When confronted with an uncomfortable issue—and one which people have very strong views on—people often try to find a middle road, a way of agreeing with everyone, or at least not angering them. If those people are politicians, they’re often as talented at accomplishing this as a rubber man playing Twister. And so, in response to anti-abortion postcards depicting MP Rick Dykstra and a 20-week aborted baby, the St. Catharine’s Standard reported that, “His office would only say that while Dykstra is personally pro-life, he stands firm behind Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s decision not to reopen the abortion debate in Canada.”
This is to say, of course, that he supports maintaining Canada’s lawless abortion free-for-all, but also supports our lack of support for it. See what he did there?
Claiming to be “personally pro-life” is to say nothing at all at best, and to display enormous hypocrisy at worst. Being “personally pro-life” is actually worse than the position of most radical abortion supporters—they at least generally deny the humanity of the pre-born, however obliviously. To be “personally pro-life” is to recognize that we are, indeed, talking about a human life—and that the opposing position supports the brutal extinguishing of that life. It’s like saying you’re personally opposed to slavery, but don’t support having a debate that might infringe on the “rights” of slave-holders to own human beings as property. (After all, slave-holders vote.)
Click “like” if you are PRO-LIFE!
The bottom line is that there is no such thing as “personally pro-life.” It’s a cleverly invented copout that hides more than it reveals, sort of like the term “pro-choice.” And when a politician claims that title, it simply means he’s going to give the abortion crowd what they want while using terms pro-lifers invented, and hoping we’ll be grateful for the semantic nod.
Mr. Dykstra, it seems, did have pro-life principles at one point. In 2006, he affirmed that he recognizes that life begins at conception, and also indicated that he would support measures to protect human life in the womb. Unfortunately, he seems to have noticed what so many in Ottawa do—that the corridors leading to the halls of power have many conveniently placed drop-off boxes in which to place previously held principles and morals on your way to the top. Principles are handy election props, but they really don’t match the décor. Besides, what are a few dead babies compared to a potential cabinet position?
The literature currently being distributed in Mr. Dykstra’s St. Catharine’s riding has been called extreme. No argument there. When someone’s position is extreme, the visual depiction of that position is going to look pretty extreme as well. Dismembered baby corpses are very difficult to look at, but unfortunately, Mr. Dykstra doesn’t seem to have too difficult a time supporting the status quo that ensures this unmitigated barbarism. He claims to personally oppose abortion, while personally voting to ensure that it continues.
When the great British parliamentarian William Wilberforce presented evidence to the House on the evils of slavery, he noted that, “Having seen all of this, you can choose to turn away. But you can never again say that you did not know.” Actions have consequences. We’re showing you the consequences of Mr. Dykstra’s.