I've noticed in theme in recent newspaper colums on abortion. (See here and and here-- click on "the a word'.
Two columnists have written an op-ed piece to tell everyone the abortion issue is dead politically.
Now, why would you write a column to tell somebody the obvious...
Unless it wasn't obvious?
Like, nuclear disarmement is a political topic that is off the radar screen. I wouldn't devote myself to writing several hundred words to this issue. Unless I had a point in doing that.
The authors basically state that the abortion debate is alive and well, but the issue is dead.
Now, if a debate is still alive, doesn't that make the issue alive, too?
Oh sure, pro-lifers are on the losing side, right now. There isn't a hope in hell of passing any kind of fetal rights legislation, at the moment.
But that doesn't make the issue dead. It means that pro-lifers haven't galvanized enough support to do anything.
I have a hunch that the authors of these pieces had an agenda, consciously or unconsciously, to tell the readers that there's no point in doing anything, nothing's going to happen with the abortion debate, so you just might as well deal with serious subjects.
After all, the poor-choice side has what it wants, legally speaking.
It just seems quaint to want to write a column about this subject.
It's obvious that abortion is one these writers' radar screens. And insofar as we keep on the screen, we're doing our job, pro-lifers. As pro-lifers, our job right now is to keep the issue alive.
It's rather contradictory to say it's dead, and keep it alive with a column. I don't write articles about dead political issues.
_________________________
Visit Opinions Canada
a political blogs aggregator
_________________________
