The one thing you will never hear me say is that “I represent women.” No. You can choose for yourself whether ProWomanProLife represents you or not. And this site was started in opposition to the many pro-abortion feminists who were supposedly out there representing me.
This article by Karen Selick is about changing the law regarding marriage/cohabitation in Quebec. It’s a good article, but that is besides the point. This part caught my eye:
The Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF) has intervened in the court proceedings to support Lola’s side. LEAF purports to represent Canadian women, but they certainly don’t represent me. I find their arguments illogical, demeaning and repugnant.
I do so wish that “women’s groups” would stop “representing” me in the public square. It would be such a relief.
While sex selection isn’t the only bad reason to have an abortion, it’s one that many people have an opinion on. What the issue of sex selective abortion does is create a space to discuss abortion in the social and political realm that might not have existed otherwise. For a lot of people, sex selection is their line in the sand.
This article refers to sex selection as an “abuse” of rights. In my opinion, that’s a good place to begin discussions about what is currently an unrestrained use of legality (ie. abortion anytime, anyplace, for any reason).
While it is a woman’s right in Canada to continue only wanted pregnancies, exercising rights and abusing them are two very different things. Making an inherently sexist decision based on the fact that it’s your right as a woman is definitely an abuse of that freedom.
Compared to China and India, where millions of female fetuses are aborted, and many girls who are born are told they are unwanted, the problem may seem small—but that doesn’t make it less important.
While I disagree that immigration is responsible for Canada’s abortion rate, and while any abortion because a child is “unwanted” is an abuse of rights, articles like this give me hope that the nation is beginning to publicly question what’s been happening behind closed hospital doors. The number of comments these articles get is also an indicator that people want to discuss the current legislation.
When the sage glitterati of our intellectual elite want to show some level of annoyance while maintaining their politically correct bone fides, they claim a subject is “nuanced,” “complicated,” or “difficult.” I’m speaking here of André Picard’s article in the Globe recently about how sex selection is a “complex issue with many nuances.”
You know what? Give me Joyce Arthur over André Picard, I say. Dude claims he is unbiased and nuanced, while actually being a cheerleader for abortion. I much prefer people who have a strong opinion, aka, a pulse.
Or, in the words of one friend who emailed me his frustration, “sex-selection abortions are not nuanced and complicated. They are pretty damn simple. I want a boy. I carry a girl, therefore I terminate girl’s life simply because I want a boy. Wow. Uber f*&ing complicated. Soooo nuanced! How do we keep up?”
That’s Father Raymond de Souza’s view. I tend to agree. I’ve been asked multiple times over the past days what the solutions are to eradicating sex selection abortion. The fact is that in a permissive abortion regime, there are none. And the people who could end the permissive abortion regime don’t want to, ergo, they really don’t care about missing women.
My favourite line:
Is all of [the missing women] due to abortion of girls in utero? No. In 1990, much of it was due to female infanticide. But the arrival of inexpensive ultrasound technology in rural Asia in the 1990s meant that the killing became easier to do before birth rather than after.
On a radio show yesterday I struggled to find the right words, to be less aggressive, more amenable with the general public. How to discuss these “missing women?” I struggled but landed on “killing” too. There just isn’t another word. And while I don’t want to be harsh, I have vowed to not use euphemisms in discussing abortion, either.
Here’s part one. This could have been a lot worse. It could have also been a lot better. I do believe that they should do a sting operation on a Planned Parenthood clinic. Someone should try asking them important and reasonable questions like “When does life begin?” and watch them squirm. Or lie. The truth really won’t do when you are trying to coerce women into believing that abortion is totally and completely neutral.
_________________________
Update: And part two, here. A lot of repeat from part one.
So far as I’m concerned, this is an old story. But it’s still good it’s coming up, since it is still a problem. I suppose some people have a hard time accepting the facts in front of them:
Other organizations, such as the South Asian Women’s Centre and the Immigrant Women’s Health Centre in Toronto, said they didn’t know of a single case of a woman seeking a sex-selective abortion. “I don’t think that any one of our councillors in 30 years of serving immigrant women has had someone say I want to know the sex of the fetus before getting an abortion,” said Ayesha Adhami, administrative co-ordinator at the IWHC. “We’re a little concerned about there being racial stereotypes around this, and whether or not it’s actually happening in Canada is hard to say.”
Is this what passes for “women’s rights?” Now, courtesy of abortion activists, women are permitted to bleed to death, by themselves! Oh the freedom.
Facebook temporarily removed the profile picture of Rebecca Gomperts, the Dutch founder of Women on Waves, an organisation that works to provide women with safe, legal abortions. The image consists of a block of text providing information on how women can self-induce an abortion without the assistance of a doctor. Women on Waves was furious, but media attorney Quinten Kroes said there was little they could do….
Describing the contentious picture, Rebecca Gomperts said, “It’s actually a sticker we designed to provide information on how women can safely induce an abortion using a medicine called Misoprostol. The text is based on information and research from the World Health Organisation. So it is reallyquite safe.”
A movie I will want to see. Not before I brush up on my modern British history, however, as one can’t be sure how Hollywood will slant the facts. However, love her or hate her, no one, absolutely no one, would claim Margaret Thatcher was not a strong woman.
The most visible, entrepreneurial and passionate advocates for the rights of the unborn (as they would put it) are women. More to the point: They are youngish Christian working mothers with children at home.
Oftentimes we are told that abortion has no effect on society. It does. Sex selection abortion highlights this effect in a radical way. A report from India.
