In the Ottawa Citizen this morning. Bottom line: “To oppose this bill is to stand in defence of only those pregnant women who choose abortion.”
Well, maybe not quite. To maintain that the current legal system is enough to deal with these situations is not entirely illogical. Certainly it’s possible to have a reasonable debate on C-484, or some aspects thereof, without getting into an unproductive shouting match. Or it should be; no legislation is perfect, after all. But loud and brittle (not to mention untruthful) opposition to anything that might, perhaps, in the future some day, contribute to the possibility of someone potentially questioning the validity and moral soundness of today’s anything-goes pro-abortion legal system sure isn’t helping.
Andrea adds: The same article also quotes an opponent of Bill C-484 who says this:
If the fetuses are recognized in this bill, it could bleed into people’s consciousness and make people change their minds about abortion.
A total and complete moratorium on intelligent thought is the last defence of the ardent abortion supporter. God forbid that people think about this issue and change their minds. That “bleeding into your consciousness” is otherwise called thinking, reflecting, casting a second look at a topic and doing so, in normal circles, is considered wise and good. Good grief–give your head a shake–if Bill C-484 is that threatening, perhaps this pro-abortion status quo is on shakier ground than I previously thought.
Rebecca adds: You know, if ever you find yourself hoping to conceal facts and preempt arguments to prevent people from changing their minds, you really ought to accept that you’re imposing your decisions on other people, and have explicitly abandoned “Truth” in any sense that is meaningful.
Tanya adds: “We need not to be let alone. We need to be really bothered once in a while. How long is it since you were really bothered? About something important, about something real?”
– Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451by