Saturday 29 September 2012

We Are the 94 Per Cent

I'm going to type this very sloooowly for the hard of thinking.

Chris Selley, in commenting on the soundly defeated anti-abortion gambit that was Woodworth's Wank, puts the number of Canadians who want to outlaw abortion in the 3-5% range.

I'll be more generous to the fetus fetishists and go with a poll published July 4 this year.

Six percent believe that abortion 'should not be permitted under any circumstances'.

Which leaves 94% believing that abortion should be permitted under any or some circumstances.

Are we clear now?

Canada is pro-choice. Any attempt to outlaw or restrict abortion is DOOMED.

ADDED: For comparison, the percentage of USians who believe abortion should be illegal in all circumstances hovers around the mid-teen level in this 36-year tracking poll.


Anonymous said...

This is absolutely ABSURD! The irony that the day after #M312 'F'AIL occurs, cpcfail BB magically have M#408 - Contingency Plan 'B'!. Now this motion accuses Canadian Doctors & Women of performing SS (Gendercide). How LOW will they go! and after this Motion FAIL, I guess Contingency Motion C? I guess PM Harper just wants to PISS OFF 94% of the population (less the 6% antichoice you generously allocated) even more. Strategy FAIL!!

The INSANITY continues...


Godel Noodle said...

Canada is pro-choice. Any attempt to outlaw or restrict abortion is DOOMED.

I don't see how the "or restrict" part follows here. Only 6% feel abortion should be categorically banned, so any attempt to outlaw abortion does indeed appear to be doomed (as I would fucking well hope!).

But unfortunately, it's not as though 94% feel it should be available with no restrictions. In fact, it appears that only 40% feel that way.

So I am dramatically less optimistic than you about attempts to restrict abortion. According to that poll, at least, it seems that not only would such attempts not be doomed, but that they would actually be quite likely to succeed!

...unless I'm missing something here? (Maybe you still didn't type slow enough for me. :-(). This just looks like bad news to me. Of course, once a line is drawn and it is restricted, we can look forward to that line gradually cutting deeper and deeper into women's rights.

I hope I'm just going crosseyed here and I'm missing something obvious.

Beijing York said...

It really is tiring. This "moral minority" has managed to open up the debate while not officially passing any motion to open up the debate. The MSM is totally pandering to this minority instead of ignoring them.

fern hill said...

No, you're not missing anything, GN. You're quite right. There *are* people who would approve of restrictions. But I think the reaction to Woody' Wank demonstrates how STRONGLY pro-choice people will object to any attempt to restrict.

Because you are absolutely right about the next part. Once there is a law, screwing around with it will be irresistible for fetus fetishists.

fern hill said...

Wasn't the coverage terrible? And it continues with Maggie Somerville shooting her mouth off today.

A good take-away -- the young'uns. We old broads can pass the torch with confidence.

Sixth Estate said...

I think the problematic part is that a lot of the people who "blinked," to use Selley's term, would identify themselves as pro-life, and probably subscribe at least nominally to pro-life positions, choke up when asked point-blank to say that there are never any situations whatsoever in which abortion should be legal.

Which gets us back to the position regularly made here, and by JJ and others, which is that very few "fetus fetishists" actually believe that abortion literally is murder and should be dealt with as such.

Post a Comment