The abortion debate is about to enter a “new era” of advocacy for the rights of the unborn, says a Conservative MP who recently took over the chairmanship of a secretive, parliamentary anti-abortion caucus.
The all-party caucus will publicize what it views as inadequate abotion regulation, and push for legislation to restrict abortions, Winnipeg MP Rod Bruinooge said in an interview.
I see the wingnut base of the HarperCon$ is alive and well ... and just like Bill C-484, Harper is tacitly supporting it:
However, Mr. Bruinooge said that his party leader, Prime Minister Stephen Harper, is well aware that he is involved in a campaign to advocate for precisely what Mr. Harper does not want to see – the reopening of the abortion debate.
Now, we all know the iron fist with which Harper runs the Con$ caucus in Ottawa. If he didn't support Bruinooge, Harper would squash this "secret caucus" like a bug under his jackboot heel. Harper only killed C-484 because he knew it would haunt him during an election.
Now for the wingnutty goodness of Bruinooge's logic:
Mr. Bruinooge said that an inordinate number of Canadians are unaware that there has effectively been no abortion law since the father of the pro-choice movement, Henry Morgentaler, persuaded the Supreme Court of Canada in 1988 to strike down the existing law.
As a result of the government's failure to fill the legislative void created by that ruling, he said, laws governing organ transplants are tougher than those that pertain to abortion. For instance, Mr. Bruinooge said that it is illegal for an individual to have a kidney removed and auction it off on eBay.
“The bottom line is that people like myself are not going to stop until, at the very least, unborn children have more value than a Canadian kidney,” he said.
Somehow, I think that there is a big difference between selling organs and a woman's decisions with respect to her pregnancy. Of course, the forced-birther crowd keep trying to treat the fetus as distinct from the woman who is carrying it - and in doing so would remove from the woman the right to control her own destiny the moment she becomes pregnant.
To these people, women are little more than an Axlotl Tank - an unthinking, unaware female that solely exists to gestate.
From a comment (the bulk of which I won't waste bits on publishing):
1. Does the unborn baby begin to enjoy the right to life at any point during his or her gestation?
2. If not, how long after his or her birth does he or she begin to enjoy the right to life?
Largely, I have addressed these questions Here.
In short, both of these questions fall firmly into the domain of the pregnant woman - it is her decision and hers alone to make. Nobody else has any legitimate say in the matter. You can argue until you are blue in the face about "when life begins", and frankly it is irrelevant to the fundamental fact that bearing the child has a significant biological cost for the woman. Paraphrasing the old adage "he who has the gold makes the rules", she who pays the price, makes the decisions. All the way up to birth.
Anything less presumes that a woman is incapable of making moral and ethical decisions of her own the moment she becomes pregnant.