This article has been imported from our web archive. As a result, it may contain formatting errors, broken links or images, or other inconsistencies from the original publication.
Enlightenment, tolerance according to Michael Ignatieff
By Michael Coren
February 25, 2010
Michael Coren
I first met Michael Ignatieff when my wife and I dined with him in Toronto in the early 1990s. He was an academic and television host back then and had no intention of returning to a Canada which, he told us, he found a little stifling. He obviously changed his mind.
And a fine mind it is. He’s a sophisticated, intelligent man with a great deal to offer but also a patrician person slightly disconnected from the mass of humanity. That was particularly well illustrated in early February when he tried to use the abortion issue to score political points.
And a fine mind it is. He’s a sophisticated, intelligent man with a great deal to offer but also a patrician person slightly disconnected from the mass of humanity. That was particularly well illustrated in early February when he tried to use the abortion issue to score political points.
The plan was as transparent as a politician’s ambition. By urging the Prime Minister to explicitly include abortion and contraception in the government’s proposals to improve women’s health in the developing world he was trying to expose what is assumed by some to be the Conservatives’ hidden agenda. Behind their apparent apathy on social issues, it’s argued, they are opposed to same-sex marriage and oppose abortion.
Ah, if only it were so. There are in fact many Tory MPs who are social and moral conservatives but they have been silenced by the Prime Minister and the government has no plans to interfere with abortion or homosexual marriage — which is extraordinarily regrettable. Ignatieff’s plan failed because the media saw through it. What it showed, however, was not only how far he would go to try to win support but also how the abortion issue has been distorted.
I’ve outlined the scientific and ethical case for the unborn in the past so won’t repeat it here. What is staggering, though, is how care for children in the womb has been turned into a right-wing position. It should have nothing to do with party but if anything is more of the left than the right in that it involves the defence not only of the most vulnerable — the unborn — but also of women, people of colour, the poor and the handicapped.
Women are victims twice over. As potential mothers they are frequently pressured by men to abort, and their babies are invariably aborted by men — there are very, very few female abortionists. Information about post-abortion trauma and links to cancer is generally disguised or hidden by an overwhelmingly male pharmaceutical and medical establishment.
Pre-born women suffer in disproportionate numbers because gender specific abortion is rampant not only in developing nations but also in specific communities in North America and Europe. In contemporary China archaic misogyny has combined with modern technology in the most pernicious form. A mini-van equipped with ultrasound and abortion equipment will come to an area and, if the baby is female, the abortion takes place on the spot. Two procedures in one visit.
As for people of colour, the abortion industry has long concentrated on Africa and Asia, partly because of the number of people that can be influenced but also as part of a more sinister commitment to population control. There is a concerted campaign to reduce numbers in Africa, even though the continent could easily feed itself if we stopped taking its resources and arming its dictators who we often ease into power in the first place.
The case for the suffering of the handicapped is obvious. A virtual war has been declared on the disabled, with a pre-born baby with some detectable challenge far more likely to be killed than one considered “normal.” Park your car in a handicapped parking spot and you’ll be fined, kill your handicapped child and you’ll be given a government grant.
In Kingston, Ont., recently a wonderful woman told me of her little boy with Down syndrome who died after a few months of precious life. She explained that when people found out they’d say, “Didn’t you have the test?” In other words, it would have been preferable to kill the child before he was born and spare everybody so much time and trouble.
So next time any allegedly progressive or left-leaning leader assumes abortion rights are about liberation, freedom and equality they ought to think a little deeper. Look neither left nor right but up and ask who the persecuted really are in these so enlightened and tolerant times.
Ah, if only it were so. There are in fact many Tory MPs who are social and moral conservatives but they have been silenced by the Prime Minister and the government has no plans to interfere with abortion or homosexual marriage — which is extraordinarily regrettable. Ignatieff’s plan failed because the media saw through it. What it showed, however, was not only how far he would go to try to win support but also how the abortion issue has been distorted.
I’ve outlined the scientific and ethical case for the unborn in the past so won’t repeat it here. What is staggering, though, is how care for children in the womb has been turned into a right-wing position. It should have nothing to do with party but if anything is more of the left than the right in that it involves the defence not only of the most vulnerable — the unborn — but also of women, people of colour, the poor and the handicapped.
Women are victims twice over. As potential mothers they are frequently pressured by men to abort, and their babies are invariably aborted by men — there are very, very few female abortionists. Information about post-abortion trauma and links to cancer is generally disguised or hidden by an overwhelmingly male pharmaceutical and medical establishment.
Pre-born women suffer in disproportionate numbers because gender specific abortion is rampant not only in developing nations but also in specific communities in North America and Europe. In contemporary China archaic misogyny has combined with modern technology in the most pernicious form. A mini-van equipped with ultrasound and abortion equipment will come to an area and, if the baby is female, the abortion takes place on the spot. Two procedures in one visit.
As for people of colour, the abortion industry has long concentrated on Africa and Asia, partly because of the number of people that can be influenced but also as part of a more sinister commitment to population control. There is a concerted campaign to reduce numbers in Africa, even though the continent could easily feed itself if we stopped taking its resources and arming its dictators who we often ease into power in the first place.
The case for the suffering of the handicapped is obvious. A virtual war has been declared on the disabled, with a pre-born baby with some detectable challenge far more likely to be killed than one considered “normal.” Park your car in a handicapped parking spot and you’ll be fined, kill your handicapped child and you’ll be given a government grant.
In Kingston, Ont., recently a wonderful woman told me of her little boy with Down syndrome who died after a few months of precious life. She explained that when people found out they’d say, “Didn’t you have the test?” In other words, it would have been preferable to kill the child before he was born and spare everybody so much time and trouble.
So next time any allegedly progressive or left-leaning leader assumes abortion rights are about liberation, freedom and equality they ought to think a little deeper. Look neither left nor right but up and ask who the persecuted really are in these so enlightened and tolerant times.
Michael Coren