Abortion: Not a Moral Issue

The 2013 Pew Center's Global Morality survey is out.

The Pew Research Center’s 2013 Global Attitudes survey asked 40,117 respondents in 40 countries what they thought about eight topics often discussed as moral issues: extramarital affairs, gambling, homosexuality, abortion, premarital sex, alcohol consumption, divorce, and the use of contraceptives. For each issue, respondents were asked whether this is morally acceptable, morally unacceptable, or not a moral issue.

The Star has a piece on the survey, hitting the highlights of most and least tolerant countries of the various practices.

But the real story is in the third category -- "not a moral issue."

Have a look at the results for abortion.

Canadians rate abortion as unacceptable at 26%, acceptable at 29%, and not a moral issue at 37%.

For comparison, those numbers for the US are 49%, 13%, and 23%.

And for France: 14%, 38%, and 47%.

Canada is second only to France in the world in considering abortion not a moral issue, edging out Jordan at 36% and Australia at 32%. (We're doing all right in the morally acceptable category too, but still far behind Czech Republic [49%], Japan [44%], Germany [43%], and France [38%].)

Pro-choicers in Canada obviously still have work to do, but this survey gives good grounds for optimism.

Canadians are comfortable with our lawless abortion regime -- a solid majority of us (66%) think abortion is acceptable or not an issue.

The inescapable takeaway: Canada is a pro-choice country.

And not likely to change despite fetus fetishists' SHRIEEEKING.

Canadian Media Provide Comfort to the Enemy

In the media coverage of the tenth anniversary of equal marriage in Ontario, I noticed an odd thing.

Not one anti-gay spokesperson was polled on his or her 'take' on the situation. That's odd considering how strident opponents are and how readily they will spout their hate and lies.

No. In fact the coverage was rather self-congratulatory. Golly gee, aren't we enlightened and aren't we pleased to have moved on?

Look at this CBC piece for example.

And we have come a long way pretty damn quickly.

In 2002, an Ekos poll found that 47 per cent of Canadians had an unfavourable opinion of same-sex marriage. Taking into account the high number of undecideds, the pollsters concluded that opponents of gay marriage made up a majority. In 2012, an Ipsos Reid poll found that just 18 per cent of respondents were “totally opposed” to same-sex marriage. What happened?

Well, some would say that 'media happened'.

Even in the US, things are moving along on this front. Here's a bit of video on media there congratulating itself for its role in normalizing USians' view of gays and gay culture.

In fact, one pundit says: 'Gay culture is American culture'.

Funny thing. Here, pro-choice culture is Canadian culture.

But does our media celebrate that achievement? Does it congratulate itself for moving the issue forward and normalizing the notion that women have the same right to bodily autonomy that men do?

Does it appropriately marginalize the tiny percentage of extremists -- around 5% -- 'totally opposed' to abortion rights?

No. Canadian media -- perhaps envious of the acrimonious and profitable abortion 'debate' in the US -- continue to try to whip up controversy where it just doesn't exist. In covering Dr Morgentaler's death 22 of 35 stories saw fit to consult wannabe abortion abolishers to 'balance' the views of Dr Morgentaler's friends and supporters.

One would think this is counter-productive. After all, a large majority of Canadians -- two-thirds of us -- don't even want to talk about it.

But a group that does want to talk about it is the nutters themselves of course. In fact, the media's obeisance to their foot-stomping and shrieking has them crowing 'The media is ours'.

If this was war, one could say that the Canadian media is giving comfort to the enemy.

We ask again: When will Canadian media step up and celebrate the achievement of human rights for women?

In Canada, Pro-Choice Is Winning

If you've been wondering about fetus fetishists crowing about winning and pro-choice losing lately, this TIME magazine cover story is what it's about.

Amanda Marcotte responds.

There's much to like about Kate Pickert's Time cover story (hidden behind a paywall) on abortion rights 40 years after Roe v. Wade. Unlike the majority of big media stories on this issue, this one actually portrays abortion patients accurately, particularly pointing out how most of them are grown adults with children at home and notes the wide range of feminist activism—from fighting for women's economic rights to promoting contraception access—that actually results in lower abortion rates. Pickert even mentions the phrase "reproductive justice," a framework that takes a more holistic approach to improving people's reproductive lives and one that appeals strongly to younger activists, especially activists of color.

Too bad, then, that Pickert portrays the increasing restrictions on abortion access as the result of the failings of the pro-choice movement, a narrative which inevitably leads to blaming pro-choicers for being "hard line," "tone deaf," and lacking "nuance."

She tries to pass the whole deal off as 'business as usual'.

Two-steps-forward-one-step-back is the ugly reality of progressive politics.

