The beauty of Canadian abortion politics (bet you never thought you’d read “beauty” and “abortion politics” in the same sentence) is that they have always been very non-partisan. There are pro-lifers scattered about in every party. Did Michael Ignatieff just change the game by declaring his party to be the party of abortion rights? Will be interesting to see just who has to do the backpedalling here, and my guess is it’s not going to be the Conservatives. Tons of faithful Catholics vote Liberal. Or they used to, anyway.
Here’s a good piece about this, with plenty of good quotes:
By bringing abortion into a discussion where it had not previously been, and then making it a key element, Mr. Ignatieff seemed to go much further, says Tom Flanagan, a University of Calgary political scientist and former campaign manager for the Conservative party. “Of all the issues that you could possibly raise about women’s health, why would you start with abortion?” Mr. Flanagan says. “What kind of mindset is that that you have to start killing unborn babies in order to help people? It seems to be based on the now discredited theory that poverty in the Third World is based on overpopulation. I don’t think any serious scholar believes that anymore.”
It will be interesting to see how this plays out. It appears that abortion in the Liberal ranks just moved from necessary evil to irrevocable right. I don’t think the majority are comfortable that.
by 
Heather P. says
February 4, 2010 at 1:34 pm*Tons of faithful Catholics vote Liberal. Or they used to, anyway.*
That would be me. Now I’m at a loss, and for the first time since I reached the age of majority will probably not be voting. Politics really matters to me, but if I can’t stand behind a party (Liberals/NDP) due their views on abortion, and I can’t stand behind the Conservatives for basically everything else… what’s a girl to do?
Suricou Raven says
February 4, 2010 at 2:08 pm“It seems to be based on the now discredited theory that poverty in the Third World is based on overpopulation. I don’t think any serious scholar believes that anymore.”
Did any serious scholar ever believe that? I know some attributed it – and still do – to an extreme rate of population growth that outstrips the infrastructure and production capacity. But not population itsself.
Heather: A small party perhaps? Yes, it’s throwing your vote away, essentially. But if everyone upset with the big parties does that, the small ones will grow.
Julie Culshaw says
February 4, 2010 at 2:23 pmDoesn’t Stephen Lewis believe in the dangers of over-population?
It is always the rich who worry about over-population, being over-populated by those who have less. Means they might have to share their wealth.
Brigitte Pellerin says
February 4, 2010 at 2:47 pmReminds me of P.J. O’Rourke’s definition of over-population: “just enough of me, way too much of you”.
Melissa says
February 4, 2010 at 2:40 pmI think it is about time for some Catholic Bishops to speak out.
Andrea Mrozek says
February 5, 2010 at 9:43 amHeather: Go Green? Elizabeth May once teetered on the edge of making a pro-life statement before “the consensus” on this “divisive topic” that has “been decided so long ago” shut her down. 🙂 I feel that with a bit of bolstering, she could go publicly pro-life. Just a thought.
another Heather says
February 5, 2010 at 6:09 pmSidenote: I haven’t looked far enough into the Green party to encourage or discourage anyone to support it, but I must say that Elizabeth May’s book “How to Save the World in Your Spare Time” was quite an inspiration to me as I started doing campus pro-life work…