Thursday 9 August 2012

Wingnut Wedgie

While deBeauxOs splendidly spanks the fetus fetishists for their glurge-filled lies, there's more to learn from this survey. It seems that in speaking amongst themselves they reveal more than they think.

Despite being on this beat for more than five years, I did not fully grasp the rift between fetus fetishists when it comes to the incremental (aka 'Fucking Women Over in As Many Ways Possible' [FWOIAMWAP]) and gestational limits strategies on abortion.

Of the nine responders, only four support gestational limits.

The Catlicks and looniest loons don't support them because the instant egg meets sperm -- BOOM! -- there is an itty-bitty proto-person that just needs some more time in the oven. To allow abortion up to some point -- any point -- is to condone murder.

And. Also. They don't work.
European pro-life leaders which have gestational limits have told us repeatedly that gestational laws do nothing to prevent abortion but only assuage the public conscience.
If Woody's Wank passes and a committee of MPs get to hear 'expert' evidence from prebornchildologists from which they conclude that a 'human being' is sufficiently baked formed at some point after the BOOM moment, the loons will not be pleased.

But some people will be. Both Stephanie Gray of Fetal Gore Tour fame and Mark Peninga of the Association for Reformed Political Action, which is the backer of We Need a Law, support both gestational limits and FWOIAMWAP.
ARPA Canada is convicted that gestational restrictions on abortion can be a prudent and principled means to restrict abortion to the greatest extent possible. Doing politics means working with what is possible. . . . Canada is a secular nation that does not respect God’s standards about the value of human life.
While demonstrating a spark of rationality over Canada's pro-choice stance, he continues to outline the antichoice delusion that Canadians really really really want SOME KINDA LAW DAMMIT.

But of course that won't be good enough.
And if we are blessed with restrictions, we must press on and keep working for more.
It will never be over for them.

All of them, however, are totally behind the FWOIAMWAP approach Here, at least, they are refreshing honest.

Alissa Golob of Campaign Life Coalition Youth said:
I support incremental approaches such as parental notification, complete informed consent, defunding and ultrasound laws; basically any law that would make it extremely difficult for women to obtain abortions.
While the accompanying cartoon shows the usual featureless female incubators, the words 'women' or 'woman' appear just four times in the responses, once in the quote above and these.
Recently we have witnessed our opponents willingness to sacrifice the women of tomorrow to safeguard abortion for the women of today.
. . . incremental measures such as defunding, women’s right to know, medically necessary abortions, conscience legislation and the unborn victims of violence.
One more point made by SUZY here.
I only found out about five years ago that Campaign Life Coalition opposed gestational limits.

And to me, the fact that I did not know this salient fact about CLC strategy spoke to a problem I see in the pro-life movement.

We're still a very fragmented group of people with a relatively weak sense of community, and that limits our ability to mobilize. I was involved in a pro-life community for some years and didn't know this point.

So I'm thinking: if I, with my regular contact with Campaign Life, didn't know this, imagine what other pro-lifers don't know...
Yes, just imagine what they don't know. . .

In the continuing wank that JJ calls the Masturdebate, let's ask supporters of M312 if they would be good with gestational limits.

If not, why not? If so, at what point? If it's murder after 12 or whatever weeks, what do you call it before that point?

Let's help drive that wedge.


Sixth Estate said...

I don't think that you should feel bad about missing the "rift" here. As you go on to point out, it's not much of one. Essentially it's just a debate between the pragmatic and the principled. We see that on lots of issues.

And I think we'd be rightly suspicious of any group that came forward saying they "just" want a term limit, ultrasound requirement, parental consent, blah blah etc. It's nice to have it on the record that they view those only as a means to an end... not that that's surprising or anything.

Beijing York said...

Some are probably more into restricting women's rights than actually saving the unborn baby - those are the ones willing to play the long game, chipping away at abortion access incrementally and with a variety of means. A decade ago, the big debate in the US was about strengthening gestational limits on abortion. Since then, every further step towards eliminating abortion access has been taken by many red states. Introducing any limits is a coup in moving the goal posts.

But for sure, the theologically "pure" are driven to save the zygote from murder.

Godel Noodle said...

Wouldn't driving that wedge just result in those who support gestational limits acquiescing to an uncategorical ban on abortions? I mean, I think they support gestational limits only as a compromise to account for some special cases in which even they admit abortion might be warranted. I can't see them really defending these limits particularly vehemently.

They'd just say, "Hmm... Yeah, maybe you're right. It gets too messy when we impose an arbitrary limit on it. Yeah, let's just say it's never ok. Cool. So we all on board then?"

...or is that the idea? Because then that has the potential to turn them all into extremists, from the perspective much of the general public who may not have put a lot of thought into it but *would* adamantly support at least *some* legal abortions.

Heh... Anyway, I do love how Peninga and Gray not only presume to know that God exists, presume to know that it/she/he has *any* standards about the value of human life, but they even go as far as to assert that they are privy to these standards (or at least know them well enough to know Canada is violating them). I guess such presumptions are the very basis of religion, but it never ceases to amaze me when they pretend to know the mind of God (and that there is one to be known).

Post a Comment