I said that abortion proponents do not discuss the abortion act itself.
I was wrong. Sort of. Katha Pollitt writes:
What other procedures will they find "shocking" down the line? It's not as if the alternatives — dismembering the fetus in the womb and extracting it piece by piece; poisoning it and delivering it dead — are delightful to contemplate. Why shouldn't they find more and more abortions unacceptable — maybe even all of them?
What, pray tell, is so "not delightful to contemplate" as she so euphemistically put it-- about dismembering a fetus in the womb?
I had my gall bladder removed through laproscopy. "Not delightful" to be sure, but I wouldn't consider it "gross", even if it was chopped up into a couple of pieces.
We don't have too many people arguing over chopped up gall bladders, do we?
I have to hand it to her: she's somewhat more upfront than most feminsts. But I suspect that most people understand why her approach is a loser. The more people look at abortion, the more they hate it.
Beyond all this, it's flatly outrageous that five men — five devout Catholic men, 56 percent of the court — can impose their will on women's bodies, talking about "anatomical landmarks" as if a woman's reproductive system were some kind of national park. None of them will ever be pregnant or want or need an abortion. That should have made them humble.
How dare they have an opinion on abortion? How dare they apply their ability to reason to facts and then come to a conclusion?
As if there aren't any women pro-lifers in the world who would have made the same call.
_________________________
Visit Opinions Canada
a political blogs aggregator
_________________________
