From Trevin Wax over at The Gospel Coalition:

Are abortion rights supporters fully embracing an absolutist agenda, one that legitimizes and praises a woman’s choice to abort, no matter the circumstances?

It sure seems that way. In the past few years, activists have moved away from Bill Clinton’s philosophy that abortion should be “safe, legal, and rare.” Or that abortion is, in Hillary Clinton’s words, “a tragic choice.”

Why leave behind words like “rare” and “tragic?” Because speaking of abortion this way lends credence to the pro-life position that there is something wrong with ”terminating a pregnancy.” If the abortion-rights agenda is to succeed, then, abortion must be de-stigmatized. And nothing will remove the stigma from abortion faster than making it common and celebrated.

Even though this seems to be the logical conclusion to the pro-choice position, I don’t think most people, even most pro-choicers, are comfortable endorsing any and all abortions. A friend of mine talks about this issue quite a bit and he often asks his pro-choice friends if they support sex-selection abortions. Pro-choicers tend to squirm and struggle  because they agree there is something inherently wrong with killing a baby because of his/her sex. But why does gendercide make them uncomfortable? Isn’t it just another abortion? Another choice?

I think the pro-choice position is being forced to swing so far in that direction – the celebration of abortion – that it is again providing us with an opportunity to reach people. Because most people cannot celebrate it. And I don’t think it’s due to cultural stigma (an argument they often toss out), but due to the fact that we know what is in the womb (hello sonograms) and it’s within our nature to want to protect our offspring, not kill them.

As Frederica Mathewes-Green, formerly Feminists for Life’s Vice President of Communications has said,

No one wants an abortion as she wants an ice-cream cone or a Porsche. She wants an abortion as an animal, caught in a trap, wants to gnaw off its own leg.

I think that’s true. And for that reason, we’re unlikely to see the world be swept with the phenomenon of ‘abortion celebration.’

People are much less pro-choice than they think they are, and/or less pro-choice than the movement’s leaders. The stats are clear. But that’s a post for another day.

The article makes additional points and provides some examples that we can rely on in discussions or in our writing. It’s worth a read.

A few thoughts from Mike Schouten from We Need a Law:

Gallant’s position seems largely influenced by federal Liberal leader Justin Trudeau. For months now Trudeau has been talking nonsense about the legal status of abortion in Canada. He is either ignorant of the jurisprudence or is intentionally misrepresenting what the law says. Even as late as this past weekend, the flamboyant Trudeau was on CBC’s Sunday Edition telling listeners that his party is “a party of the Charter” and he will defend women’s rights at all costs. Does he really think all women are pro-abortion? As one female supporter said to me, “If he isn’t assuming that [all women are pro-abortion], then I’m offended as a citizen that he would strip me of democracy. We shouldn’t be putting up with this kind of patronizing attempt at leadership in a post-feminist Canada.”

…but we don’t want to see it for the violence that it is. Because that is going too far.

New Brunswick Liberal leader Brian Gallant says the graphic postcards distributed by Campaign Life Coalition Youth and the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform go too far:

“There’s no doubt that during a campaign you’ll have many people that will try to influence people’s votes, and that’s normal and that’s something that we certainly accept, but we find it very disappointing and very unfortunate to have such graphic photos going around,” said Gallant.

“We do think it’s OK to debate and discuss and to have conversations, but to send graphic photos like that, we do think is crossing a line,” he said.

“We certainly welcome people to join the debate and the discussion, but I think we have to all do it in a respectful way and I certainly don’t think that was the case when it comes to those pamphlets.”

Well, if he’s up for a debate, let’s have it. Here’s an opportunity to write letters, call politicians and get the pro-life word out.

Wowza. I think we need to start writing letters and making phone calls, people.

Right now in New Brunswick, a major party leader has done what no federal party leader has ever dared dream of doing: Made changing abortion regulations a central plank in a campaign platform.

But that’s just what Brian Gallant and the New Brunswick Liberals have done – and so far it appears to be doing his electoral prospects no harm.

Gallant has not only told voters that his entire caucus will vote pro-choice – a position similar to the one federal Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau surprised the country with earlier this summer – but he’s also said that if he upsets incumbent Progressive Conservative Premier David Alward on Sept. 22, he will actually act on those convictions.

What do you think of David Akin’s take on conservative politicians and their response to these statements?

Meanwhile, the conservative opponents of Gallant and Trudeau – those to whom pro-life advocates in Canada look to champion their views and who they hope would legislate restrictions on abortion – are timid and weak in their opposition to the bold, moral certitude of Gallant, Trudeau and, it must be said, New Democrat leaders at both levels.

The best that both Alward’s Progressive Conservatives and Stephen Harper’s Conservatives have been able to do is to point to inconsistencies in their opponents’ parties. Gallant, they note, will have pro-life Liberal MLAs in his caucus if he wins, just as Trudeau does right now.

Conservatives also like to mutter something about being proud that they would allow free votes on matters of conscience like abortion.

The Canadian Association of Pregnancy Support Services (CAPSS) is having a matching grant fundraising campaign right now. This is a great organization and one you can confidently support with your pro-life dollars.

Don’t know what CAPSS is? Let’s get you up to speed:

CAPSS was formed in 1997 to provide a Canadian national association dedicated to encouraging, equipping and partnering with local Pregnancy Centres.

We provide leadership development, operational standards, staff and volunteer training along with spiritual encouragement to over 70 affiliated Centres.

