And certainly they should be protected from the uninvited intervention of another person.

But one of the pro-abortion arguing points in opposing bill C-484 was that these attacks don't happen frequently enough to warrant passing a special law.

Apparently, according to JJ, they do happen frequently enough to warrant passing a law that would allow women to kill in defense of their unborn children.

It's a head-scratcher, to be certain -- just another hypocritically self-conflictual intellectual self-indulgence that JJ is rapidly becoming known for (things like supporting abortion legislation that would apply to women south of the 49th parallel while vociferously opposing them ot of principle in Canada). It comes down to a very simple question: do pregnant women need protection or not?

JJ -- unlike many of those who joined her in opposing legal protection for pregnant women -- seems to finally admit that they do.

The base silliness of JJ's support for this particular means of protection over the other -- in which a stronger deterrent is provided by criminalizing assaults on unborn children -- appears fully in its abject silliness when one considers the fact that most pregnant women lack the means to defend themselves physically.

Pregnancy is known to be very physically taxing on women. Many pregnant women have difficulty performing ordinary tasks due to the added burden of carrying their child. Most of them would find it more difficult still to exercise lethal force against an assailant.

Not to mention the fact that some men prove more creative in terminating a pregnancy than resorting to physical violence. Consider the case of Gary Bourgeois, who secretly administered a toxic ulcer medication to his pregnant girlfriend while she slept.

Bourgeois' girlfriend had chosen not to have an abortion. His act -- which his sleeping girlfriend was evidently incapable of responding to, with deadly force or otherwise -- was an act of premeditated murder, for which he got off with a sentence of one year in prison because Canadian law doesn't recognize that men like Bourgeois can premeditate murder on the unborn.

Yet JJ seems to feel comfortable supporting a law that would legalize an option that many pregnant women realistically do not have because "the bill doesn’t seem to make abortion any less legal" (bill C-484 exlplicitly forbade its application in cases of abortion), "doesn’t declare the fetus has any civil rights" (protection from violence isn't a civl right, defined as rights imparted specifically to the citizen, protection from violence is a legal right most societies impart even to inanimate property and animals), and "couldn’t be used as a defense for some anti-abortion nut who shoots a doctor" (nor could Bill C-484).

She goes on to explain that "Unlike the typical 'Unborn Victims of Crime' acts, this bill doesn’t focus on the fetus and allude to it as an individual victim, but rather centers on the mother’s right to protect it."

Yet JJ's support of this law clearly overestimates the average pregnant woman's ability to defend herself or her unborn child. It was largely due to the vulnerability of pregnant women -- and, obviously, their unborn children -- that the additional deterrent was called for.

But god forbid that the law offer protection to pregnant women and their unborn children under any terms other than those approved by the pro-abortion lobby -- even if those terms provide scant protection, before or after the act.

Bad History Revisited

The controversy over Kathy Shaidle's appearance on TVO's The Agenda has bubbled forth in various forms.

First, there was Warren Kinsella's campaign to have her appearance on the show cancelled. Then there's the aftermath -- allegations that Kinsella attempted to intimidate the show's host, Steve Paikin, into cancelling his appearance.

Left-wing blogger and known anti-Semite Robert McClelland edited an excerpt out of the video in which he insists that "Dr Robert Buckman slaps down the 'Stalin killed in the name of atheism' talking point favoured by right wing pundits like Kathy Shaidle".

Shaidle's adversaries have jumped all over the video, frantically pointing to it as evidence of Shaidle's alleged stupidity.

In the video, Shaidle confronts Buckman over the relationship between atheism and Joseph Stalin's murderous acts.



Clearly, Buckman hasn't read all the books about Joseph Stalin or the Soviet Union.

If he really had he would be aware of a Soviet organization known as the League of the Militant Godless, and what Joseph Stalin did in 1936 when he entrenched not merely atheism, but anti-religiosity in the Soviet constitution.

Historians credit the pressure applied by the League of the Militant Godless with allowing Stalin to make this move which allowed him to dispossess the Russian Orthodox Church of various Church properties, although Stalin softened his policy toward the Church when he needed them during WWII.

