The pro-abortion movement, alarmed by the decline of its ideological hegemony

A feminist site explains why more and more young people join the Pro-Life movement

Progressivism is seeing the ideological hegemony that exerted in many Western countries is threatened. This also occurs in one of the feuds of political correctness: Canada.

Scientific arguments against abortion
Feminist Justin Trudeau refuses to condemn the aggression to a Pro-Life Woman in Toronto

The growing success of the March for Life in Ottawa

This Thursday, the Canadian feminist website Flare published a story asking why there are more and more young people in the Pro-Life movement in Canada. The March for Life of Ottawa was celebrated yesterday. According to Flare, this annual Pro-Life demonstration was called for the first time in 1998 with an attendance of only 700. Last year there were 15,000. Yesterday, the March for Life was a new success, as shown in this quick-motion video of LifeSiteNews:

According to Flare, «the anti-abortion movement is gaining a newfound momentum, much of it stemming from the teens and twentysomethings who are educated, motivated—and ready to march.» Josie Luctke, one of the leaders of the Canadian Pro-Life organization Campaign for Life Coalition, has given Flare one of the keys to this boom in the Pro-Life movement among young people: Pro-Life is the counterculture in today’s society, where the predominant thought is abortionist. Today defending life is a form of rebellion against that majority ideology. But is that the only reason that attracts young people to the Pro-Life movement? Of course not.

The rage of the abortion movement against the images of abortions

The feminist site does not say it clearly, but the reading of her article demonstrates the rage caused by the graphic images of abortions among the pro-abortion movement. Flare cites the case of Claire LeBlanc, a 22-year-old pro-abortion young who learned that a March for Life was being held in Toronto for the first time. LeBlanc decided to protest against the pro-life march with very poor arguments: «that anti-choice rhetoric is not welcome in our city or in our country,» the young woman says, as if she had the authority to deny the freedom of speech of those Canadians who do not think like her. LeBlanc also affirms that «that mentality is out-dated and unwelcome», resorting to the fallacy ad novitatem, according to which an affirmation is correct by the mere fact of being new and an affirmation is false if it has been defending for many years. According to that fallacy, in the Germany of 1933 the correct thing would be Nazism, which was very new, and not democracy, which was older.

In the absence of good reasons, abortionists opt for censorship

Flare shows another key to the decline of the pro-abortion movement when he says that LeBlanc and other pro-abortion colleagues «plan to disrupt the Toronto March for Life by physically blocking the route,» in addition to «creating noise» to drown Pro-Life messages and show «content warning signs» to try to prevent spectators from seeing the «often-gruesome images» that the Pro-Lifers exhibits on their posters. These attitudes are those of a person who considers herself incapable of contributing valid arguments to a debate and prefers to cover his mouth to her rivals for fear that her arguments will be more convincing. For lack of good reasons, the abortion movement is committed to censorship: an attitude associated for years with reactionary attitudes, although in fact it has been applied very frequently by the left. This commitment to censorship is the most serious error of the abortion movement. When an impartial observer looks that someone tries to prevent the free expression of ideas that are reasonable and legitimate as the Pro-Life, the message is that the censored people are right and that censorship has no other purpose than to prevent the truth from being known.

They claim to be ‘pro-choice’ but they do not let you freely choose your ideas

In addition, by applying this censorship the abortionist movement comes into contradiction with its own ideological postulates. If they say «pro-choice», why do not they allow people to choose who to listen to and decide if an idea seems reasonable or not? Resorting to censorship when you are losing a debate is a clear sign of cheating and dishonest behavior. Progressivism has for decades attributed powers such as tolerance, pluralism and respect for the different, and yet resorts to the repression of ideas when it lacks good arguments to answer them. Many young people realize how hypocritical this attitude is. But in addition, with that censorship a feeling of empathy is generated towards the censored and of rebellion against the censors. The left has often appealed to rebellion and has characterized the right as authoritarian and repressive, but nevertheless many young people observe that this authoritarian and repressive role is now exercised by the left, and a rebellious attitude turns against it.

The absurdity of saying «people with uteruses» not to say «women»

Another reason for the decline of the abortion movement is the lack of common sense and the distancing of reality. For example, in Flare LeBlanc women are referred to as «people with uteruses», as if saying «woman» was politically incorrect. It’s absurd. The progressive ideology has projected its dogmas on our society by resorting to the manipulation of language, speaking, for example, of «interruption of pregnancy» to talk about abortion and creating other euphemisms to disguise the atrocity of their theses. At the same time, police-words have been created to demonize those who disagree with these theses. In the leftist imaginary, conservatives are «fascists», pro-life is «anti-choice», those who defend the family are «homophobic», those who oppose illegal immigration are «xenophobic», and those who criticize Islam are «islamophobes» and «racists.» Basically, more than an ideology, progressivism already seems a factory of plugs for ideas: no longer want to debate, only censor and point out who disagrees. A very unconvincing attitude that is doomed to failure: you can not expect an entire society to give up thinking freely because the left is incapable of accepting the discrepancy. More and more young people are realizing this.

Subscribe to this blog for free! We are already +4,000

Comments (Facebook):

NOTICE: Infringement of the Rules of Participation may result in the blocking of the offender, so that their comments will be hidden from other readers.

Comment on this post:

By clicking 'Submit' you accept the Rules of Participation.