Sep 12
26
The New Integrity: Tom Bartlett
By Tom Bartlett
Secularists always like to assure us when they take a revised position on a social issue; this is evidence of their evolved thinking on the issue. Nowhere has this mindset been more evident than the subject of abortion. In fact, in the intervening 24 years from when abortion was legalized, we have evolved so much that we are hard pressed to find a politician willing to call into question the morality of the issue; even a “Conservative.”
For instance, I contacted “Conservative” M.P. for Burlington, Mike Wallace to verify how he would be voting on Motion 312 which seeks to revisit the language defining “personhood.” He made clear he would be opposing it. He defended his willingness to forego partisanship and vote against his Conservative colleague’s (Stephen Woodworth) motion based on a very disturbing premise. Essentially, he assured me he was acting out of integrity as he had committed to his constituents that he would in no way involve himself in making any abortion law.
Once you’ve all recovered from the pairing of “politician” and “integrity,” I would like to first express that I agree in principle. After all, when one tells their constituents they will stand firm on a position they campaigned on, it is something far too rarely honoured once the candidate makes it into office. Now, let me tell you where his assertion is specious and falls on its face.
1) Obviously this motion does not bring about abortion law. The only possible outcome would be an accurate identification of what constitutes a “person.” Given the fact that our human rights and protections come from an accurate determination of what constitutes a “person,” this motion is either a largely insignificant affirmation, or has implications on a sector of society that have been denied protections; which leads to the next point:
2) This motion would only change abortion law if the present wording denies legal protections the unborn should be afforded. In other words, Mr. Wallace’s position only has merit if abortion is legalized murder; thus making crystal clear why the wording needs to be addressed. Any politician refusing to support Motion 312 is artificially shoring up the lack of an abortion law by pretending that all that matters is a right to abort – whatever the real cost may be.
3) Mike Wallace, M.P. is assuming that he was voted into office to oppose abortion law, but perhaps he was elected because people hoped he would stand up for conservative values. There was a veritable smorgasbord of alternatives if one wanted to choose a socially liberal candidate willing to defend abortion at any cost. What Mr. Wallace and vast numbers of politicians are failing to recognise is that social conservatives have no voice; perhaps explaining why we can relate so well to the unborn.
It is a new kind of integrity at work when it involves bending over backward to ignore facts in the face of profound human rights violations. While I have been especially critical of Mr. Wallace for having boldly stated his position, at least he responded. I know the sentiment is not unique to him.
When I contacted Bob Rae’s office, the response was the same. I knew him to be adamant in his opposition to the motion and warning of the dire implications. Yes, you say, but he is a Liberal, so obviously he would be opposed. Actually, the case for liberals to support Mr. Woodworth’s motion is just as compelling – at least if liberals are actually true to their stated principles. Again, apologies for the juxtaposition of “Liberal” and “principles.”
Those on the left always proclaim that they are champions of the marginalised and neglected of society; Conservatives are the ones portrayed as having no heart. I know they tell us that the overriding issue is a desire to defend woman’s rights. This argument, however, has no meaning if the welfare of the unborn is ignored. The truth has no agenda; so why oppose something where the risk of failing to act is so extreme. Besides, for any who have been around pro-lifers, they’d know that the most ardent members of the pro-life movement are women. Either these women are fighting to have their rights denied; or they recognise the issue is deeper than whimsical bumper sticker slogans.
The cynic in me wants to draw the obvious conclusion that those with the greatest investment in the debate are unable to vote – now or ever. What I truly believe is similar, however not quite so crass. Opposition to abortion is unpopular in much of Canada because the message has been so distorted. Politicians fear venturing into the issue because they fear being painted as intolerant or misogynist. Much like when the mob takes over, the extreme voices on the left have been allowed to mischaracterise the issue and the opposing viewpoints. It’s a lot more work to dispel the mythology than join in lockstep. This Motion could be the opening salvo in a move toward a more enlightened and compassionate society, or a retreat into the shadows. Today’s vote will tell us which.