So if Buckman wants to admit that Stalin killed people "because they were religion" even as he entrenched anti-religion in the Russian Constitution, he can't honestly pretend that these two things weren't related.

On the other hand Buckman insists that suggesting that Stalin killed in the name of atheism is like suggesting that Adolph Hitler, a vegetarian, killed in the name of vegetarianism. Again, Buckman is overlooking the nuances of history in order to make this argument.

After all, vegetarianism was not entrenched in the Constitution of the Third Reich. (Nor, for that matter, was atheism.) The anti-religious cause, however, was entrenched in the Soviet constitution.

Anyone who has done their research on the relationship between the Soviet Union and religion knows about these things. If Buckman has really read the books, as he insists he has, then his performance on The Agenda isn't merely ignorance, it's willful ignorance.

Individuals such as Robert McClelland take this a step forward when they edit the video to make it seem as if it were Shaidle who brought the issue up in the first place. Quite the contrary, it was Buckman himself who brought up the question of how many people religion has allegedly killed.

As far as Joseph Stalin, his victims and atheism are concerned, Dr Buckman's assertion is not only bad history, but indeed atrocious history.

Unsurprisngly, people like McClelland, JJ and Lulu don't know the difference.

And Now, Finally, Some Answers

Some Nexus readers may recall a pair of "bring it" challenges issued by Unrepentant Old Hippie JJ.

Readers may also remember that, despite at least on one occasion agreeing to answer the questions posed to her as a response to her "bring it" challenge, JJ has yet to respond.

That is, at least, until now.

Responding to one of the questions asked -- the question over whether or not doctors in Canada should have their right to perform an abortion they judge to be unethical protected -- JJ has finally seen fit to answer:

"And I've answered it on multiple occasions, Patrick, but once more for the road: doctors are not *forced* to do any procedure they don't want to. In one of several previous answers (At what point here did JJ forget that she refused to answer the question on one occasion, and just plain didn't on another? -ed) to this same question from you, I cited the example of my own pro-life GP, who rather than specialize in gynecology (because it would involve doing abortions) chose to specialize in pediatrics. That's the path most doctors would choose.

That may not be the answer you want, but it's not going to change no matter how many times you ask me the same question."

This would seem like a satisfactory argument.

Except that, as it turns out, JJ herself isn't really in favour of things staying this way.

Take, for example, the following comment from known anti-semite Robert McClelland over at JJ's own blog:

"We should have the debate but it shouldn’t be the debate the fetus fetishists want. The debate we should be having is whether or not to enshrine women’s reproductive rights in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms."

To be fair, this wasn't really JJ's idea. But then again:

"Robert - Right on! That’s one debate I hope we can have very soon, with the outcome of having reproductive rights protected in a way that’s untouchable."

The problem with this, of course, is that entrenching abortion "rights" in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms would actually enable women to litigate against doctors who refuse to perform abortions.

As the pro-abortion lobby will insist at length, Dr Henry Morgentaler himself had admirable ethical reservations about late-term abortions, and refused to perform them.

Yet if Robert McClelland had his way, women would have an unquestionable right to abortions -- likely under any circumstances. Thus, doctors such as Henry Morgentaler could actually face legal action in civil court or before a human rights commission.

In other words, JJ is opposed to legislation protecting a doctor's right to choose to refuse to perform an abortion they deem to be unethical. Even as she is doing this, she's advocating for a course of action that would erase a physician's right to choose. If this had been done prior to Dr Morgentaler's retirement, Morgentaler himself would almost certainly be subjected to legal action for refusing to perform an unethical late-term abortion.

If she and her pro-abortion cohorts were successful to this end, not only would legislative protection for doctors become necessary, but it would also be unattainable. The only way for the government to protect doctors the pro-abortion lobby would be trying to punish for their sense of ethics would be to either entrench that protection in the Charter, or invoke the notwithstanding clause.

