Suppressing the abortion debate
An excellent column by the Ottawa Citizen’s David Warren on the lack of abortion debate and how impossible it is to have a discussion on this matter, mostly due to the hysterical reaction of those on the pro-abortion side. Warren says:
There is no avoiding the issue, except through suppression. The pretence that the commission of an abortion is “a moral decision” in which “the conscience of the individual must be paramount and take precedence over that of the state” is nonsense. The courts have long experience in dealing with conflicting individual claims. That is their function, after all.
And in this case, not only the pregnant woman, but also the child she is carrying, and the man who is that child’s father, are parties to the affair. We may make the woman’s decision final, by law, as we have in effect done. But to pretend she is the only person whose conscience counts is, let us say, unfriendly…
The truth is sometimes like an open wound. It hurts; it can be extremely unpleasant. Yet, in the end, we must deal with it, for truth is something that does not go away.
I am convinced it is unnecessary, even unhelpful to debate abortion with the pro-abortion side and that what pro-lifers need to do is have conversations with those in the middle (those to whom Bill Clinton spoke to when he (falsely) said he wanted abortion to be safe, legal and rare). Those discussions should focus on what abortion is, what the unborn child is, and how abortion is not a solution to the perceived problems of pregnant women.
Furthermore, it is nonsense that abortion cannot be addressed politically and legally because it is a “moral decision.” All laws make moral judgements — from the setting of minimum wages and tax rates to prohibiting stealing and violence — but for some reason when the issue is very, very serious, the Left (and increasingly the Right) thinks that not only should government remain “neutral” but that it would be a serious wrong to even think about having government get involved. I favour a regime in which the government gets involved in the really big decisions (literally life and death issues) and out of the small ones (where voluntary agreements can settle issues); I favour government getting involved when it needs to takes sides for the victims that have no effective voice (in this case the unborn) rather than taking sides in matters which can be negotiated (a fair wage, for example). It is precisely these big issues that need to be discussed and debated.