Saturday, 5 May 2012

Why We Won't Debate (Part Umpty-Three)

Because they lie. They distort. They dissemble. They move goalposts.

And they cheat.

That CBC 'unscientific' poll is running now at about 64% in favour of reopening the abortion debate.

Yeah. Right.

As opposed to a scientific poll from May 2010.
In the lead up to the G-8 and G-20 summits to be held in Muskoka and Toronto, Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s maternal-health plan for under-privileged countries and his refusal to include access and funding of abortions in the plan has once again raised the issue of abortion in Canada. By passing a unanimous motion calling on the Prime Minister to end its ambiguity on the subject, the members of the National Assembly of Quebec have brought attention to the fact that since 1988 Canada has been without a law that regulates abortion.

A new Ipsos Reid poll conducted on behalf of Canwest News Service and Global Television has revealed that only one in three (34%) Canadians believe that the federal government should ‘reopen the issue of abortion’. In fact, nearly one half (46%) think that the federal government should just ‘leave things as they are’, and two in ten (17%) ‘don’t care one way or the other’, while 3% don’t know.
And they believe their own bullshit.

Here's SUZY, with a small correction by me. Plain text because SHE plays silly buggers with linkies.
There's one thing people forget about pro-lifers: what they lack in numbers they make up for in determination dishonesty.

Remember the Great Canadian Wish List contest in 2007? How is it that in a country where legal abortion garners the support of the large majority of Canadians, pro-lifers were able to win that contest, even though they are outnumbered?
Oh yeah, we remember the dumbass Great Canadian Wish List. Fetus fetishists freeped the hell out of it and BRAGGED about doing so.

We at DJ! say: Keep it up.

In the Excited States, the constant yammering necessary to the War on Women is backfiring. USians who view abortion as morally wrong number below 50% for the first time.

And as commenter Mercedes says here, there may be another unintended consequence.
The latter [reopening the abortion debate], however, is something that can become a boon for women.  A generation of youth who hadn't been exposed to the nuances and implications of the anti-abortion agenda before has been swayed somewhat by emotional arguments during the years of non-debate, while the public (not saying the ARCC [Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada] of course, but the public at large) had been largely afraid to speak about reproductive rights.  It's no longer a question of whether we people are comfortable talking about reproductive rights, and this new generation can be shown why "personhood" can impact IVF or contraception as well as how the agenda could negatively affect women in ways that Canadians have largely not experienced for some time. This is what started to turn the debate around in the US, and it's an opportunity to turn the debate around here while there has not yet been major legislative onslaughts (although there have been pushes against funding, which is probably where the focus will turn after M-312).

It's important to not simply counter this motion, but to keep countering the rhetoric that is certain to persist afterward.
And not just the rhetoric. The persistent and pervasive dishonesty of anti-choicers.


Zee said...

I rather liked that "determination dishonesty." It seems to sum up that kind of stuff, succinctly.
M-312 might have been permitted to go forward as a sort of trial balloon and I'm not looking forward to what will come next as a result.

Anonymous said...

Maybe if the folks at Pharyngula knew about the poll, we could turn it around.

Anonymous said...

this reminds me of an interview given by pro-lifer Stephanie Grey:

She starts out describing how 'babies are torn limb from limb' in order to evoke horror in the listener THEN she goes on to say 'but most abortions occur in the first three months and *those* are the ones we have a problem with'.

so she blatantly manipulates the issue by conjuring up images of bloody fetuses, then says her primary goal is to ban first trimester abortions...

Beijing York said...

Woodsworth and his supporters are dishonest and manipulative. They are framing this need for discussion to target those who think that women should be stopped from aborting viable beings in the third trimester (that .01% phenomena that occurs for truly horrific situations). When these zealots, these anti-science types who hate valid statistics that disprove their claims, start talking about scientific advancements and technologies, you know that they are doing so from a purely manipulative stance.

What is being proposed in Oklahoma is the logical next step that Woodsworth is hoping to achieve with M-312. The Heartbeat Ban Bill 125 would make it illegal to abort an embryo if a detectable heartbeat could be found, which can occur as early as 4 weeks. IOW, they want to basically afford a fertilized egg personhood rights. If they were honest, they would let the public know that that is their intent. (By the by, Front Porch Strategies, the US political marketing firm that is boasting about winning 14 ridings for the Harper Regime, is heavily invested in promoting the Heartbeat bill.)

Anonymous said...

nonono guys, youre all wrong!
see, this guy has facts!

"A fall 2011 Environics poll showed 72 per cent of Canadians want some legal protection for children in the womb, with 28 per cent wanting it from conception. The September 2011 poll told interviewees the heart begins beating at about three weeks, and brainwaves can be detected and organs are in place in two months. According to LifeSite news, "When asked when life should be protected, 28 per cent said from conception, 17 per cent said after two months and another 17 per cent said after three months. Only 20 per cent supported the current policy in Canada of no protection for human life until birth." A very high 92 per cent said sex-selection abortions should be illegal in Canada."

see gals, lifesite is never wrong
(sarcasm, btw)

Niles said...

Maybe I haven't had enough caffeine...but what unscientific cbc poll?

fern hill said...

The second link. Here.

Post a Comment