Invoking the notwithstanding clause on any issue even remotely related to abortion is almost certainly something the pro-abortion lobby would never tolerate.

It's hard to overlook the obvious overtones of a pro-abortion hidden agenda here. The pro-abortion lobby would insist that their advocacy is merely in favour of choice. Yet while they insist that protection for a doctor's right to choose is unnecessary, they on the other hand call for a course of action that would permanently and "untouchably" deny doctors their right to choose.

It's just another example of the two-faced nature of the pro-abortion lobby: pretending to be moderate in public, then plotting their extreme agenda when they think no one's looking.

The Intellectual Slavishness of Mallick Worship

"Nothing wrong here", says Unrepentant Old Hippie

As the Mighty Wind of outrage sweeps through the United States and Canada concerning Heather Mallick and her extremely intemperate and, frankly, loonish comments regarding American Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin, it's unsurprising that a few members of Canada's extreme left is lining up alongside her in the impending scrum.

Among them, naturally, is Unrepentant Old Hippie JJ, who thinks there's nothing at all wrong with Mallick's extreme commentary, and that so-called right-wing "moonbats" are simply milking "fauxtrage".

However, what JJ in particular seems to miss is the impliations of Mallick's comments on her own personal pet cause -- the pro-abortion lobby.

Now, as with all intellectually dishonest pro-abortion lobbyists, JJ will be among the first to insist that she isn't, in fact, pro-abortion. Instead, she insists, she's pro-choice -- and yet, under the "wrong" circumstances will actually oppose choice and refuse to answer qeustions about that.

Yet when one takes a close second look at Mallick's comments about the much-maligned Briston Palin, it doesn't take a drastic intellectual leap of faith to understand the broader implications:

"Palin has a toned-down version of the porn actress look favoured by this decade's woman, the overtreated hair, puffy lips and permanently alarmed expression. Bristol has what is known in Britain as the look of the teen mum, the "pramface." Husband Todd looks like a roughneck; Track, heading off to Iraq, appears terrified. They claim to be family obsessed while being studiously terrible at parenting. What normal father would want Levi "I'm a fuckin' redneck" Johnson prodding his daughter?

I know that I have an attachment to children that verges on the irrational, but why don't the Palins? I'm not the one preaching homespun values but I'd destroy that ratboy before I'd let him get within scenting range of my daughter again, and so would you.

...

Who delivered this line: "To do then now would be retro. To do then then was very now-tro, if you will." Was it Rev. James Dobson of Focus on the Family talking about Bristol Palin's shotgun wedding or was it a flashback to the Kingston Trio?"

It's not too hard to get the gist of Mallick's comments: Palin's relationship with the equally-maligned Levi Johnson is a disgrace, and the pregnancy resulting from it doubly so.

Never mind the fact that Mallick -- and those who, like her, are delighting themselves in throwing darts at what they've picked out as a vulnerable bullseye -- have never actually met Levi Johnson, and are extremely ill-equipped to judge his character.

Yet the question that remains is this: if Bristol Palin were to do what individuals such as Mallick seem to insist that she should and break off her relationship with Johnson -- again, something that these people actually know very little about, aside that a teen pregnancy has resulted from it -- what would be her alternatives?

This is a very simple question to answer: single parenthood, or an abortion.

Either way, Bristol Palin would spend a significant portion of her life carrying the very real stigma that still accompanies single teenaged parenthood: in short, damned if you do, damned if you don't.

If Palin were decide to keep that child, she would face numerous disadvantages -- economically and socially. Whether individuals like Mallick or JJ care to admit it or not, society still tends to treat unwed teenage mothers as "tramps", "sluts", "whores", or any number of other epithets. This stigma encompasses nearly every facet of the young mother's life, both economically and socially.

Worse yet, after the child is born and continues to grow through their school years, that stigma will begin to attach itself to the child, instead.

Then, of course, there's an alternative: abortion. Once again, after having recieved an abortion, the young woman would still carry a very similar label. She would still be regarded as a "tramp", "slut" or "whore", and would actually have to double that with the "baby killer" epithet that the more extreme elements of the anti-abortion lobby would inevitably heave upon her.

