When I called for this blog burst, I had no idea how much I would struggle with it. I start out relatively calm and then I can feel myself getting angrier and angrier as I dwell on the catastrophic hypocrisy that is the so-called “Pro-Life” movement. So once again, I’m left with only questions.
Why is it that SUZANNE and the fetus-fetishists only show concern for unborn children? Why do they never whine and cry and protest for children already born? Where is their concern for children living in poverty? Or for child trafficking? Or for disease, disability, lack of access to clean water, adequate health care, safety from abuse? Does any of this make an impression?
And this isn’t a problem confined only to the third world — it’s happening right here in Canada. If you visit Campaign 2000’s web site, you’ll find the following troubling statistics:
Campaign 2000 has released the 2007 Report Card on Child and Family Poverty, revealing that 18 years after the 1989 all-party resolution of the House of Commons, the child poverty rate is exactly the same. Despite a growing economy, a soaring dollar and low unemployment, Statistics Canada data show:
• 788,000 children – 11.7% - live in poverty
• A job alone is not enough. 41% of low-income children live in families where at least one parent works full-time all year, and the family still lives in poverty.
• The risk of living in poverty is not the same for all children. Poverty hits children in racialized, First Nations and recent immigrant communities much more often.
And SUZANNE and her merry band of fetus-fetishists? I guess they’re too busy trying to save the fetuses which are sooooooo much more important than actual live children.
So I call bullshit, even though it won’t make any difference. These people, these supposed compassionate conservatives, wouldn’t know compassion if it jumped up and bit them on their smug, judgmental, pathologically dishonest asses. And they never will.
Surprise, surprise. And here's Susie All-Caps now, proving my point oh-so perfectly. Does anyone else find it just the tiniest bit Freudian how she keeps referring to a fetus in the masculine?