Say, there, Cardinal Marc Ouellet, what do you think about abortion in the case of rape? You know, rape: just about the most vile thing you could possibly do to another human being. Even the most ardent pro-life/anti-choice/whatever types usually agree on this: being forced to bear a child conceived through rape is probably the second most vile thing you could possibly do to another human being. So, slam dunk, right?
“I totally understand that a raped woman lives a trauma and that she must be helped. But the being in her belly must be kept in mind when she receives this help. She is not responsible for what happened to her. [Ed’s note: God forbid!] The perpetrator is responsible. But there is already one victim. Does there need to be another one?”
“Taking a life from someone is always a moral crime.”
So, a rape victim who gets an abortion is actually worse off, morally speaking, than her aggressor–who, while responsible for a nasty deed, certainly didn’t take a life. How refreshing! (Oh, and he also took on the evils of photography. No kidding. UPDATE: actually, he was kidding. Well, he wasn’t; the site linked here was. I missed the satire, moron English heathen that I am.)
The French media has been all over this for the last few days, culminating today in a page one Journal de Montréal poll saying 94 percent of Quebecers disagree with this country’s biggest Catholic cheese. This is no surprise: out of all the provinces, Quebec has the largest drop in church attendance–13 percentage point drop between 1989 and 2001, according to Statistics Canada. I have to admit: for years I thought French Quebecers, particularly those born to baby boomer parents, shunned the church either out of lethargy or a sense of duty to the older generation. Happily, Ouellet’s frankly medieval sortie proves me wrong.