Elizabeth’s May Day

My goodness. The way Elizabeth May is courting Judy Rebick and doing damage control these days, you’d think she ran over Rebick’s imaginary child or something. Ooops. Sorry. We are talking about abortion here. No room for any rights but a woman’s. All this groveling by Ms. May is rather comical. Here we have 2 feminists who don’t want to open up the question of abortion’s legal status in this country, yet are having a little spat over whether it’s prudent to at least talk about the issue.

Elizabeth May is a politician. She knows that most Canadians are not comfortable with the whole issue and they are far from the pro-abort zealot that Judy Rebick is. Instead Ms. May wants to talk in terms of practical things to bridge the divide (i.e. addressing the conditions which make abortion prevalent, the responsibility of both partners, etc.), and therefore she is looking at the mushy middle where most Canadians see themselves. Judy Rebick however is a feminist’s feminist. Pure as the virgin snow. She doesn’t want May to touch this issue with a 40 foot condom. She’s not looking for consensus or understanding. She just wants everyone to acknowledge that abortion is the best invention since the light bulb. More on this later.

Ms. May, on the other hand, also knows that many pro-lifers are looking for a small opening to give us an excuse to vote Green this next election. All of the Federal Party leaders look basically the same on this issue so any concession by a new federal party leader who has a good chance to make some inroads in the next election could be just ticket to pick up a lot more votes. Socons, who are not at all pegged to the fiscal conservative spectrum of the Conservative Party, are looking very closely at the Green Party. They are just hunkering to dump Mr. Muzzle after the Montreal convention and the same-sex “marriage” farce of a vote.

Before getting to Ms. May’s letter, let’s here what Mark Francis, a liberal blogger, has to say:

I would hope that people upset with Elizabeth would come to realize that she’s an ally, not an enemy. After all, she’s pro-life in her personal outlook, but pro-choice politically, and is comfortable with her position. In other words, she is an example of a prominent person who has bridged the gulf between pro-choice and pro-life. Why Judy Rebick wishes to alienate her is beyond me. (Source)

Well, there is no bridge wide enough for this gulf, Mark. Just as there is no coherent, philosophically consistent position between someone who believes in a moral issue personally but is not willing to take that stand politically. In the old days, such a person would be called a “coward”. A coward is a person who is afraid, for some sort of personal loss, to take a stand for what they know is right or wrong. Ms. May knows abortion is wrong, but she still allows the law to reflect this error and has the temerity to actually insist that it should not be changed.

As for not understanding why Judy Rebick is so uptight with Liz May, one only has to understand that all those hard fought “gains” (measured in pounds of flesh, I don’t doubt) are susceptible to claw back when dialogue on peripheral issues surrounding abortion is engaged. In other words, don’t talk about restricting or preventing abortion IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM. Otherwise, it will be the first step on a very short slippery slope. This is likely Judy Rebick’s mindset. But it is not, quite obviously, the mindset of a politician who has to be a proverbial marshmellow to get elected.

So let’s now turn to some excerpts from Elizabeth May’s letter which is being kindly hosted on a left wing forum, financed by our tax dollars no less. My comments are in red.

Let’s revisit the basics.

Is the Green Party strongly in favour of a woman’s right to access a safe and legal abortion? Yes.
Am I personally strongly in favour of a woman’s right to access a safe and legal abortion? Yes.
(In fact, I am concerned that there is progress to be made to ensure access through enhancing availability of abortion providers. More work needs to be done to ensure access.)
Of course. Of course. We know. The slaughter must continue unabated, and access to the slaughter houses and incinerators must also be improved.

Have I ever suggested we should re-open a debate on the issue? No. I never said a woman’s right to choose trivialized anything. Not ever. So, what is the kerfuffle about?

