Thursday, January 31, 2008

Uh ... come again?


Over at the Blogging Tories Secret Treehouse and "No Girls Allowed" Club, Matthew has the obvious solution to all that reproductive choice controversy:

... it was suggested here in the comments that pro-lifers should pursue an agenda of getting the government to fund the needs of mothers who wish to carry their babies to term but are financially restricted ... Either way though, whether through the government or organizations, I feel that the idea of stepping up to the plate and providing the money for these women who go through the difficult situation of single-handedly raising their children is long overdue.

Damn right, Matthew, I am so with you on this, and I'm thinking that a structured, national child care program that provided tens of thousands of new spaces would be just the thing to ... to ... um ... OK, scratch that idea.

In other Canadian conservative news, mothers who can't afford to financially support their kids should just damned well stop having them and stop being welfare leeches off of the taxpayers. Or something like that.

I'm guessing this post would have made more sense if a United Way agenda item was involved.

3 comments:

Ti-Guy said...

Don't you just love the incoherence? At each step of the game, conservatives latch on to the wrong solution because they just simply cannot be bothered with a reality-based assessment of what the real problem is. Then we have to wait patiently while they finally come around to something the rest of us learned long ago: cultural/social degradation is overwhelmingly an economic issue, not a moral one. Any solution that doesn't make additional resources/opportunities available to the people most vulnerable to economic crises will fail...every time.

Red Tory said...

I got the distinct impression that he seems to think “economic hardship” as a reason for abortion is fairly specious in the first place, and while flirting with the idea of providing government support to aid financially disadvantaged young mothers, he quickly dismisses it, clearly favouring instead the idea of charities “stepping up to the plate” to fulfill this function. The fear being that many would destructively exploit such a “government grain silo” (in using that metaphor, he’s basically calling the young women who would be targeted by such support programs “vermin”). Quite the charmer that Matt.

Grog said...

The almost hysterical irony is that Matthew doesn't seem to think that understanding the legalities surrounding R. v. Morgentaler are "relevant". I challenged him on this in an earlier post on the subject and he basically said "it's irrelevant" because he wants to change the legal framework entirely.

Personally, I just can't get over the "reality is irrelevant" line of reasoning.