What, pray tell, is the most threatening thing to the proponents of abortion?
Thinking:
Stephen Woodworth is a member of Parliament (MP) for Kitchener, Ontario. In spring 2012, he
introduced a motion in the House of Commons to deliberate on the subject of when human life begins. The motion was soundly defeated 203 to 91. All members of the New Democratic Party (NDP, more truthfully described as "No Deliberations, Please") voted against it (not much evidence of "choice" here).
It would seem that such a resounding vote in favor of not thinking would have pleased non-thinkers. However, such was not the case.
The editor of one newspaper referred to the minority vote as "alarming to people who respect a woman’s right to full autonomy over her own body." Parenthetically, perhaps there should be a discussion on what constitutes "full autonomy." Does it include never aging, never getting sick and never dying? Is full autonomy available for men? And how might they acquire it? Or is "full autonomy" simply an ideological illusion? Better not think about that, either. Who wants to part with a cherished illusion?
A journalist found Woodworth’s motion incomprehensible and concluded that he must be "operating in a time warp." Apparently, the time for thinking has passed its expiration date. Another writer charged that MP Woodworth, a Catholic, was "forcing his moral beliefs on the Canadian public."
Presumably, the act of thinking is an idiosyncratically Catholic activity. It is at least theoretically possible for a non-Catholic to engage in thinking.
Rona Ambrose, the minister of Canada’s Status of Women, had the audacity to support the motion. Her justification for such an allegedly outlandish act was that she was concerned about the disproportionate number of females who are aborted precisely because they are females. Nonetheless, there was a flurry of demands for her resignation. The NDP accused her of betraying women. MP Libby Davies called Ambrose’s vote "shocking." Others called for the abolition of the Status of Women post.
It may seem odd that a woman who has a political responsibility to look after the welfare of women should lose her job because she is looking out after the welfare of women. What would be more "sexist" than aborting someone simply because she is female?
But in a world where thinking is suppressed, contradictions go unnoticed. Ambrose is not supposed to be concerned about real women, but ideological fantasies.
Thinking, of course, is the archenemy of ignorance. And if ignorance is bliss, then thinking is also an enemy of bliss. A woman has a "right" to abortion. But does she have a right to think? Does "bliss" rest on a secure foundation if thinking is prohibited?
Thinking is such a natural human activity that it would seem impossible to suppress it for any significant length of time so that people could maintain a blissful life while attending to their daily functions. Sooner or later, one may perchance open a book and discover that "Thou Shall Not Think" is not a commandment, but "Thou Shall Not Kill" is. What happens then?
There's more.
Think about reading the whole thing.
Or don't.
Some would rather that you didn't.
