It has never gone away as an issue among them, with some demanding nothing less than absolute forced pregnancy for all and others, perhaps recognizing the futility of their cause, willing to settle for any kind of law at all.
As a first step, note, to a complete ban.
Here we go again with our pal, astroturfer and dominionist Mike Schouten, raising the question and seeming to invite discussion.
Here's a stunning admission. He acknowledges that defunding abortion -- the only remotely possible abortion restriction in Canada -- would affect only poor women. Or, in their preferred parlance, poor baybees.
All pro-lifers support efforts to defund abortion. By doing so, they support a process that would protect some children, but not others. Under defunding, abortion remains legal as long as the mother or the father pays for the abortion. Someone could argue, "I won't support that defunding law because it only saves poor babies while all the babies of rich mothers who can afford the abortion will still be terminated." That may be so, but defunding abortion is a step in the right direction.Discriminatory as this is -- not to mention a rank violation of human rights -- he's okey-dokey with fucking over poor women and families, as a "step in the right direction."
Incrementalists and abolitionists seem often to line up in the Protestant fundy gang and the Vatican Taliban gang respectively, but that's not quite true.
Over at ProWomanProLie, a few people are discussing Schouten's gambit.
I found a comment by Melissa fascinating (bold mine).
Thank you, thank you, thank you for talking about this issue!! I was starting to think that incrementalism was the elephant in the room that we just were never going to talk about.DING-DING-DING! Give that woman a cupie doll!
I’m an incrementalist myself, (and Catholic too, as if that matters). Truth of the matter is, though, I would bow out of this fight if we got to a certain incremental point (right now, I think that would be if abortion were limited to the embryonic stage of pregnancy, or the 1st trimester at the latest, although I could quite conceivably become so tired of the fight that I would bow out if we were to achieve a considerably less significant victory). I sometimes wonder if that is why the people who are opposed to incrementalism are so adamant–they know that they will consistently lose support as smaller gains are made.
This is precisely what the totalitarians fear. That if the tiniest restriction is placed on abortion, many if not most of the less fanatic opponents will say "There. Mission accomplished."
Given that legitimate fear, Campaign Lie's intent to focus on RU-486, or medical abortion, for this year's bunfest is a bit perplexing.
Say, for argument's sake, RU-486 is banned in Canada. (Unaccountably, it has still not been approved by Health Canada and sources suggest that the issue won't be decided until 2015.)
Would many fetus fetishists then declare victory and take up sane people's pursuits?
Seems possible at least.
But then the anti-abortion industry would lose a ton of money and political influence (such as it is).
My take: Schouten's raising of incrementalism now and CampaignLie's focus on RU-486 demonstrate that they've (nearly) given up.
The times they are a' changing. (See next blog post.)
Of course, we'll keep an eye on them, but it may be that the end is nearer than we think.