And away we go!

After his opening monologue, the late great comedian Jackie Gleason used to ask his orchestra conductor for what he called "a little traveling music." Jackie would then do his famous shuffle to the curtains, and before disappearing behind them to start the rest of the show, would announce, "And away we go."

Aging boomers like myself have used the expression ever since as a way of suggesting that something provocative has happened, and now the proverbial is about to hit the fan. I think that this has happened with the articles on the traveling abortion billboard that appeared in the National Post and the Calgary Herald on Saturday, Aug. 11/07.

One of the letters to the editor in today's Post pretty much illustrates what I was saying on this blog yesterday regarding personhood; i.e., All kinds of things can be done to non-persons that can't be done to persons.

To ensure that nothing is quoted out of context, I'll reproduce the letter in its entirety:

The message of the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform's Stephanie Gray is not of social justice but of agree with me or be bullied. It is a message of lies, half truths, provocation, disrespect for women and children. She portrays abortion as a single moral issue, not the complex social issue of raising standards of housing, nutrition, health, education and therefore indulging in a richer Canadian society.

The message is signed by one H. Hamilton of Markham, ON.

Now I don't think that Ms Gray's bullying (if that is what it is) is any worse than, say, that of Globe & Mail columnist William Johnson, who in November 2000 made the following astonishing and groundless comments about Stockwell Day, then leader of the (now defunct) Canadian Alliance.

"Everyone knows that, the day after Mr. Day is elected prime minister, there'll be a petition book opened at the back of every Roman Catholic church, every evangelical prayer hall in the land ... [with priests] scourging them into righteous outrage against the slaughter of the innocent in the womb. Abortion will be the first order of business, even before the new government has passed the bill introducing citizen-inspired referendums."

Nor is it any more provocative than former NDP national leader Alexa McDonough remarking that it was:

"absolutely outrageous that [Day] thinks he can subject my right to choose, my right to make reproductive choices, my right to control the decisions affecting my body to a referendum."

People make strong statements all the time, some more tactfully than others, some more truthfully than others. One can label it as bullying, I suppose, especially if one disagrees, but what is more important is whether something is right or worthy of discussion, not whether it's polite.

As for the heart of Mr. or Ms Hamilton's letter, s/he dismisses the fundamental issue of whether an unborn baby should be aborted as secondary to other issues such as whether enough money is spent on certain (admittedly very worthy) causes such as housing and health. The last part of the letter is particularly arresting. The writer suggests pretty clearly that whether someone should abort or not is a function of whether the expectant women might be hindered in indulging in a richer Canadian society.

With the greatest respect to author Hamilton, s/he is veering rather too closely to the arguments used by the pro-slavery camp in the U.S. during the nineteenth century (see, for instance, the famous Abraham Lincoln-Stephen Douglas debates). Slaves were by definition (compliments of the U.S. Supreme Court) two-thirds of a person for the purposes of the constitution and could not be given citizenship (even if freed). They were of an inferior race, and legally the chattel of the slave owner, to be viewed as any other kind of property. Therefore, rescuing a slave, as the Underground Railroad did, was a property offense. Slaves were a very necessary part of the success of the Southern economy, a standard of living (enjoyed only by the whites) that was threatened by the abolition of slavery.

Proponents of slavery during Abraham Lincoln's time wanted the issue kept out of national politics for fear that it would rip the U.S. apart. Clergy who, in their thousands, maintained that slavery was contrary to God's will were labeled as undemocratic and (interestingly) sacrilegious.

Do I need to point out the obvious parallels in the arguments used for slavery and abortion:

• This is a property issue (keep your hands/laws off my slave--keep your hands/laws off my body).
• The law is settled on the matter (Canadian Supreme Court--U.S. Supreme Court).
• Religious views are not appropriate.
• Economic well-being is a decisive factor.
• The issue is too divisive and politically dangerous.
• Having slaves or not, or having an abortion or not, is a free choice.

Letter writer Hamilton has resorted to the usual distractions. But the fundamental issue, just as it was with slavery, is personhood. Slavery was wrong even when it was legal. The position that I take is that abortion is also wrong for the same reason. Slaves and unborn babies are full-fledged persons.

P.S. While I have my own misgivings about the pictures on the abortion truck, I still have to ask H. Hamilton this question: If some abolitionist of Lincoln's day had put images on billboards of slaves being hanged for trivial offenses, or having their feet bludgeoned to discourage any further attempts at running away; or pictures of Simon Legree-types whipping the slaves until their motivation improved, or of the anguish on a slave mother's face as her children were sold to other slave owners, would you describe such pictures as "provocation and disrespect"? Just wondering.