ProWomanProLife

Couldn’t have put this one better myself:

The default position of pro-choicers, whether or not they frame it this way themselves, amounts to a belief that abortion is always the right choice for women who have given it even a moment’s consideration. Once a woman has so much as considered the possibility of abortion, any effort to change her mind – or even just to give her more information to consider – is an attempt to limit her freedom of choice. A woman who doesn’t go through with her impulse to abort is a woman who has fallen victim to some sort of pro-life plot against her rights.

Here’s a clip from CBC’s Power and Politics where Don Hutchinson of the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada (he’s a lawyer by training) and Joyce Arthur discuss the topic.

I wholeheartedly support MPs bringing up this issue. And MP Stephen Woodworth is not bringing up abortion, but rather,  an examination of what is in the womb, and whether a child in the womb has any rights. You may think I’m splitting hairs here in identifying that there is a difference, but I’m not.

Abortion is one possible outcome of pregnancies, but in Winnipeg Child and Family Services v. DFG back in 1997, a mother, pregnant with her third child, could not be coerced into drug treatment of any kind in spite of the fact that her first two were born with problems because of her glue-sniffing addiction. Here, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the mother could not be put in treatment against her will because the unborn child had no legal status until he or she was born. In this case, the mother had no intention of aborting, but she also had no intention of halting her addiction. Had the child had any rights, perhaps this situation could have been changed.

In any event, while I support MPs bringing this up, I still don’t believe that political change is where the abortion debate is at. Ie. Even if we start to debate a law, it won’t truly protect unborn children, because the best we can hope for at this current time is the absolutely uncivilized situation of countries like the UK, where abortion is legal up to 24 weeks, and even after that in rare cases, if I’m not mistaken. 24 weeks.  Here’s a picture of a non-human, non-child, non-entity at 24 weeks:

Or how about we work decades long, struggle really hard, and get that abortion limited pushed down to 22 weeks?

Right. Something’s gotta give and while political debate is a useful tool in igniting the conscience of our nation, I don’t think that’s where it’s at, in total.

Linda Gibbons is the grandmother who has been in jail, on and off, for eight years, since 1994 for protesting inside an abortion clinic’s “bubble zone.” She had her day in the Supreme Court of Canada yesterday. A most excellent piece about her situation in today’s National Post.

…can be found here. Or see below. That’s quite a list of pro-choicers who are unwilling to defend their views in public. To me, this marks the beginning of the end of the pro-choice movement. For to keep the movement alive you need to be willing to defend your values, even on hostile terrain, ie. outside the safe confines of the university womyn’s centre. Here’s why the pro-choice movement is at the beginning of the end–it has become lazy. Everyone agrees with us! We are the mainstream! There is a consensus! They are growing complacent just as pro-lifers are picking up steam, mobilizing for action and making strides in public opinion.

The other more troubling concern I have is that extreme forces (those who don’t believe abortion is debatable) will push their views on less excessive pro-choicers. What this amounts to is quashing democracy. Almost all things are up for debate in a democracy and certainly, abortion falls very much within the debatable. Saying abortion is not debatable is a complete and total cop-out.

i. Dr. Henry Morgentaler (declined to debate)

ii. Heather Mallick (“pro-choice” columnist for the Toronto Star) (no reply to invitation)

xii. Hon. Dr. Keith Martin (MP) (No reply to invitation)
xiii. Planned Parenthood Ottawa (Heather Holland – Executive Director- Declined to debate)
xiv. Canadian Federation for Sexual Health (no reply to invitation)
xv. Professor Sanda Rodgers (University of Ottawa) (declined to debate)
xvi. Professor Wayne Sumner (University of Toronto) (declined to debate)

University of Ottawa Students for Life, in partnership with University of Ottawa Medical Students for Life, will be hosting Stephanie Gray, Executive Director of the Canadian Centre for Bioethical Reform, on November 11th 2011 at 7:30 pm for a debate on abortion in medical practice.

Ms. Gray will represent the pro-life side, while the pro-choice side will be represented by Jovan Morales of the Atheist Community of the University of Ottawa.

NEW LOCATION: Colonel By Hall, 161 Louis Pasteur, Room C03. The old room will still be used as the debate will be streamed into it for overflow.

Here we have a pro-choice woman arguing that pro-life voices should be included around the table at a government-advisory sexual health forum in the UK:

I’m struggling to understand quite why it is so terrible that the anti-abortion charity, Life, has been invited to join a government- advisory sexual health forum. Former Liberal Democrat MP Evan Harris reckons that the presence of the group, which promotes sexual abstinence, could prevent the advisory panel from having “frank and open discussions”. I’d say that open discussions are the last thing being sought when groups of people are convened because they all share similar views. It’s not hard to be “frank” either, when addressing a circle of nodding heads.

Hats off to her for expressing this view. But she goes on to say that the pro-choice position will always win out because it is the more logical and rational one. Naturally, I disagree, and I think those who try to ban the pro-life groups from being around such tables do as well. It’s precisely because the pro-life position is very rationally compelling that some believe it shouldn’t be heard. Indeed, the ardent pro-choicers best bet in winning on this question is to make sure pro-lifers remain silent.