The difference, of course, being, that at least after having had an abortion, the young woman in question could at least move somewhere else to escape that stigma (unless, of course, you're living under a media microscope, as Bristol Palin is).

While gleefully rushing to label Bristol's mother as a "toned down porn star", Mallick doesn't seem interested in coming to Bristol Palin's defense, as she's labelled a "slut" in a very public manner.

Defeating the public stigma surrounding teenage pregnancy would go a long way toward empowering young women like Bristol Palin to keep their babies without keeping their (actual or alleged) "ratboy" boyfriends.

But Mallick seems very disinterested in that. Especially not when there are partisan political points to be scored -- in a foreign country, no less -- by helping pile it on.

It would take very little for Heather Mallick -- or JJ, for that matter -- to do the right thing by coming out and admitting that Bristol Palin's pregnancy is a private matter, and not a political football to kick around. Instead, we find JJ fetching Mallick the kicking tee in the extremely fickle name of pissing off some "wingnuts".

In Mallick's view, Bristol Palin is a "pramface", her fiancee a "ratboy", soon to be joined in a "shotgun wedding". "White trash", all around. A "slutty", "trampy", "whorish" "Alaskan Hillbilly".

There is, of course, the matter of thousands of other unwed teenaged mothers-to-be in the Unites States, likely taking note of the public humiliation being heaped on Bristol Palin and her family and thinking that an abortion is a much more attractive option than socially stigmatized single parenthood.

And JJ and Heather Mallick, north of the 49th parrallel, fiddling while their alleged "pro-choice" Rome burns to the ground.

They certainly insist that they don't favour abortion, and would prefer that women seek out other options. The other option, however, involves a great deal of social hardship -- and when the one who would suffer such hardship happens to be the daughter of an ideological enemy, all bets are off.

On a fairly similar vein, there's always Martin Rayner and his insistence that "well, other people are doing it, too".

Which doesn't make it any more acceptable, and one can expect that Bill Maher will be taken to task for his comments in time as well.

Then, there's the naturally-emerging protest that "well, the other guys do it, too!" Likely that's what Mallick herself meant when she told herself to "think like a Republican".

The problem with this being that dragging Bristol Palin through the mud in order to get at her mother is no less wrong than right-wing activists targetting the families of their political opponents. (No intellectually honest individual could pretend that such things have never happened.) And while it's abhorrent when right-wingers do it, it's equally abhorrent when left-wingers like Mallick do it.

Which, of course, takes one away from the point: when one considers all the social implications of Mallick's attitude toward Bristol Palin, it actually turns out that her comments regarding Sarah Palin are only the tip of the iceberg.

That's the irony of the entire affair: slavish Mallick worshippers, claiming to be feminists, lining up against the interests of legitimate feminism.

Well, Let's Give the Crazy Lady What She Wants

JJ says "bring it". Time to do precisely that

Sometimes, the only thing more amusing than dimwits who lie to try to cover up their mistakes are ideologues who can't even comprehend the very idea of possibly being wrong in the first place.

Such would be the case with JJ, the crazed proprietor of Unrepentant Old Hippie, who recently offered up this amusing little gem:

"In marathoning it's called "hitting the wall". I don't know if there's a blogging equivalent, but after 10 days of frenzied blogging in the wake of Dr. M's OC appointment and the barrage of batshit bullshit that followed, I was suddenly exhausted. I couldn't stand to read or even think about one more word of the steaming loads of bullshit being dumped by the "busload" on blogs and in the media over this topic and the tangential abortion issue. I was tired, man.

Normally bullshit is great incentive to blog -- it shouldn't be ignored because there's a chance that some unsuspecting person out there might believe it. Bullshit should be shot down whenever and wherever it's found and its sanctimonious, stupid and self-righteous propagators ridiculed with gusto. But these people are first and foremost propaganda-bots who never budge from their script, even in the face of evidence that contradicts them. In advertising we used to call it "Wearing down their resistance with repetition". The same kind of psychology is at work with anti-abortion propagandists -- knowing full well that the numbers aren't on their side, their only hope is to wear down resistance with an endless loop of lies. To literally exhaust people into seeing things their way."

