Friday, April 27, 2012
Who is afraid of a little debate?
Conservative MP Stephen Woodworth’s private member’s motion, proposing a committee that would re-examine when Canadian foetuses ought legally to become “human,” is being held up as evidence of Stephen Harper’s secret plan to curtail women’s reproductive rights.
This story sort of bugged me. The “liberals” are massively overreacting.
The politics seem pretty obvious. Harper wants to appease his social conservative base. He isn’t going to reopen the abortion debate, as he has said repeatedly. It would be a really bad move politically, and this is all he cares about. Harper’s “secret agenda” is not that secret: to be Prime Minister.
Now, is this debate about the status of the foetus some attack on the “abortion argument”? No. Is a foetus "alive"1 second before its birth? Of course. How about 1 minute? 1 hour? 1 day? 1 week? ... 2 weeks? Where is the line? I don’t know, but I do know that “birth” just makes no sense. Full disclosure: I'm pro-choice. That is, I am in favour of letting women kill their unborn children, who are, in some instances, actually "alive" by any biological definition. If you find that unpalatable, maybe you shouldn't be pro-choice. If your argument for pro-choice rests on this, then you better rethink your position; and it wouldn't hurt you to listen to some debate on the subject. Also, I find it refreshing that our politicians want to discuss philosophy and bioethics.
In short, lefties, clam the f*ck down please.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Come on man. Do you really think the Harper government really just wants to have some healthy debate about bioethics and philosophy?
ReplyDeleteThis whole bullshit issue is a thinly veiled litmus test to gauge public reaction to the idea of reopening the debate on legalized abortions in Canada. Thankfully the "overreacting liberals" have spoken pretty loudly in response and since, as you've noted, Harper's prime directive is keeping the conservatives in power, he'll have no choice but to back the fuck off (yes, I know Harper said he'd vote against this, but I find it hard to believe any conservative MP acts without Uncle Steve's blessing).
Is your post meant to rile people up, or what? You don't really believe that the socially conservative Harper government was just looking for a little spirited debate, do you?
And, for the record, I believe abortion should be legal up until a child's tenth birthday in case it turns out to be a dick.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the PM chose to allow it, and probably could have prevented it. But I doubt it was a grand plan. An MMP brought it up, and they figured they could make something out of it: toss a bone to social conservatives, without doing anything remotely concrete to offend everyone else. Self interested, sure, but the result is philosophical debate in Parliament, with no greater consequence. I find this refreshing. The Leg should do this more often.
ReplyDeleteAlso, people get very "holy" when it comes to this issue. I find that attitude of certainty, on any issue, repugnant. Libs should feel a little uncomfortable with their position on abortion. After all, you are letting people kill their babies. Even if you weigh it all out and end up on the pro-choice side (which is my position), I still find the whole concept a little disturbing, and i'm far from certain my position is the correct one. So i'm happy that libs seem a bit shaken on this; they need it, but at the same time, they should take some deep breaths.
Might this be related to the fact that Harper's public opinion rating is in the dumps? I hardly think a "philosophical debate in Parliament" is what Harper had in mind. Sure a philosophical debate would be refreshing in parliament, on any issue, but this is just about politics, as usual.
ReplyDeleteJohnson you are right on the money with your second comment!
I don't really think Harper had anything particular in mind, as this was Private members bill pushed by a backbencher, approved by a Committe of Mps. I think he saw it as an opportunity to gain some additional support in his key base. And, the motion is just a philosophical debate; not a bill or a law, so what's the harm?
Delete