The kerfuffle, Liz, is that you are a politician looking to play both ends of the question. Although you are trying to make a very lame attempt at addressing our position, it’s still too dangerous to the “Abortionists R Us” crowd this holiday season. Try looking at it from Judy’s perspective, Liz. This whole movement of death and dismemberment is her “baby”, so to speak. It’s what she’s dedicated her 30 years of adulthood to. The law is firmly on her side. Therefore, when you have a lock on the law, the political establishment, and the press over this issue, any dialogue whatsoever can only hurt you. You know, the Communists thought and still do think the same thing. That’s why they try to squash debate because debate brings up questions. Questions need answers. And answers sometime begin to undermine the dominant dogma which eventually leads to…drum roll please…a change in the law. For a political party leader, you’d think you’d be kinda up on this kind of strategical stance, Liz. It’s not that complicated.

I did say that sloganeering gets in the way of dialogue. As a practicing Christian, I hate being told I am not “pro-life” because I support a legal right to abortion. I favour access to safe and legal abortions as an aspect of my respect for life.

You are not pro-life. Someone who is pro-life will align their political views with their personal views. Since you claim to be a Christian, Liz, here’s a bit o’ advice for you. When you are judged by God, He will not be judging two persons, but only one. There won’t be “Elizabeth May the Politician” and “Elizabeth May the Private Citizen and Christian”. There’s only one Elizabeth May and she needs to decided which side she is on and then have the decency and coherency to stand by it in all spheres of her life. It’s tantamout to having an extra-marital affair and claiming you were faithful because you didn’t have sex with the other man when you were at home on weekends.

As we know and your letter notes, otherwise, women will die. The status of a foetus before birth is debatable in terms of when the potential for life crystallizes as human life.

And to think, biology has been a completely arbitrary science all these years. Oh well, I guess we should just lump it in with marriage whose definition is also rather arbitrary these days.

That is, as I explained in my rather long, nuanced answer posted on a blog which created this controversy, something that has been in dispute since Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas.

Baloney. Abortion was always condemned in Christian tradition as was contraception and sodomy. The question regarding ensoulment is a different question, but it does not directly impact the heinous crime of abortion which was always and everywhere condemned by the Church.

But there is no doubt about the status of the human lives lost in the period when abortions were illegal. Not potential lives — actual lives were lost. Hundreds, if not thousands, of women died.

Really? Where did you get these numbers, Liz? You got these numbers from the pro-abort propaganda machine that you have blindly accepted. In point of fact, Bernard Nathanson, the famous abortion doctor who was at the center of Roe v. Wade, admitted to making those numbers up to sway public opinion. Bernard Nathanson eventually converted to the Catholic Faith about 10 years ago. He saw the light. I pray that you will to.

I believe that respectful dialogue is possible even around such an emotionally charged issue as this. Not every opponent of legal abortions is unthinking. Neither is every supporter of legal abortion unwilling to acknowledge the moral complexity of the issue. Some common ground could be found, I believe, when the discussion shifts to a broader context.

Judy Rebick is not willing to acknowledge the moral complexity of this issue because she fears what might happen if the issue itself is reopened. Can’t say I blame her, but I do hope you continue on in your little crusade on the left side of the spectrum.

I’d like to continue to explore a dialogue about what our society really wants …

Well, if that is your criteria, then why don’t you acknowledge what the polls have been telling you for over 5 years now?!?! Two-thirds of Canadian want some legal protection for the unborn. Why won’t you listen to this huge number?!? No other federal politician does. Here is your big chance to be the only federal politician – and a woman at that – who will offer some protection for the most helpless unborn child. It won’t cost you at the ballot box either.

If we could focus on what we want as a society, that might bring us closer together. We would want every pregnancy to be a wanted pregnancy and every child to be a wanted child.

Well, that is why the West is dying. Very few women want children. No children? No future. That’s how it works. Abortion is not the answer to unwanted pregnancies. The answer to unwanted pregnancies is to want the pregnancy. That means valuing the sexual act within the context of a life-long committed relationship otherwise known as marriage and being open to children every time you have sex.

Abortion is not a human right. It is a human degradation and holocaust. It is a defeat for humanity to have recourse to killing innocent babies so we can live our lives as we please.

Abortion is the end of man.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Solve : *
30 × 3 =