It looks like Geritol Judy, the woman who has been fighting for a woman’s “right” to kill unborn children for thirty years, thinks Green Party Leader, Elizabeth May, is just not pro-abortion enough for her. No sirry. The pro-abortion orthodoxy must march in lock step with Judy Rebick or else or else or else….well, Judy will huff and puff and rip up that big cheque that socialists rarely write. Here’s an excerpt Geritol Judy’s letter to Liz…
If you had said that you personally oppose abortion but you support a woman’s right to choose, I would have been fine with that. Instead you said that a woman’s right to choose, something tens of thousands of Canadian women fought for for decades, was trivializing an important issue. It felt like a slap in the face. Since you have so little respect for me or for the women’s movement which mobilized for so long to win this hard-earned right, I hope you will understand that I ripped up the cheque I had written to the Green Party and you can no longer rely on me for support.
There is no middle ground on the abortion issue as you are no doubt finding out. The organized opposition to abortion in this country as in the United States does not care if women die. Of course, there are many people who are opposed to abortion for religious reasons but here I am talking about the anti-choice activists.
I personally have debated right-to-lifers for 30 years. There is no dialogue here. They put the life of a foetus above the rights and even the lives of women. Whether or not you agree with this, by raising the issue in the way that you did, you contribute to their position. (Source)
Uh huh. So Ms. Rebick thinks that someone who, while still defending the legal right to abortion, believes that abortion might not be the best of alternatives or even something that is a tragedy, is somehow abandoning the pro-abortion position? This only shows just how out-of-touch Ms. Rebick and the rest of the Rabble gang are with the rest of the Canadian population. In case Judy didn’t know, the overwhelming majority of Canadians would find Ms. Rebick’s abortion dogma hard to swallow. In fact, for many years now, the polls have consistently showed that most Canadians favour at least some protection for the unborn child.
Here is Ms. May’s response to Ms. Rebick…
What I was trying to suggest was that slogans distort the reality that there are moral dimensions to both positions. So-called “pro-life” supporters, if access to legal abortions was eliminated, would lead to the deaths of women in illegal abortions. Similarly, “pro-choice… or right to choose” can suggest to others a non-traumatic, simple, or even frivolous choice. Obviously, no woman facing an unwanted pregnancy takes the issue of a possible abortion lightly. It is always a very difficult, emotionally charged choice. It is not ever well-reflected in an overly simplistic slogan. To create any space for greater societal understanding of the positions of each “side” we need to acknowledge the moral dimensions on all sides of the question. We must always have right to legal and safe abortions. I am both a Christian and a feminist. (These are not inconsistent affiliations.) I would defend to the death the access to legal and safe abortions. But not because I think abortion is a great thing to have in the life of any woman. They are not a social good. We do not measure our health as a society based on how many abortions are performed, but rather on the ability to access a safe abortion when needed. Similarly, we must have access to chemotherapy, but no one hopes to have it. (Source)
Aside from Ms. May’s other objectionable comments, including her very disturbing comments about Christianity and abortion, I found her remark about abortion not being a social good rather revealing. If it’s not a social good, Ms. May, what is it? And more importantly, if it is not a social good, then perhaps you can explain to us why this is so? Obviously you have reasons to believe that it is not a social good. I am sure those reasons would include adverse consequences to all concerned, no? And if that is so, why are we tolerating a procedure that has such adverse consequences on women, children, and the culture at large? Furthermore, in regards to your rather bizarre comparison to chemotheraphy, access to chemotherapy is indeed a social good since it preserves human life. Pregnancy, in case you didn’t know, is not cancer; it is not a disease. So your logic does not follow. Chemotherapy is a social good because it preserves life and fights disease. Abortion does neither. It is not a social good, as you have readily admitted. Therefore why are we allowing it and even promoting it?
As an aside, everyone, don’t you just get a kick that Judy Rebick has been fighting the abortion war for 30 years and still can’t shake it? She’s on the defensive and sounds desperate, if you ask me. For a so-called “settled issue”, it seems that this issue is the issue that just won’t go away. And if it won’t go away after three decades, we know that there is something terribly wrong with the current law. It’s called a collective guilty conscience…and bad reasoning which sustains it. The tower is gonna fall, folks. Sooner or later. It’s coming down.