Let me say right up front, that having listened to dozens of US and Canadian radio talk show hosts, I think that QR77’s Danielle Smith is one of the best in North America. But she still is plagued by some massive blind spots of the type that led her, as Wildrose Party leader, to cross the floor and join the corrupt and unpopular Progressive Conservative Party of Alberta.
Currently, it’s her fundamentalist Progressivism that steers her into the ditch. Listening to a recent show, she dismissed both Derek Sloan and Leslyn Lewis as potential leaders of the Conservative Party of Canada, because, they have some non-Progressivist positions on social issues, and she says: “Canadians don’t want to go backwards on social issues.” Actually, many of us would argue that we need to go back to regain sanity.
Irregardless, Danielle completely ignored Lewis’s five specific, and only positions on social issues.
Lewis will do nothing on same-sex marriage because that ship has sailed, and I agree with her. Canada made a deal with same sex couples, and while I oppose the demands of the LGBT radicals to co-opt whatever cultural traditions they wish, I absolutely detest people and companies and countries that break contracts.
Lewis’s other foray into social issues is abortion, and she’s laid out four specific policies that the overwhelming majority of Canadians agree with.
1. She would outlaw aborting baby girls just because they’re baby girls. 91% of Canadians agree.
2. She would outlaw coerced abortions. Anyone who would object to that should be ignored.
3. She would increase funding for counseling and support for women and girls facing unwanted or unplanned pregnancy. That’s an initiative that the pro-choice side has been advocating for decades.
4. Lewis would end funding abortions in developing countries, for the very good reason, that most people in these developing countries, and I know this for a fact, oppose this cultural imposition. They view it as 21st century colonialism, and someone should let Justin Trudeau know.
And Danielle Smith needs to break out of her intellectual straitjacket on some of these social issues, and do a 3 C rethink, that is, think Carefully, Courageously, and Completely.
Conservative parties, and even Progressivist parties, always include people that are uncomfortable with the issue of abortion. In most developed countries – other than Canada – there are limits to abortion depending on the stage of the pregnancy. In Canada there are no laws, and no legal limits, and, we’re not even supposed to talk about the issue. We should, because with DNA we now know that a new, completely individual human life begins at conception, and Canada should join other modern nations in recognizing that fact.
A few weeks ago I received an article suggesting that social conservatives should approach the abortion issue pragmatically, rather than idealistically. The author asked me if I would be interested in publishing it on my blog, anonymously. The author’s data is correct, and since I’m in philosophical agreement on the issue, I’ve agreed.
Please read it carefully, and then let us know what you think.
I’m Dave Reesor
A smart Conservative approach to abortion in Canada
I estimate that only 10% of Canadians support the status quo: abortion is legal during all nine months of pregnancy, for any reason, every reason, or no reason. Sex-selection abortions (parent or parents unhappy with the gender of their/his/her unborn child) are perfectly legal in Canada, and this victimizes unborn girls far more frequently than unborn boys.
Most Canadians, upon hearing that abortion in Canada is legal during all nine months of pregnancy, respond by getting upset and denouncing this fact as a lie. But facts are facts. There is no Criminal Code prohibition on ending a human life until the baby is fully outside of his or her mother. Prior to that, the unborn person has no legal personhood. Nor are there other laws or policies, federal or provincial, that place any restrictions on abortion, or impose requirements of any kind. The number of late-term abortions is not large, but this does not mean that late-term abortions are illegal.
The remaining 90% of Canadians fall into various shades of belief on the spectrum, from hard-core pro-life (make all abortions illegal) to mostly pro-life (allow abortions in cases of rape, incest or serious fetal deformities/handicaps) to middle-of-the-road (undecided or no strong view) to mostly pro-choice (late-term abortions and gender selection abortions are not OK).
Why, in a democracy, do we have five political parties (Libs, NDP, Conservatives, Greens, Bloc Quebecois) chasing after 10% of the vote, and expressly rejecting and repudiating the 90% of voters who want at least some restrictions on abortion? My best guess is that a small, extremist pro-choice minority has successfully mobilized vocal support for the status quo, but without speaking honestly about what the status quo actually is: abortion legal during all nine months of pregnancy. It’s much easier to attack the hard-core pro-life position (that probably 90% of Canadians disagree with) than it is to justify late-term abortions and gender-selection abortions.
Another reason why the five parties now represented in the House of Commons are chasing after the 10% minority is that the pro-life movement, in the past 50 years, has been dominated by “absolutists” who refuse to discuss any public policy option other than a total and immediate ban on all abortions. Serious pro-lifers who would like to reach their ultimate goal step-by-step have been frozen out by groups which have not achieved any legislative or policy victory in the past 50 years. Pro-life advocacy for popular measures like banning late-term abortions and gender-selection abortions has begun to emerge in Canada only recently.