After taking a short time-out to trot out the latest "anti-choice outrage" she disagrees with, JJ ends her post with an invitation to any and all who would dare disagree with her. "Bring it!" she insists.

Well, OK. Only if we really have to.

Because ironically, this could very much be treated as one of those instances in which a person, searching for that perfect epithet to hurl at their opponents, describes themselves most acurately.

In this case, it revolves around JJ's insistence that those who disagree with her are "first and foremost propaganda-bots who never budge from their script, even in the face of evidence that contradicts them."

Considering that refusing to acknowledge evidence that contradicts her is a privilege JJ has indulged herself in at length, it's impossible to take her seriously on this particular point.

But despite all the extremist craziness that has transpired before -- such as defending an assault on a 69-year-old man for expressing anti-abortion views -- JJ deserves an opportunity to prove herself. The following is an email sent to JJ in response to her little diatribe today:

"JJ,

I read with some interest your recent blog post "On Bullshit and Breaks", and really couldn't help but agree that, yes, the whole Morgentaler controversy SHOULD be given a rest. After all, it isn't as if this is the nobel prize we're talking about here.

But I couldn't help but read, with some amusement, your comments regarding your anti-abortion opponents. Most notably:

"Bullshit should be shot down whenever and wherever it's found and its sanctimonious, stupid and self-righteous propagators ridiculed with gusto. But these people are first and foremost propaganda-bots who never budge from their script, even in the face of evidence that contradicts them. In advertising we used to call it "Wearing down their resistance with repetition". The same kind of psychology is at work with anti-abortion propagandists -- knowing full well that the numbers aren't on their side, their only hope is to wear down resistance with an endless loop of lies. To literally exhaust people into seeing things their way."

I found this statement to be rather ironic and amusing considering that, if anything, it describes yourself and your allies in the pro-abortion lobby as well as anyone else.

In particular, your characterization of them as "propaganda-bots who never budge from their script, even in the face of evidence that contradicts them".

In this vein, I'd like to "bring it" by positing the following facts, to see if we can get you, yourself, to budge from that precious script of yours:

1. You, like virtually all pro-abortion activists opposed to bill C-484, insist that it's nothing more than a back-door attempt to criminalize abortion. Yet fetal homicide acts are in effect in numerous states in the United States. Yet in none of those states has abortion been declared illegal.

2. You, like virtually all pro-abortion activists, oppose any attempt to legislate when an abortion can or cannot be sought on demand (without relevant health-related concerns), often insisting that such legislation would be nothing more than a back-door attempt to criminalize abortion. Yet France, Germany, Norway and Sweden (amongst other countries) have legislated a 20-week limit after which a woman must have medical concerns in order to obtain an abortion. Abortion has yet to be criminalized in any of these countries.

3. You, like virtually all pro-abortion activists, insist that legislation such as that described in point number two is unnecessary because no doctor would perform a late-term abortion without sufficient medical reason due to the procedure being judged to be unethical. Yet you oppose legislation that would legally protect the right of such doctors to refuse to perform that procedure for ethical, moral or religious reasons.

4. You, like virtually all pro-abortion activists continue to insist that you are not, in fact, pro-abortion, but rather pro-choice. Yet you, like virtually all pro-abortion activists, oppose the aforementioned legislation that would protect freedom of choice for doctors who hold opinions regarding abortion that differ from your own.

These are dilemmas that have never been addressed adequately by any member of the pro-abortion lobby, least of all yourself.

In fact you, like virtually all members of the pro-abortion lobby, have stuck very adamantly to the positions outlined here despite the fact they have never been adequately defended. Not much unlike "propaganda-bots who never budge from their script, even in the face of evidence that contradicts them".

Considering the position you've taken today, I'm hoping you'll finally find it in yourself to address these various dilemmas.

