Gord Trots Out Lame Pro Abortion Arguments
So, Steve’s “there’s not going to be a debate, no way, no how” plan hasn’t really worked out that way. The debate is here, Steve, so you need to deal with it…now and in the future. I’m sure there’ll be at least 2 other Bills coming round your way before your 4 year term is up.
Anyhow, Gordon O’Connor has stepped up for the pro-abort side to offer the same lame arguments that have not changed since the ’60s. You have to wonder just how long these arguments can withstand some basic logic and basic science, but I’m not complaining because he’s been useful in creating “the debate”, if only to make Harper look completely unreasonable and flakey on the most pressing moral issue of the day. It’s bizarre.
Anyhow, I digress. Back to Gord. Let’s take a look at some of Gord’s recycled arguments and see if they hold any water….
In the debate, O’Connor said the motion is a plain attempt to “restrict abortions” and so the government will not support it.
Well, Gord, you got that right. And that’s about at all that you got right in your presentation.
“Whether one accepts it or not, abortion is and always will be part of society,” the government whip insisted.
The Slave owners and the Slave-traders said the same thing. In fact, slavery has got more of a claim on that argument than abortion by any historical standard. Apart from all of the dupes who have used this argument to historically advance their human rights atrocities, strictly speaking, this is no argument at all. Just because something has been done and is done and will be done is absolutely no reason for its acceptance ipso facto. This is basic logic 101.
“No matter how many laws some people may want government to institute against abortion, abortion cannot be eliminated.
There’s lots of evils that “cannot be eliminated”. That’s no reason for the State to abandon its responsibility in protecting the helpless. Murder, theft, and child abuse can’t be eliminated, either. Does that mean the government should get out of those areas of human concern as well, and just about every other arena where law is required to maintain order and justice? Gord, the only thing scarier than your stupid arguments is that you are a Minister in a so-called “Conservative” Government.
“It is part of the human condition.”
So is pedophilia and infanticide. I don’t see you using that excuse to support those parts of the “human condition”. Or maybe you do, Gord. Would you like to offer your opinions on those subjects, and to explain to us all how those particular areas don’t qualify as part of the ”human condition” as well? Go and look up the fallacy of “special pleading”, Gord.
Society has “moved on” from the abortion debate, said O’Connor, and so pro-life efforts are an attempt to “turn back the clock.”
Actually, Gord, it’s you who are behind the times. The Canadian public has consistently said that it wants restrictions on abortion. You’re still stuck in the 60s, using the same tired and lame pro-abort arguments. The problem with pro-aborts like yourself, Gord, is that you keep prattling on about “turning back the clock” but don’t realize that the the clock keeps moving on and we keep learning amazing things about fetal development. The only people who want the clock to stop is you and the rest of the pro-abort cabal, Gord. It’s not the 1970s anymore. It’s not a matter of turning back the clock. It’s about letting the clock advance into 21st century science.
“I cannot understand why those who are adamantly opposed to abortion want to impose their beliefs on others by way of the Criminal Code,” he said.
Imposition of belief is the very function of government when that imposition preserves basic justice, which is the very reason for this debate. The only “imposition” going on here is the abortionist’s knife into an unborn child’s skull. That’s the kind of imposition of beliefs which really does need to stop, Gord.
“There is no law that says that a woman must have an abortion.”
Gord is such a democrat and gentleman by such a gracious concession, wouldn’t you say, everyone?
No one is forcing those who oppose abortion to have one.”
“Did you hear that one, Jethro? That’s the same argument we told those Yankees when they complained about our niggers on the Plantation back in 1850. Good arguments do keep on keepin’ on, after all.”
“I want all women to continue to live in a society in which decisions on abortion can be made, one way or the other, with advice from family and a medical doctor and without the threat of legal consequences,” he continued.
A conspiracy of family members does not exonerate any crime, much less murder. The collaboration of doctors and family members hardly makes something which is otherwise a crime something which is licit. It just means there are more people collaborating in the crime. Sometimes, it even involves more than just family members and doctors. In all of these cases, there is a helpless victim which the State has a moral obligation to defend with the full force of the law and with the penal consquences that come with it in order to send an unmistakable message that ALL human life – not just some protected classes like horny white adoloscent middle-aged men - has intrinsic value and dignity. Euthanasia is the next beneficiary of Gord’s deadly argument. No need to concern the State when the doctors and family members are looking out for you…except when the doctors and family members want you unloaded. Maybe Gord doesn’t realize that he may one day be a personal beneficiary of his own argument.
“I do not want women to go back to the previous era where some were forced to obtain abortions from illegal and medically dangerous sources. This should never happen in a civilized society,” he added.
A civilized society does not legalize the brutal destruction of innocent human life. Go and watch a live abortion on YouTube, Gord, and ask yourself if making something so gruesome and barbaric makes a society more civilized because the practice becomes legal.
Yah, Gord, a piece of paper sure does make a society civilized.
There will always been illegal abortions. Just like there will always be illegal theft and illegal murder and illegal child abuse and illegal everything else. So what? We do not make the whole nation into a “back alley” just because what they do in the back alley is illegal. By that standard, there shouldn’t be any laws against anything, Gord. For some reason, your government doesn’t have the same attitude about prostitution. Some back alleys are more preferable than others, I suppose.
This pro-life motion is the most important legislation proposed so far. It goes to the root of the question, instead of dealing with circumstantial aspect of the abortion law. Is the baby human? Is it deserving of protection? Science, logic, and basic decency all say that it is. The only ones who object still have the same broken clocks, forever being stuck in 1969. For the rest of us, it’s time for some authentic progressive thinking on the question.