The Conservative Party of Canada has as many options on dealing with abortion as there are positions on abortion. Looking at this purely from the angle of winning votes (and putting aside moral questions about ending the lives of people before they are born), I suggest that one approach is particularly foolish, and another approach particularly smart.
The foolish approach is to join the Libs, New Democrats, Greens and Bloc Quebecois in chasing after the 10% of Canadian voters who actually support the status quo. Why wade into this crowded field? Why ignore the 90% of voters who are unhappy with the status quo?
Apart from ignoring the 90% of voters who want at least some restrictions on abortion, the Conservative Party is seen (correctly) as profoundly insincere when it pretends to be chasing after the 10% of extremist pro-choice voters. Everybody knows that many CPC candidates are pro-life, including its most recent leader, Andrew Scheer. Everybody knows that the CPC, unlike the other four parties represented in the House of Commons, is not really and truly enthusiastic about the status quo. Lack of sincerity breeds mistrust.
The 10% of voters who support gender-selection abortions and late-term abortions are never going to vote for the Conservatives. And, without advocating directly for late-term abortions and gender-selection abortions, the 10% extreme pro-choice group will successfully capitalize on the CPC’s lack of sincerity in order to generate doubt and mistrust that hurts the CPC amongst many (perhaps most) Canadian voters.
The smart approach would be for the Conservative Party to appeal to 90% of Canadians by advocating for a ban on late-trimester abortions and gender-selective abortions.
This position would generate howls of outrage from at least three sources.
First, the Liberals, NDs, Bloc and Greens would denounce this CPC position as utterly wicked, bad and wrong; a regressive assault on the fundamental rights of women; a backwards and misogynist approach; a threat to reproductive choice, etc.. And, for a few weeks or possibly a few months, these denunciations would work political wonders temporarily.
But the political positions of candidates and parties need to be repeated frequently before they sink it. It will take a lot more than one news conference for the CPC to communicate to voters its proposed ban on late-term abortions and gender-selection abortions. However, after repeating this position for 6, 12, 18 or more months, 90% of voters would realize that they agree with CPC policy on abortion. It would only be a matter of time before the other four federal parties were on the defensive, having to explain to 90% of Canadians why they support late-term abortion and gender-selection abortion.
The second source of outrage would come from the biased, left-wing media. In harmony with the four parties whose ideology they share, the so-called “mainstream” media would declare that the Conservative Party had committed political suicide simply by failing to pander to the abortion orthodoxy accepted by only 10% of Canadians. Like the other left-wing parties, the media party would try very hard not to inform Canadians of the fact that abortion is legal during all nine months of pregnancy, or of the fact that gender-selection abortion is legal in Canada.
The third source of outrage would come from a small number of established but ineffective pro-life activists who would denounce the Conservative Party as a pro-choice enemy. Of note: a small number of pro-lifers were already doing this when Andrew Scheer was leading the CPC. After the October 2019 election, some pro-lifers very publicly called on Andrew Scheer to resign as CPC leader for not being pro-life. But most pro-lifers in Canada realize that the goal of full protection for all unborn children will never – never – be fully realized in one move. Rather, when it comes to any political issue (taxes; immigration; deficits-and-debt; health care; education; aboriginal rights; LGBTQ issues; etc.) change is almost always incremental. In short, the pro-life “absolutists” have little influence over other pro-lifers, or over the Canadian public at large.
In summary, if the CPC adopts a policy of banning late-term abortions and gender-selection abortions, it will align itself with 90% of Canadians, and will not lose votes from amongst the 10% pro-choice extremists who would never vote for the CPC in any case.
The CPC position against late-term abortions and against gender-selection abortions will engender loud but useless outrage from other federal parties, from the media party, and from a very small number of pro-life activists who lack political influence and clout.
If the CPC is committed to withstanding the initial waves of vocal-but-shallow opposition to its new policies, it will put the other four parties on the defensive; they will be obligated to defend an extreme position that only 10% of Canadian voters agree with.
A smart approach or a foolish approach … it’s up to the Conservative Party to decide.
There’s been a lot of talk lately about the need for a moderate conservatism. I agree.
Progressivist Conservatives often tell us that they are fiscally conservative but socially progressive, in other words, they are models of moderation.
What it really seems to mean in practice is that you must timidly support every social initiative of the Progressivist Left, no matter how intrusive, anti-human rights, anti-family, anti-science, or, outright perverted.
The fact is that on most social issues, our society has completely abandoned moderation.