That's often true, but not necessarily.

In Canada, we did it differently.

Merkin feminists won the right to abortion on January 22, 1973 with the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade.

Immediately legislatures around the country started enacted restrictions.

In response to Roe v. Wade, most states enacted or attempted to enact laws limiting or regulating abortion. . . Congress in 1976 passed the Hyde Amendment, barring federal funding of abortions (except in the case of rape, incest, or life of the woman) for poor women through the Medicaid program. The Supreme Court struck down several state restrictions on abortions in a long series of cases stretching from the mid-1970s to the late 1980s, but upheld restrictions on funding, including the Hyde Amendment, in the case of Harris v. McRae (1980).

Merkin feminists have been fighting -- and largely losing -- rearguard skirmishes ever since.

Canadians watched in horror as the huge victory got nibbled to death by ducks.

We were like the younger sister. We got to watch Big Sis make terrible mistakes. And like the smart younger sister, we learned. We vowed to ourselves the political equivalent of 'blue eyeshadow is NEVER a good idea'.

It took 15 more years in Canada, until January 28, 1988, to achieve our victory, R. v. Morgentaler.

But because we watched and learned, we were ready for the ducks. Every time -- every fucking time -- the fetus fetishists show signs of screwing around with our rights, we act.

Recently, with Ken Epp's Kicking Abortion's Ass Bill, we were a little slow off the mark.

So when Woodworth's Wank, aka Motion 312 surfaced, we were ready.

And we are ready for its sequel, Warawa's Wank, aka Motion 408.

As a matter of fact, the more the so-called debate heats up here in Canada, the more support we gain.

So, bring it, fetus fetishists.

We watched Big Sis fuck up.

We won't.

ADDED: Joyce Arthur's excellent Rabble piece on The Benefits of Decriminalizing Abortion.

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.

Shocking New Poll: Canadians Fine with Status Quo on Abortion!

So, LifeShite is SHRIEEKING about its latest poll under this headline: Canada: Poll Shows 72% Want Pro-Life Protections for Unborn.

(One wonders, in passing, what 'pro-life' protections are. As opposed to what other kinds of protections? Helmets? Identity theft?)

As usual, there is some flummery in how they get that number. Basically they throw out the protection 'at birth' and the 'don't give a shit' numbers, add the rest together and get 72%!!!!!11!!!

Here's how the numbers break down.

Human life should be protected:
at conception: 28%
from 2 months on: 17%
from 3 months on: 17%
from 6 months on: 10%
at birth: 20%
don't give a shit: 9%

Of course, the wording of the question is always interesting. There's a link at LifeShite to the PDF where I found this.

Q.5 This question concerns the development of human life before birth. According to medical research, a fetal heart begins to beat about three weeks after conception. Brain waves can be detected within two months after conception. By two months all organs and body parts are in place. In your opinion, at what point should the law protect human life?

Throw some misleading 'medical research' at people and ask them to pick a point in time. Say nothing about fetal viability, which is the stage that some sane people think is worth considering. But it's tricky.

There is no sharp limit of development, age, or weight at which a fetus automatically becomes viable. According to data years 2003-2005, 20 to 35 percent of babies born at 23 weeks of gestation survive, while 50 to 70 percent of babies born at 24 to 25 weeks, and more than 90 percent born at 26 to 27 weeks, survive. It is rare for a baby weighing less than 500g (17.6 ounces) to survive.

I wonder how the answers would have gone if the question had been something like this: 'Medical research shows that very premature babies cost the medical system boatloads of money, and even then, premies have poor survival rates and high risk of lifelong health problems. In your opinion, at what point should the healthcare system be on the hook for bazillions of dollars?'

Who came up with that bullshit question? Oh. Look. From Environics' PDF:

QUESTION DESIGN
The questions were designed by senior Environics researchers in conjunction with representatives from LifeCanada. The questions were pre-tested as part of the overall survey, prior to being finalized.

Translation: We put our top people on this 'fleecing the fetus fetishists' gambit.

Fetus fetishists were probably less happy with the legality question. A whopping 68% think abortion is fine in the first three months, which, not surprisingly, is within the timeframe of over 90% of abortions.

In other words, a solid majority of Canadians are A-OK with the status quo.

As we said back in April 2010, despite the Manning Centre's and abortion criminalizers' wishful thinking, Canada remains pro-choice and socially liberal. A fact that has remained virtually unchanged for the past decade.

The So-Conned Catch a Clue

It's a long weekend so it's not surprising that the fetus fetishists have yet to respond to the news that Stevie Peevie insists there will be no new abortion law. (Not that we trust him on that atallatall.)

