NRL News
202.626.8824
dadandrusk@aol.com

The cynicism of the pro-abortion extremist on full display

by | Oct 10, 2017

By Dave Andrusko

Maybe it’s as simple as projection–anti-life militants project their fanaticism onto pro-lifers–but more than likely it’s cynicism on steroids–attempts to marginalize pro-lifers by attributing to them attitudes and behavior that are typically the province of pro-abortionists.

What made me think of this today–as opposed to any other day when such behavior is on display? Articles from Canada, from a pro-abortion fanatic, and from England, from a pro-life publication quoting a pro-abortion Member of Parliament.

Understand it’s not as though there is this wave of new limitations on abortion in Canada. Just the opposite. It’s open season on the unborn and to make matters worse (as we have written about many times), the anti-life virus has jumped from its “host” species (abortion) to another species (assisted suicide). A few examples…

  • Now that chemical abortifacients are legal in Canada, pro-abortionists want any and all safety requirements eliminated and the drug (called Mifegymiso in Canada) paid for.
  • Rachael Harder is opposed to abortion. Liberals and New Democrats made sure she was not allowed to become chair of the House Status of Women committee. Because no one can be a feminist unless they support abortion.
  • Pro-lifers want a law that would have allowed additional charges to be brought against a killer who took the life of a woman he knew to be pregnant. You would think EVERY ONE could agree to make it a separate crime to assault a pregnant woman causing the death of her unborn child. Not so.

“Cassie and Molly’s Law” was voted down on October 19, 2016, with every New Democratic Party and Liberal MP present for the vote opposed to C-225. Proposals to ban gendercide received the same back on the hand response from the Canadian Parliament.

These are absolutely bare minimal limitations and/or miniscule acknowledgements that there are genuinely good people opposed to abortion. But Michael Coren, writing in the Star, announces this is part of a theocratic plot (shades of “The Handmaid’s Tale”).

Do not be misled. The intention of the anti-abortion movement is the complete removal of reproductive rights, and the criminalization of medical staff daring to perform terminations. Most activists claim they wouldn’t penalize women who have abortions but, with all due respect, I don’t believe them. I know them just a little too well.

And for good measure, Coren concludes in “What does it mean to be anti-abortion in modern Canada?” that

This has nothing to do with the admittedly worrying idea of abortion based on the gender of the unborn child, nor about secular democracy. It’s a theocratic impulse, an attempt to impose religion on the state, and to prohibit abortion, not out of concern for life but an obsession with birth.

Absolute abortion on demand, now and forever. Any effort–even to acknowledge that criminals who know a woman is pregnant ought to be punished for an act of violence which results in the death of an unborn baby–is “an obsession with birth. Killing a baby because she is a girl is not the ultimate in sex discrimination but a “theocratic impulse.”

Just a word about Rupa Huq, a Labour MP, who told a meeting at a Labour Party conference that pro-life protesters were “weaponising rosary beads” outside a Marie Stopes clinic in her constituency, according to the Huffington Post UK. To be a presence outside an abortion clinic is to participate in a “phony vigil.” What to do?

What do they always do? Weaponize the law to create “buffer zones” with draconian penalties.

I first saw a reference to Huq’s remarks in The Catholic Herald UK. The newspaper reminds us of what has come out recently but which pro-abortionists brush off:

Last year, the Care Quality Commission suspended abortions under general anaesthetic and to girls under the age of 18 at Marie Stopes clinics after inspections raised serious concerns over safeguarding and consent.

An undercover reported later found the group was offering abortions to women based on a 20-second conversation with call centre workers.

One woman who had an abortion said: “It was like a conveyor belt. Some [women] were really upset, they were crying but there was no support for them.” She added: “It was one in, and literally five minutes later, another one in. They were doing it so quickly.”

Pro-abortionists are fanatically opposed to curbing even the most egregious abuses of human rights or even clamping down ever-so-slightly on abortion clinics who treat women like boxes on a conveyor belt?

Who are the real extremists?

Categories: pro-abortion