You may feel free to do so in a response email (but should understand before doing so that I intend to post such a response to a subsequent post on my own blog in order to outline your response), in a post on your own blog, or even in the comments section of The Nexus.

You've asked those who disagree with you to "bring it". I've done precisely that. Hopefully, you'll put your money where your mouth is.

Regards,
-Patrick Ross"

Well, she did say to "bring it".

Now we'll have to wait and see if she's actually up to her own challenge on this one. Stay tuned.

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.

Unrepentant Old Hippie: Reporting From the Land of Oz

Opponents to Bill C-484 continue to live in a fantasy world

One really has to hand it to Canada's pro-abortion lobby: they really are determined to live in a fantasy world, and nothing -- nothing -- can shake them out of it.

Readers of the Nexus may recall some recent flights of fantasy from Joyce Arthur, the coordinator of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada, wherein Arthur promoted hysteria surrounding the Bill.

In a post today, JJ -- also known as the Unrepentant Old Hippie -- chooses to indulge herself in her own flight of pure fantasy, in which she suggests that, by golly, proponents of Bill C-484 just can't explain how Bill C-484 would protect pregnant women:

"Oh, I'm boiling over now. Yeoww! I just read an editorial that ran a few days ago in the Ottawa Citizen, written by MP Ken Epp, sponsor of the nefarious Bill C-484 (aka the Kicking Abortion's Ass bill). In the article, Epp wondered why pro-choicers would be so anxious about his harmless little Kicking Abortion's Ass bill. He huffed:

"There is something seriously wrong with our system when the so-called "right" to end a pregnancy takes away another pregnant woman's right to have her wanted baby protected in law."

Fetus fetishists foamed and frothed and cheered, and who could blame them -- that's one of the greatest PR slogans since "Coke Is It". Short, emotive and completely devoid of substance. That's why those who support this odious bill are never able to respond when asked to elaborate on just how Bill C-484 protects a woman and/or her fetus. No substance, no answer forthcoming."

Oh, no?

Perhaps it would shock JJ to find out that the -- extremely simple -- answer to that question has been provided. In fact, it's been provided right here:

"If individuals like [Gary] Bourgeois had to worry about facing charges related to crimes against two victims, the deterrent would be that much stronger.

What, after all, would make a stronger deterrent: a few extra years in jail for crimes against a single victim? Or (providing that consecutive sentencing is instituted) 26 years for crimes against two victims?"

And here:

"to pretend that Bill C-484 will do nothing to reduce violence ignores the very principles upon which criminal law protects society: punishment, rehabilitation and deterrent.

Under current law, an individual who kills an unborn child without killing the mother will be charged with aggravated assault at worst. Under Bill C-484, that individual would be charged with murder, which covers a much higher penalty, and thus a greater deterrent. It certainly won't prevent all violence against pregnant women and their unborn children, but it will be a start."

This principle remains rather simple: in Canada, aggravated assault carries a maximum sentence of 14 years.

Murder, on the other hand, carries a maximum sentence of life in prison. First degree murder, in particular, carries a penalty of an automatic life sentence with no eligibility of parole for 25 years.

Under Bill C-484, an individual who attacks a pregnant woman and kills her child without killing her would be charged with at least a count of aggravated assault (against the mother) and murder (to whatever degree applicable) against her unborn child.

Thus, the deterrent is much stronger.

This particular point really uncovers the implicit irony in JJ's argument: she insists that no proponent of Bill C-484 has explained how the bill would help protect women -- a claim that is categorically false.

"Here's the substance, baby, the meat of the matter: Bill C-484 does nothing, diddly, squat, nada to protect a woman's wanted baby, and any rhetoric about the "protection" this bill provides is nothing but a steaming load of bullshit of the highest order. All C-484 does, and all it was ever meant to do, is give the fetus post-mortem recognition as a victim of a crime. From there it's a short hop to fetal personhood rights, and then the contentious issue of whose rights trump in the event of an unwanted pregnancy."