We purpose to help assist local pregnancy centres reach and compassionately care for clients facing unplanned pregnancies and post abortion stress.

Ultimately, the lives of women and men are transformed by choosing life- focused alternatives to abortion offered by local Pregnancy Centres.

More info about the campaign:

CAPSS affiliated pregnancy centres are the hands and feet of service to those in need during an unplanned pregnancy, adoption and post abortion grief. They are the instruments that pour healing oil on their wounds and offer them practical, life affirming support. That is why the work of the Canadian Association of Pregnancy Support Services (CAPSS) is so vital in equipping Centres to serve with excellence.

A major donor and a Family Foundation have joined forces to offer CAPSS a matching grant of $43,000 to help our national organization grow and be strengthened with more “partners for life.” That means that your donation and participation in this campaign could help us meet our goal of raising $86,000 to encourage, equip and establish pregnancy centres across Canada.

Please join us in partnering in “FOR THE LOVE OF LIFE CAMPAIGN.” Your donation will have a life changing effect.

Give generously.

Yesterday pro-life students part of the Youth Protecting Youth club faced theft and vandalism. Simply for having a table. In a university.  On Clubs’ Day. To share a perspective. About a controversial social and political issue.

On September 10th, two women rushed a pro-life club table at the University of Victoria, snatching the fetal models on display and dumping used cat litter all over the table. Youth Protecting Youth (YPY) was participating in the university’s Clubs Days event and had a recruitment table to sign up new members and engage with other students on the pro-life issues.

Although the fetal models were recovered, club members arrived back this morning to find that the vandals had broken into the closed clubs room and that more filthy litter had been dumped on the table and the fetal models – valued at several hundred dollars – had been stolen.

This is just ridiculous. The students who engaged in this destructive behaviour should be ashamed of themselves. If they’re incapable of engaging in rational, reasonable debate on an issue that I’m gathering they feel strongly about, they should take up a hobby and focus their energies elsewhere. Heck, they could spend more time quietly snuggling their cats.

Each year I read about this kind of stupidity and each year I’m stunned. These students are young adults. Young ADULTS. Forget it. Let’s drop the “young.” These students are ADULTS. And their response to a perspective they disagree with is…kitty poop.

I can’t believe I just wrote that last sentence. I’m going to bed. No, first I’m going to go vent about this to my husband. Then I’m going to try and sleep.

Cat poop, people. Cat poop.

I just signed up for this September 16th luncheon conference. You can too here.

Description:

L’avortement par médicament

Alors que la mifepristone, aussi connue sous le nom de RU-486, est en attente d’approbation à Santé Canada, la FQPN invite trois panélistes à partager leurs connaissances sur cette substance, ses effets, ses modes de fonctionnement et son impact sur la santé des femmes et les services d’avortement.

Cette conférence aura lieu à la maison Parent-Roback, 110 rue Sainte Thérèse à Montréal (apportez votre lunch) mais il sera aussi possible d’y participer à distance en se connectant à une salle de conférence virtuelle.

AVEC LA PRÉSENCE DE

Dr. Elizabeth AUBENY, présidente de l’Association française pour la contraception et administratrice du FIAPAC
Dr. Christian FIALA, directeur médical de la clinique Gynmed à Vienne et administrateur du FIAPAC
Dr. Edith GUILBERT, Clinicienne, clinique de planification des naissances du CHUL-CHU de Québec et médecin conseil, Institut national de santé publique du Québec.

Monday funny:

I’m sure you’ve all heard about Richard Dawkins’ tweet regarding unborn children diagnosed with Down Syndrome.  He was asked what should be done if a woman discovered she was pregnant with a child with DS. His response:

Ben Wetzel over at BreakPoint uses two articles published in the last few weeks to demonstrate how “pro-choicers are doing our work for us.” One article is the Janet Harris piece that I wrote about a few days ago. I’ll excerpt the following from Wetzel where he discusses a piece from Esquire (some of it is pretty gruesome):

Within the past several weeks, however, two pro-abortion articles have appeared that demand the attention of pro-lifers. The arguments of the two pieces actually contradict each other, revealing the stark divide present even within the circles of abortion rights activists. Pro-life people might seize on the paucity of both arguments to make even more compelling cases for life in general and adoption in particular.

The first piece, the one getting the most attention, appeared in the online edition of Esquire on July 30. The article profiles the “abortion ministry” of Dr. Willie Parker of Mississippi…

The author, John H. Richardson, first describes the abortion operation—what he calls in Orwellian language “remov[ing] her pregnancy.” But then he gets to the really gruesome aftermath, the part where fetal body parts are clearly identifiable: “There’s the skull,” Parker says as he gestures toward a Pyrex dish, “what’s going to be the fetal skull . . . that’s an eye . . . here’s the umbilical cord”—and so it goes on, with Richardson adding his own commentary: “Floating near the top of the dish are two tiny arms with two tiny hands.” […]

Harris’s cavalier treatment of abortion loses all credibility when juxtaposed with the palpable suffering and moral dilemmas encountered by real people in the Esquire piece. The untold numbers of women who have publicly mourned their own abortions—documented at sites like this—militates against the idea that abortion is just another surgical procedure. Moreover, few people undecided about abortion can read of Parker’s laboratory coldness to fetal body parts without feeling that something is dreadfully wrong here. In short, if these are the best arguments pro-choice advocates can come up with, they’re making it easy for the pro-life movement to respond. May we do so with grace and power.

Read the rest here.