A paranoid anti-choicer aware of columnist Russell Wangersky’s own view of abortion might be tempted suspiciously to interpret his column Feb. 22 (“If you’re a non-voter, you’re part of the problem), which urges everyone to vote so that fervent “special interests” will not take over the country by dominating a low turnout of voters, as attempting to scare the pro-abortion crowd into tolerating the status quo of irresponsible or dishonest government rather than let a government gain power which would restrict abortions.
Such an interpretation might be even more likely if the paranoid anti-choicer were to reflect on the actual number of “special interests” currently prominent in Canadian politics.
Some may object to my having here called them “pro-abortion.” They may say, as some often do, that no one is “pro-abortion” in the sense of actually desiring to kill unborn humans, but that sometimes there are circumstances which make an abortion necessary.
In reply, perhaps I may submit similarly that those homicidal maniacs who actually want to kill other adult humans are relatively few, but sometimes there are circumstances in which justice makes capital punishment necessary?
Or does that suggestion just make me just another savagely bloodthirsty extremist right-winger, because sauce for the goose is not sauce for the gander? (The real reason advocates of capital punishment are more evidently “eager” to prevail than most of the “pro-choice” admit to being, might be that it is normal for humans to be eager for justice.)
There is another phrase often used in this context to which I myself am inclined to object: the phrase “unwanted pregnancy”; I feel almost certain that it is not the pregnancy itself which troubles an expectant mother when she is troubled, but rather some other circumstance truly unfortunate or even wrong which itself is not amenable to a remedy as easy (in the physical sense) as killing a baby.
Port au Port