Politicians won’t take up abortion, so making a change is up to you and me. Brian Lilley and I discuss this on Byline last night.

In response to the question what should the average pro-lifer do who is surrounded by pro-choice family and friends, I recommend getting good information from sources like the Canadian Centre for Bio-ethical Reform, listening to those family and friends and asking lots of questions about the nature of what the choice means. I wish I had mentioned this but we really should be able to speak about the issue without using euphemisms. That means cutting through “choice” rhetoric, since we all know plainly that some things simply are not a choice.

Some snapshots. Enjoy.

The Back to Life walkers were a group of 25 women making the trek from Montreal to Ottawa on foot to protest abortion. Their t-shirts proved to be too much for Parliamentary security. In the words of one of the walkers,

As we left the press gallery, security at the desk told us that we may not enter the building wearing our shirts or jackets, and they escorted us out the door. They weren’t happy with us!

Here’s the photo of them. Anyone know anything about parliamentary security standards? This strikes me as unreasonable, but I can’t claim to know much about how things typically go.

I have this song stuck in my head. I thought you might like to have it stuck in your head too. So far as I can predict, I think a Mumford and Sons concert is in my future. (Fave line: “You forgave, and I won’t forget.”)

[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGKfrgqWcv0]

Today is March for Life day here in Ottawa and across the country. This article about that is pretty fair, interviewing some of the Back to Life walkers who made the trek from Montreal to Ottawa.

What bugs me is Dr. Paul Saurette’s comments about the idea the evidence that abortion is harmful to women being “questionable.” Incidentally, he and I are planning to go for a coffee sometime later this month, so it’s not as if pro-lifers and pro-choicers can’t talk it out. I’ve met Paul before, and he is perfectly pleasant. So there ya go. Dialogue and learning all around.

There isn’t a great deal of evidence about the effect of abortion on women, Saurette said. “The abortion harms women arguments, I think when you look at the medical evidence behind it, it’s extremely questionable,” he said.

Some links are nebulous when it comes to women’s health after abortion. But some certainly are not, and North America (both Canada and the USA) is responsible for the most shoddy, politicized research on the topic, last I checked. However, in Europe (Finland) and New Zealand, we’ve seen some excellent studies (USA too, to a degree) showing connections between abortion and poor mental health. It’s been a while, but I wrote about this here and here.

At least part of the problem is that where political science profs are happy to dismiss evidence they consider to be “pro-life,” they appear to not do so with evidence that appears to be “pro-choice.” So we get a skewed view of the research from people like that, who have a bias but may or may not acknowledge it.

The other thing about the effects of abortion on women is that a) there can be a substantive time lag in experiencing any b) oftentimes effects are there, but not clinical and these are the kind I personally see the most of and c) so many women are told they should just buck up because there is nothing to grieve. See the book Giving Sorrow Words for examples of that.

I will agree, however, that there are a great many women who have abortions, don’t grieve, feel fine and move on. That simply means that our collective conscience is now at a stage where we are unmoved by the suffering of the other and that we are turning our backs on all the very, very conclusive, undisputed evidence that life begins at conception. Some people call that success. I don’t.

So much of the evidence in the abortion debate hinges on what people choose to see.

Studies have shown that relationship demise can be the result of abortion. The story of why famous tennis players Chris Evert and Jimmy Connor split up in the 70s when they were supposed to get married highlights this. She got pregnant and unilaterally decided abortion was the answer, telling him to “make the arrangements.” He, on the other hand, was happy to accept responsibility for what happened.

Connors claims that Evert’s decision helped to end their relationship. “It was a horrible feeling, but I knew it was over,” he writes. “Getting married wasn’t going to be good for either of us.”

I can’t imagine how getting married would work after that. It’s a pretty fundamental disagreement, and not exactly the basis for a strong relationship going forward.

On the flip side, of course I have read about men entirely and totally rejecting women who choose to have the baby. I do believe this has increased since “the choice” became so pervasive, legal and accessible. Why should the woman be the only one to be able to make the decision? Pretty much the man’s only power in an unplanned pregnancy lies in walking away.

I recently got called anti-choice (again), or rather was asked whether I am “anti-choice” and whether that’s an official stance of the place I work.

Got me thinking: Thanks for asking, why yes! I am! For this one choice, it should be abundantly clear over five years of blogging (how did that happen…I digress) that I am anti “the abortion choice,” which loosely translates into killing your child. When we put it that way, no one would ask.

People who opt for “fetus fetishist” as their chosen slur have a hard road to travel because it’s a) hard to say and b) makes them sound crazy.

But anti-choice? Yes, and proud of it.

Next question.

_____________

Faye adds: In our culture we seem to value “choice”, regarding anything really, above everything else. Let’s not evaluate or assess the morality or consequences of a given choice, let’s just value “choice” in and of itself.

I’m anti-choice on abortion. But I’m pro-choice on a whole host of issues. People should be free to determine where they live, work, play, etc. But some choices are wrong. Like whether or not to kill a human being.

You can see an update on Youtube, here.

[youtube:https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ONLy34AUE0g#!]

This joint letter, publicized by Priests for Life, puts forward the idea that with the Gosnell trial, it is the entire abortion industry that is actually on trial.

Agree? Disagree? Is this a trial of the entire abortion industry?

Although only one abortionist is being prosecuted today, the entire abortion industry is on trial.

I tend to agree. Because the sanitary, “safe” abortions are also chilling to me. This will come as no great surprise, but every time I walk past an abortion clinic, I am entirely unable to accept the fact that we have small centres dotting this great country, that have the sole purpose of snuffing out lives.

I feel this woman’s pain at being asked a simple question: “Is it your first?”

A moving piece in the Globe and Mail.

Time heals – for the most part that is true – but I will not forget, nor would I wish to. To forget would mean never recognizing a time when I, too, would initiate a conversation with a pregnant woman by asking her if it was her first; a time of innocence when I never considered the unthinkable in relation to such a happy event.

I envy the stranger’s innocence. My firstborn taught me that once innocence is lost, it cannot be regained; but it can be treasured and revered whether I answer “yes” or “no.”