______________________

Jennifer adds: The group, Life, has done amazing work. Founded in a spa house in 1970, the group now runs charity shops, residential centers, offers counseling and support for new mothers and their babies. It’s a £4 million operation and provides a great template for other groups to follow.

Carlton Lifeline’s struggle continues,

…effectively banning these groups is stifling political debate in a way that would ultimately be defeated in court, legal experts say.”I think a freedom-of-expression issue would be raised,” said Nathalie Des Rosiers, general counsel for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.

“In my view, probably denying the right to a pro-life group to express themselves would not be acceptable.”

The Carleton anti-abortion club was told their constitution conflicts with the association’s discrimination on campus policy. That policy reads: “any campaign, distribution, solicitation, lobbying effort, display, event etc. that seeks to limit or remove a woman’s right to choose her options in the case of pregnancy will not be supported.”

The group’s lawyer, Albertos Polizogopoulos, said that policy contradicts the association’s own governing bylaws.

Those bylaws outline one of the association’s aims as “maintaining an academic and social environment free from prejudice, exploitation, abuse or violence on the basis of, but not limited to, sex, race, language, religion, age, national or social status, political affiliation or belief, sexual orientation or marital status.”

“CUSA labels themselves as a pro-choice organization,” Polizogopoulos said. “They’re discriminating against pro-life clubs based on those pro-life clubs political beliefs.”

He said his clients plan on fighting their trespassing charges when they go to court.

You’ll recall back in November that the student association at Carleton University banned the pro-life club. One of their fearless leaders, Ruth Lobo (pictured above being arrested by Ottawa City Police, handcuffs and all, because she expressed pro-life views on campus) challenged that decision.

Sadly, the club remains banned.

…to “come out” to colleagues that you’re pro-life. For me personally, it doesn’t affect my job, though it will I’m sure affect any further university study I do. Even then, I admittedly have to overcome a certain level of personal apprehension. But what if you work in the educational or health care fields where your opinion might just have more of an impact? That’s when a pro-life stance is seen as dangerous.

A Christian mental health worker is facing the sack after giving two colleagues a leaflet warning of the physical and psychological damage some women suffer after having an abortion.

Margaret Forrester passed the booklet to family planning staff at the health centre where she works because she felt that the NHS was not offering patients enough information about the risks associated with terminating a pregnancy.

But Ms Forrester, 39, said she was suspended from her job as a psychological wellbeing practitioner based in Westminster because managers at Central North West London Mental Health Trust disagreed with her personal beliefs.

She will appear in front of an internal disciplinary committee on Wednesday, charged with “distributing materials some people may find offensive”. Her supporters fear that she could lose her job.

_____________________

Brigitte adds: What bugs me the most about all this is the use of euphemisms. Distributing materials some people may find offensive? My foot. What they mean is: We are pro-abortion and those who want to be pro-life will have to be pro-life somewhere else. They could at least have the guts to say it.

Pat Maloney at the National Post read my mind.

One would hope that in a country where there are no restrictions on abortion there could at least be a public debate — especially about a bill whose sole purpose is to protect women from unwanted abortions. Remember that there is no consensus on abortion; polls consistently tell us show that many Canadians want some limits on abortion.

In 1988, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the country’s abortion law. But the court did say that Parliament has the right to legislate protection of the unborn.

Even though Mr. Harper would not support such a bill, he doesn’t have to. Bill C-510 is a private member’s bill, not a government bill. The purpose such bills is to give backbench MPs from all parties the opportunity to bring forward legislation they believe in, independent of what’s on the government’s agenda.

Mr. Harper would get one vote — just like any MP — and he could vote as his conscience dictates.

The National Post has been covering the recent events at Carleton University where the students union, CUSA, has decertified the anti-abortion group LifeLine.

There is a striking parallel between what is going on at Carleton University and what is going on in Parliament.

As the Post recently stated: “The fact that these young men and women are anti-abortion should have nothing to do with whether they are worthy of coverage. This is about certain students, CUSA, acting like petty tyrants because they do not like the views of some of their fellow students. This goes against every principle of free speech. Why is there not more outrage about this?”

And why is there not more outrage about abortion debate being shut down in our Parliament? This also goes against every principle of free speech.

Think about it: why should CUSA allow pro-life students to speak out about abortion, when our political leaders won’t allow pro-life MPs to speak out about abortion? CUSA has learned that it’s okay to shut down free speech on unpopular topics.

And where that kind of thinking ends God only knows.

As a relatively new immigrant here, I won’t pretend to understand the intricacies of Canadian government. However, I have always been annoyed that the Harper government has been allowed to give the abortion topic the silent treatment, even to the point of making the lack of discussion an election platform.

“I have been clear throughout my entire political career I don’t intend to open the abortion issue,” he said. “I haven’t in the past; I’m not going to in the future.”

Refusing to debate any topic is wholly undemocratic and doesn’t fulfill the government’s duty to be a tool for public opinion. Maloney cleverly parallels this situation with what is happening at CUSA. She asks an important question here, why isn’t there more outrage about this violation of free speech?