National Post regular Jonathan Kay is all about fetuses and the nanny state:
Fifteen years ago, philosopher James Q. Wilson proposed a provocative new take on abortion.
Following on the idea that "people treat as human that which appears to be human," he suggested in Commentary magazine that every woman seeking to abort her fetus be made to examine a photo depicting roughly what that fetus looks like on the day in question -- an image contained in a catalogue retained for this purpose: "266 photographs in all," Wilson specified, "one for each day of embryonic or fetal development."
No, no, wait ... I know what you're thinking and it almost certainly involves Kay's nads and a gas-powered landscaping appliance, but I think it's time to take Kay up on his offer so, on behalf of Canada's pro-choice defenders, I'm willing to make Kay the following deal:
If Canada's women agree to the condition he describes above, then Kay and the rest of Canada's fetus fetishists will drop all objections to abortion. Period. End of story.
After all, what could be more reasonable? If Kay wants to force pregnant women to look at photos of fetuses, after which they decide to continue with the abortion anyway, what right does he have to continue to protest?
Kay wants to rub womens' faces in the consequences of their actions. And while I'm sure women have no interest in Kay's nanny state politics, I think those women should seriously consider what I'm proposing, so I'm going to explain it one more time:
If women in Canada agree to examine a picture of an appropriate fetus before having an abortion, then Kay and all of Canada's anti-choicers agree to drop their objections and never raise a voice against abortion. Ever again. Because if they can't agree to that, then they're just being sore losers, and Kay's proposal means sweet fuck-all.
So, Jonathan, how about it? You up for that? SUZANNE? JoJo? The rest of the Canadian wingnut contingent? Do we have a deal? Hmmmmmmm?