They're discussing it at the Freaks, though, and my Facebook friend Connie had this to say:

There is no reason for Harper to take the position that he will "oppose any attempt" to create legislation around the issue of abortion.

If he thinks he is fooling the socons because the "threw us a bone" in refusing to fund overseas abortions, then refused to even allow a discussion of the issue in Canada, he's in for a surprise.

Canada is probably the only country in the world with absolutely no restrictions on abortion, yet Harper has no problem putting all kinds of restrictions on our real rights, like freedom of speech.

The cultural change has happened already. The polls prove it. The turn-out at the March for Life proves it. That cop-out doesn't work for Harper anymore. At this point, it is Harper's gutlessness that it holding back progress in this area, and the socons aren't being fooled.

We have a Prime Minister who thinks it is appropriate to legislate that ISPs install software to spy on us and turn over that data without a warrant, and that the police be allowed to conduct random breathalyzer tests. But, NO WAY will he allow legislation that would infringe on the "right" of an abusive man to force his woman to have an abortion!

It's time for Harper to go.

Of course, she's wrong about the culture changing in her desired direction, but I can really get behind that last sentence.

So, ya think the so-conneds will sit on their chequebooks, stay home, or vote for one of the fringier nutbar parties?

BONUS: From Norman Spector an account of Stevie Spiteful's hissy fit. Oh, to have been a fly on the wall. . .

According to a report by Hélène Buzzetti in Le Devoir this morning, Prime Minister Stephen Harper met for nearly an hour with his closest advisers last Monday in order to find a way out of the G8/G20 maternal-health abortion mess on the government’s hands.

“ ‘Stephen Harper was furious,’ according to a well-informed Conservative source and is reported to have said: ‘I’m in a bind on this issue and don’t look forward to taking it into an election campaign.’ According to the same source, the minister responsible, Bev Oda, is part of the problem: ‘She’s not a good communicator, she’s pro-choice and is not persuasive when she speaks on the issue’.”

“At last Monday’s meeting, one faction suggested that Mr. Harper deliver a major speech ‘to set the record straight.’ The other group [led by chief of staff Guy Giorno] ruled this out: ”We must protect our base’.”

Yah. Connie feels real protected. Not to mention Bev Odious.

Harpo: 'Read my (glossed) lips'

So now we're supposed to trust him on this?

A new abortion law for Canada just isn't in the cards, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Friday as the issue continues to bubble and backbench Conservatives press for new legislation.

Harper's statement came in response to a question about a private member's bill by Conservative backbencher Rod Bruinooge, who wants to penalize anyone who "coerces" a woman into ending her pregnancy.

"I generally don't comment on private member's legislation," the prime minister said.

"But I have been clear: I will oppose any attempt to create a new abortion law."

When I posted that question at the Left-Wing Fringe Group Facebook page, Antonia Zerbisias replied:

No. Has he honoured anything he has said? Senate appointments? Accountability? Deficit? ANYTHING?

And, of course, that list could go on and on and on.

The man never met a promise he didn't want to stomp his widdle feet on.

If this isn't the clearest signal yet that the CPC is stringing the fetus fetishists along, I don't know what would qualify. Why the hell don't they wakey-wakey?

JJ counsels vigilance. I agree.

But if you'd like to mosey over to Bruinooge's glurgey yet eerily quiet Facebook group to snerk at them, I would entirely understand *ahem*.

In related news, another! poll! on abortion! Demonstrating yet again that despite the fetus fetishists' wishful thinking, Canada is definitely pro-choice!

A third of Canadians want the abortion debate reopened - but a far greater number want politicians to leave the explosive issue alone and are satisfied with the status quo, according to a poll released Friday.

In fact, Canadians are so blasé about the status quo that

. . . 17 per cent said they didn't care one way or the other.

I find that number kind of reassuring. I'd like to see that 17% not as ignorant slackers but as people who think: 'Yeah, whatever. No matter who's shrieeeeeeking what, we're not going back to the Dark Ages. It's a done deal. Now, go away, I've got a hockey game to watch/patio to hang out on/cottage to open.'

ADDED: Da woims toin. Fetus fetishists getting it, ya think?

The More Canadians Think about It. . . (part 2)

A poll released yesterday and another today.

Canadians want the federal government to spend aid money on safe abortions in developing countries despite the prime minister's refusal to do so, an exclusive QMI Agency poll has found.

This sample is bigger than yesterday's but the results are similar. Slightly more people in this poll support spending foreign aid on access to abortion (61% v. 58%) and slightly more oppose such spending (34% v. 30%).

But will Harper and his TheoCons listen to the people?

Yeah. I know.

Nonetheless, Canada is a pro-choice country.