Why is abortion so popular with women who would never dream of having an abortion?
Perhaps because women believe women should have autonomy over their bodies, and the right to control their lives and destinies?
Maybe your question should be turned around Mr. Warren. Maybe it should read, ''Why do so many right-wing men who will never get pregnant feel it's any of their business to pontificate on women's bodies and their self-determination?''
To continue with his incoherent, all too precious and disingenuous diatribe ...
The "culture of death" -- of family breakdown, contraception, abortion, pornography (this last is demographically significant, for as men become more addicted to pornography, they become less interested in conventional, procreative sex) -- feeds on itself.
Culture of death? Seriously?
I wrote on the weekend about Michael Ignatieff's demand that Stephen Harper include abortion and contraception "services" in his G8 scheme to improve maternal and child healthcare in the poorest countries. My immediate purpose was to remind readers of the huge and vicious lie upon which the Liberal leader is trading. For we do not improve the health of a baby by killing it.
No, we improve the health of the mother whose malnourished, diseased, AIDS-ravaged, exhausted and all-too-often raped body cannot bear the burden of a fifth, sixth, seventh child, especially before the woman is even 30. And, if she dies of maternity related causes, what of those other actual living children? They're as good as dead.
But hey, to Warren, contraception is the ''culture of death.''
The proposition may be evil and absurd; yet according to several media sources, there is evidence it is popular -- especially among woman voters who had been trending towards Harper's more socially and fiscally conservative policies. I know several examples of "swing voters" in this class, and can more or less follow the thinking. I'm afraid it is not flattering to them.
Bad women. Stupid women. Culture of death women who get the point that, unless the mother is in a condition to care for and protect her living children, there's no point in her becoming pregnant again.
Note the genius of Ignatieff's appeal: not for more contraception and abortion here, where we have surely had enough, but rather in "the poorest countries" -- which we think have long been producing "too many babies." And, too many babies who could be clamouring to come here one day. Harper's policy might increase the load; Ignatieff's might reduce it.
Nice one. Now he accuses Ignatieff -- as well as every doctor who has ever worked in the field -- of advocating eugenics. (And, for a sense of how Warren feels about immigration from the poorest countries, read this.)
Even within North America, abortion appeals to some because it does, in fact, disproportionately reduce the offspring of certain racial minorities. The eugenic argument for it was actually the first to be made, back in the days when it was still acceptable to speak about the fertility of the "lower orders" and the "inferior races."
Yes, well, that was also back in the day when not even women were ''persons.''
This argument is still very much alive, though today dressed up in feminist jargon.
Really? Prove it.
"Population control," through the United Nations or otherwise, has always consisted of "breeding instructions for the blacks, browns, and yellows." And this is precisely what Ignatieff is selling, to the sort of people who want to buy it.
Oh, you mean us dumb cars vehicles vessels who believe women should have choice? That ''sort of people?''
Ah David Warren, father of a Down syndrome child you trot out for rhetorical purposes when convenient, such a fine upstanding, believer in fatherhood, family, the sanctity of life, etc., remind me to take morality lessons from you.