Because let me ask you:
Is it immoderate to oppose government initiatives that completely ignore the UN’s Declaration of Human Rights, which explicitly states that it’s not the government, but parents, who have a “prior” or first right, to decide on the education of their children?
Was it immoderate for Theresa Ng to reveal that Alberta’s taxpayer financed Gay Straight Alliance, or GSA website provided links to over 20 sexually explicit websites?
That GSA website is approved for children ages 5 to 18, but Kris Wells the guy in charge, didn’t think Theresa’s concern was moderate. He called her hysterical and sensationalist. On what dystopian planet would you draw that conclusion?
Is it immoderate to affirm the scientific and biological, and obvious reality of two genders?
Is it immoderate to oppose government initiatives, that seek to normalize gender dysphoria in children, against the findings of science, and, simple common sense? Those initiatives constitute government sanctioned child abuse.
Is it immoderate for a politician to give a pass to Gay Pride Parades (LINK WARNING: severe stupidity on display) – those Flasher Festivals where addled parents flaunt their Progressivist bona fides by taking their kids to gawk at naked men? In saner times, it would be considered child abuse.
Is it immoderate to point out the irrefutable scientific fact, that a human being’s life journey begins at conception, and that at no point is a fetus a part of a woman’s body. It is in her womb for protection and nourishment, but it has its own DNA, its own blood type, distinct heartbeat, and even personality!
Is it immoderate to insist that we need to have an honest conversation about abortion, and to enact a law to give the fetus protection after a certain stage of its development? Could we at least outlaw aborting baby girls, just because they’re girls?
The fact is, that it’s the current governments of Alberta and Ontario and Canada that are immoderate.
Most of the mainstream media is giddily proud of their immoderate social views.
Much of Hollywood is immoderate to the borders of insanity.
It’s past time for real moderates – that would be those of us who don’t ignore biology and science, and who have a high regard for observed reality – to make our voices heard, and call out the im-moderation of the Progressivist Left.
A few days ago it was reported that as doctor assisted suicide becomes more popular, it will save Canada’s health care system millions of dollars a year. So I had a bit of an online discussion about it, and pointed out that in Belgium and the Netherlands the assistance has not always been requested by the patient, and is therefore, technically, murder. But apparently it’s okay. Nobody is arrested, and it does save money on health care.
I also suggested that the elderly and infirm will increasingly be pressured to check out early and make their beds available for others. If you don’t think that’s coming, you’re naïve.
Now there’s a new Global TV series called: “Mary kills People.” Mary’s a very good ER doctor, but she also has a sideline; helping people commit suicide. The concerning thing is that the show apparently presents the issue in both a serious and lighthearted manner. For example, entertainment writer Bill Harris describes the following scene.
“Mary and her partner in crime Des are helping a terminally ill ex-football player take his own life. Rather than receiving an injection he is given a drug cocktail to drink so that he is the one who technically is committing the act.”
Harris describes the scene further: “But there’s a sharp change in tone that occurs quite quickly. Suddenly it’s almost slapstick. The ex-football player’s wife comes home unexpectedly and the frazzled Mary and Des scurry out onto the balcony to avoid detection, as if it were a caper comedy.”
So that’s the strategy. Make assisted suicide a joke and people will get used to the idea. After all, only a stick in the mud would get upset about a joke.
We’ve seen this same bait and switch strategy throughout the abortion debate. The fetus is part of the woman’s body. Desperate women are already having abortions, so why not make them legal? Doctors can be counted on to provide abortions only to those women who had been raped, or to save the life of the mother. And, abortions will be rare.
Part of the woman’s body? We now know, scientifically speaking that from conception on, the baby has a separate DNA. Within a few weeks, it has a heartbeat. It has its own blood type. At no time in the continuum of pregnancy is the fetus a part of the woman’s body. It is nourished by the woman’s body, and evolution or creation has obviously planned that it’s to be protected by the woman’s body, but it a separate individual.
Rare? Since the famous 1973 Supreme Court decision in Roe V Wade, over 50 million abortions have been performed in the United States, and a disproportionate number of them were performed on African-Americans. Black lives matter?
In Québec, which is struggling with a birth rate well below population replacement levels, about 30,000 unborn little Quebecois’ are terminated, each year. In total, Canada aborts around 100,000 annually.
Necessary? It’s estimated that less than 10% of abortions are performed because of rape or medical necessity. If you don’t believe me watch from minute 7 to 9 of this interview in which Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards describes her own abortion, which she says clearly, was for convenience.
In 2013 I blogged about gender selective abortions. Where are the missing girls?
I doubt that either assisted suicide, or abortion, will ever be eliminated from human society. But by any measure, a decent society will ensure that it is indeed rare; at least, arguably necessary; and above all, taken seriously. Could we please have the conversation?