I like to think that, on the left, we actually try to understand what the right wingers are thinking. It's a big help when you're arguing with someone to understand her motivations.
So when I read an anti-abortion advocate (okay, "pro-life" advocate), I read with the intent to understand. Unfortunately, I immediately hit a title which shows that she has no understanding of those who favour legalized abortion. The title contains the phrase "Sanctity of Abortion".
Sanctity? Do you really think that there is anyone on this planet who thinks abortion is some kind of holy sacrament? Do you think there's anyone in this country who rejoices to see large numbers of abortions? Do you think any woman has ever gone skipping off to the clinic, rejoicing in the opportunity to take part in some great and holy mystery?
It doesn't work that way.
No one on either side of this equation likes abortion. No one wants large numbers of abortions. Ideally, I'd like there to be zero abortions.
The difference between us and you is that we have a way to get there that might just work. You don't. Your ideas simply cause a lot of illegal abortions and butchered women. Ours involve sex education, birth control and research in to even better birth control. Ours is not perfect, but yours is worse.
Onward. I can see that the author feels persecuted. Apparently, anytime anyone espouses a pro-life point of view, they are shunned from politics. That's news to me. That's also news to George Bush and Sarah Palin who are welcomed with open arms - at least on this issue - by a large chunk of the American population. In Canada, of course Gilles Duceppe is going to attack on this issue. He's a politician. It's his job to point out flaws in his opponents and exploit them for votes.
On the subject of persecution, I'm afraid that you merely have a persecution complex. Most Canadians simply don't support your point of view. If you want to have babies accidentally, that's your lookout. Hell, we'll even support you with child care benefits, a free public education and healthcare. That's our lookout. We're nice people that way.
In order to support your feeling of persecution, you offer a quote from a significant medical figure who says of Sarah Palin:
“[Her decision to carry Trig to term] will have an implication for abortion issues in Canada.”
So what? This is entirely accurate. Without some kind of context, there's no way to know what he meant by this. All we have is your clearly biased opinion that he expressed this statement with "thinly veiled contempt".
I have never once heard Sarah Palin being held up for public chastisement for carrying a Down's Syndrome baby to term. All I've heard are right wing blowhards complaining about her persecution. But again, there is no evidence of actual persecution. Her choice is her choice.
Why should I wish to force an abortion on someone? This is where we clearly have a disconnect. Does Barbara Kay really believe that people on the pro-choice side would want to force abortions on women?
Then we move to the CPSO. I don't have access to the document of which she speaks. It's fiendishly hard to find for such an important document that everyone is talking about. But even this guy admits that it won't force doctors to perform abortions.
What it does is prevent doctors from telling a woman that abortion is evil, sinful or in doing anything else that might unfairly intimidate a woman. If the doctor is unable, for personal reasons, to counsel a woman on the subject, he should refer her to a doctor that will.
There's nothing nefarious there. Abortion is a personal moral decision for the pregnant woman. That being the case, the moral opinion of her doctor should not be interfering with her decision. The doctor's job is to provide medical advice and treatment, not moral guidance.
And we wind up with this bit:
In the end, the almost cultish aura that has been whipped up around the sanctity of abortion by politicians and medical bodies comes down to the morally irrelevant cause of satisfying consumer demand for a service of convenience.
Could anything be more callous than this disregard of a pregnant teenager, lied to or tricked by a boyfriend? Could anything be more uncivil than ignoring the need of a woman who has found that her much wanted child is nonviable? Could anything be more heartless than this treatment of a woman, desperate for a way out of a loveless marriage?
Yes, you foolish women, your desire to control your reproductive organs, to keep your life sane, is morally irrelevant. Your only way to rectify your desperate situation is merely a "service of convenience".
Thus spake the conservative movement, and therefore it must be true. At least it's reassuring to see that no one on their side has enough intelligence to even attempt to understand our side.