Kudos to Rebecca Richmond, a fine young woman heading up the National Campus Life Network. Her response in a Toronto Star article really made National Post’s Chris Selley think. He writes:
[she] said something moderately interesting in explaining the movement’s supposed appeal to young people. “We grew up since the 1988 Morgentaler decision (when criminal laws regulating abortion were thrown out) and so I think that our generation is starting to question this,” she told the Star. “A quarter of our generation lost their lives to abortion.”
Indeed, Mr. Selley does his math and finds that she is “spot on.” According to Stats Canada, between 1991 and 2005,
1.6 million abortions [were] performed over that period. By my count, it’s fair to say that 23% of fetuses that came into being over that time were aborted.
“Is that a lot?” he asks. Gee, 1.6 million of anything would be considered a lot – based on some definitions, I would consider it a verifiable genocide.
_____________________
Andrea adds: Funny. Selley makes fun of the pro-lifers quoted in that Toronto Star article. Meanwhile, last night when speaking at the National Campus Life Network dinner, I made a point which I’d like to reiterate here. It’s the mainstream media who came a calling, trying to identify “something new” in the pro-life movement. They called, they wrote the story. The people the reporter talked to simply answered the questions. There’s not a pro-lifer across the country who thinks these tactics are “new.” Media in this case are arriving at this movement having never examined it before. They are ill-informed. That’s partly the pro-life movement’s fault. In no small part it’s their own blinders. In any case, before making smart-ass comments, if I were media these days trying to write a story about abortion, I’d start by doing some solid research. Good old fashioned reading. From the time before Twitter, say. How about it, journalists?
_____________________
Andrea adds one more thing: All of the students I met at the dinner last night were incredibly articulate. Puts me to shame, actually. I feel someone else should have given the keynote address. Rebecca, in particular, did a great job. It was a lovely event.
by 
Though Chris Selley was ‘moderately’ interested he continues to allow his pro choice persuasion determine his analysis and presentation of stories. Sheesh! He makes one wonder what the word ‘lot’, as in; ‘Is that a lot?’, means.
As long as one says that Pro Life is ‘anti choice’ one reveals that one is ignoring that there are a myriad of ‘life’ concerns the ‘Pro Choice’ advocate ignores. Eugenics, organ harvesting euthanasia, reproductive curriculum and on and on are ‘life’ issues.
That women’s rights have to include abortion has been the status quo for so long, it has become unexamined gospel in the media. When you get your talking points from people like Joyce Arthur, who say that our entire motivation is to keep women attached by their apronstrings to the stove and twelve squalling children, and never talk to or acknowlege anyone with a prolife viewpoint, you start to become a self-satisfied echo chamber.
I don’t know if too many people in the media could actually articulate why the prolifers feel the way we do. That might be partly our fault, yes, but…
They are highly motivated to keep the mushy middle in the dark, and only advance one side, because we have the better arguments.