Elizabeth May wades into the abortion issue once again.

Elizabeth May held an interview with members of the editorial board from the Ottawa Citizen.

She once again address the whole abortion kerfuffle.

To re-cap: In November, while Ms. May was running in the London North-Centre by-election, she stated to a group of Sisters her position on the abortion issue. She caused quite a stir in saying that she believed life was sacred, and that a woman did not have a right to a frivolous abortion. Nonetheless, she believes in legalized abortion.

This interview was caught on audio, and the link to it was passed to a bunch of sites, including Rabble. Judy Rebick, the founder of Rabble.ca, wrote an open letter to Elizabeth May in December, saying that she could no longer support the Green Party, based on the fact that Elizabeth May was willing to have a dialogue on the subject.

In this lengthy interview, she was asked about it again. Tehanu of En Masse printed a transcript of her remarks.

Elizabeth May says that we often reject the "complexity" of moral issues.

I am sympathetic to her position that you can't base public policy on sloganeering-- although I think as activists we need them to quickly communicate an idea.

What I don't agree with is that just because some moral issues are complex, doesn't mean all moral issues are complex.

You can take any moral issue apart and make it complex, if you pull it apart enough. Even inane questions. Like: how many hours should I sleep?

There are so many factors in this decision. There's my need for personal time. There's the fact I have to be rested for my children. The fact my husband likes to fall asleep next to me. Then there are questions about favourite tv shows I want to watch, and on and on and on.

A mundane question like how many hours I should sleep has now been made complex.

When it comes to the issue of human life, I don't even know how she can make the act of taking an innocent human life a complex issue. It's wrong.

I suspect that in her mind, life is an abstract thing, or reduced to a mere series of biochemical reaction. I cannot think of too many actions that are more atrocious than the elimination of a innocent, defenseless human being.

This perception of the unborn child-- as essentially disposable-- is essentially why I am calling for the social and legal recognition of the equality of the unborn child. There are lots of people in the world who oppose the act of abortion on abstract grounds, but who do not acknowledge the equality of the unborn child. On principle, they consider life sacred, but not so sacred that taking an innocent life is profoundly wrong. Taking the lives of people-- now that's wrong, in their eyes. But not taking innocent human life.

You get the distinction?

I will definitively continue to keep an eye on this issue.