Andrew Coyne

By now you’ve all read Andrew Coyne on the abortion debate. Good piece and I appreciate it. I’m all for a debate. “The debate is over” is a pretty constant refrain amongst abortion supporters. Translation: “I personally enjoy–and agree with–the status quo.”

When are issues truly “over”? Perhaps we can declare certain issues to be decided and done-like-dinner with the benefit of hindsight–I’m talking the benefit of decades, maybe a century. But nowadays we seek resolution within 22 minute sitcoms and anything longer is protracted, unwieldy, divisive–or “over.”

Now reopening what was never actually broached would be great. But it’s not the debate I look forward to. It is the moment when we all unify in our civilized society to understand that killing babies in the womb doesn’t solve our problems. Reopening the debate is certainly a step in the right direction, don’t get me wrong. But it’s certainly not a pro-life thing to do or say. The United Kingdom–they debated indeed, and couldn’t manage to limit the killing to a point when we’re sure the child isn’t fully sentient and doesn’t experience pain (their abortion limit is 24 weeks, some fetal pain experts argue a baby suffers his or her own death at 20. I’m not a fetal pain expert, and that’s not my point.)

So what is my point this cranky Wednesday? My point is this: The debate is not the point. It’s killing babies in the womb (abortion) that’s the point. I will never agree that killing babies in the womb is a solution. So as long as I’m living, there will be at least one girl to counter this here current status quo. There are of course, many more like me. That means an ongoing debate, and one that one round of legislation couldn’t possibly solve. Get ready. Rome wasn’t built in a day.

From today’s Ottawa Citizen:

[Margaret] Somerville is not a member of the Order of Canada. A nomination submitted a few years ago by Anglican minister and preaching professor Carol Finlay was unsuccessful. Ms. Finlay was told it was because Ms. Somerville was too controversial.

Or, as Andrew Coyne pointed out a few days ago about the idea that controversial or divisive figures should not necessarily be banned from receiving civilian honours:

I would have more sympathy with the argument if it ever applied in the opposite direction. But it never – ever – does. A figure as controversial as Morgentaler, but of the opposite convictions would, if he were not behind bars, be shunned by all of the organs of polite society.
This is not confined only to the abortion issue. It applies across the board. The arbiters of orthodoxy are not content with perpetually skewing every debate to one side. It is necessary also to pretend, wherever possible, that only one side exists.
Thus, for example, a Rosalie Abella of the right, should one exist, would have no hope of ever being appointed to the Supreme Court. The chorus that would rise up against such a “divisive” debate would be made up of exactly the same people who burbled contentedly at her appointment, and quite unaware of the irony.
I say this as someone who subscribes to many parts of the orthodoxy. But the smugness of it, the heedless insensitivity to other points of view, can be a little hard to take.

Over before it began

Hey, I thought ‘controversial’ wasn’t an obstacle…

Meta