In her article, My Money, My Choice, Rebecca Walberg attempts to posit an anti-abortion argument along the lines of fair public policy.
“Abortion is not a private act so long as you and I are paying for it. Removing public funding from procedures done for reasons other than medical necessity is a win-win: Pro-abortion advocates should be pleased this private act will be chosen, performed and funded entirely in the private sphere. Those opposed to abortion will take some small comfort in knowing they are not subsidizing it, and that raising the cost of an abortion will reduce its incidence. There simply is no justification for continuing to ask all Canadians to pay the bills when women exercise a personal, private choice.”
Ms. Walberg’s argument is spurious and insidious. It’s a poor assumption that all women who choose abortion would have the money to pay for it. The public funding of abortion is intended to ensure there is choice for all women, and not just those who can afford it.
Is it not curious that a pro-life article from a Winnipeg writer appears in the National Post around the same time there are rumours of a behind-the-scenes movement from a Winnipeg MP to revive the abortion debate?
Is it not curious that a pro-life article from a Winnipeg writer appears in the National Post around the same time there are rumours of a behind-the-scenes movement from a Winnipeg MP to revive the abortion debate?
1 comments:
It's funny to fathom what these knuckleheads don't get: that denying abortions to the poorest and weakest in society will simply increase what these "anti-choicers" call a "problem" in the first place... more young unwed mothers having children they don't want, and cannot take care of appropriately. We think we have social problems now in certain demographics? Just let these right wing nutjobs run the show a little longer...
No wonder they are part of the "war on intelligence" - the new "idiot nation". Send in Joe the Plumber...
Post a Comment