Yet, JJ and her ilk have yet to explain to anyone how the bill wouldn't protect women, and have yet to explain how some of their propositions -- in particular, universal child care -- would.

Furthermore, in the United States, 37 states have enacted Fetal Homicide Bills, and they have yet to lead to a wholesale outlawing of abortion as the pro-abortion movement insists that it would.

But that's the appeal of living in a fantasy world: one can pretend that such simple facts aren't so -- a luxury individuals like JJ wouldn't enjoy if they were to wake up to the real world.

Truth Hurts

Better ban it

Apparently, the cognitive dissonance being experienced over at Unrepentant Old Hippie has simply become too much to take.

"I have a lot of patience, but even I have limits. You can come here and be a jerk, insult people, and falsely attribute things to me that I never said -- but only for so long. Then it becomes trolling -- annoying and boring."

Except that you did say those things, JJ. All of them.

Banning people from your Haloscan is one thing, but you'll never delete your own shame -- and you definitely have cause to be ashamed.

The Orwellian Logic of the Pro-Abortion Lobby

"Please pay no attention to the facts behind the curtain"

As the rescheduled debate regarding Bill C-484 (the Unborn Victims of Crime Bill) approaches, there seems to be a last-minute panic spreading through the pro-abortion lobby that are so determined to defeat the bill, as they seem to recognize that their talking points simply aren't up to snuff.

In the latest attempt to convince people to oppose the bill, the argument seems to be that the bill would somehow result in convicted offenders serving shorter sentences.

Unfortunately for the pro-abortion lobby, however, this particular assertion simply isn't true.

In the most bizarre example of the counter-factual nonsense being forwarded one particular blogger suggests that a recent suggestion by Conservative MP Tom Lukiwiski that consecutive sentencing be reinstituted alongside Bill C-484 as evidence that the bill isn't really about justice, and is merely an attempt to recriminalize abortion (despite the fact that the bill only applies to criminal offenses, and doesn't introduce any new crimes).

But do these people really understand the difference between consecutive sentencing and concurrent sentencing? Obviously not.

Even under concurrent sentencing, it turns out that this latest talking point from the pro-abortion lobby turns out to be flagrantly false. The Public Safety Canada website turns out to be very educational.

Under Bill C-484, the crown would retain the option of charging an offender separately for the crime committed against a pregnant woman and the harm done to her unborn child.

Under concurrent sentencing, convicted offenders serve both sentences at the same time. However, if sentenced for two offenses on which they were tried separately, the second sentence doesn't take effect until the date of the conviction.

The case study offers an example of an offender convicted for one offense, receiving a three-year sentence, then is convicted of another offense two years later, extending their sentence thusly:


As such in this particular case the offender would wind up serving a five-year sentence as opposed to merely a three-year sentence:


Note that this is a longer, not shorter, sentence.

In the case, specifically, of consecutive sentencing, the case turns out much differently:


The second sentence doesn't begin until after the first has expired, guaranteeing a much longer sentence regardless of how soon the offender was tried and convicted:


As such, not only is the most recent talking point from the pro-abortion lobby counter-factual, it's also a phantom of straw man arguments from days gone by, when it was suggested that instituting consecutive sentencing would increase support for capital punishment, when all the evidence suggests that consecutive sentencing decreases support for capital punishment.

But thus is the Orwellian logic of the Canadian pro-abortion lobby. Why would Bill C-484 result in shorter sentences for convicted offenders? Because the pro-abortion lobby says so, regardless of whether or not that's actually true.

Just as with the rather peculiar claim that the suggestion that Canada institute consecutive sentencing provisions in the criminal code is somehow proof that Bill C-484 is about abortion rather than justice, or with claims that pregnant women in the US have been charged under fetal homicide acts despite the fact that this has never happened. Why is it so? Because they say so.

It's rather characteristic of those who, in true Orwellian fashion, bank on the ignorance of the public.

Hopefully, the Canadian public will turn out to be a good deal less ignorant than the pro-abortion lobby is banking on.