ProWomanProLife

You are here: Home / Archives for Lia Milousis

The Mythical Gender Dichotomy in the Abortion Debate

by Leave a Comment

Last summer, I was privileged to listen in on two fascinating online debates between pro-life and pro-choice activists.

The first debate was hosted by Harvard Right to Life and Massachusetts Citizens for Life. It featured Stephanie Gray Connors, an astoundingly articulate pro-life activist, gifted apologist, published author, and founder of the Love Unleashes Life ministry. The pro-choice representative was infamous ethicist Dr. Peter Singer, who is often known for his controversial comments about disabilities, including asserting that parents should be permitted to euthanize children with disabilities like Down Syndrome and spina bifida.

The second debate was a joint effort by three student clubs—the Health and Medical Law Society, Students for Free Speech York U, and Youth Protecting Youth—at York University. Maaike Rosendal, who works for the Canadian Centre for Bioethical Reform, similarly did an extraordinary job communicating the pro-life position with compassion, clarity, and conviction. The pro-choice representative was Dr. Fraser Fellows, a now retired late-term abortionist.

While I of course appreciated the lengthy and in-depth debate, I couldn’t help but notice that there was a clear gender division. In both debates, the pro-life movement was represented by a female speaker and the pro-choice movement was represented by a male speaker. This seems to run completely contrary to the mainstream mythology that the pro-life movement is filled with grouchy old Catholic men wanting to force their beliefs and rosaries onto women (seen, for instance, in the “keep your rosaries off my ovaries” chant) and that the pro-choice movement is filled with female feminists who are resisting male oppression (see, for example, the “no uterus, no opinion” slogan).

I do not find the fact that these debates featured female pro-life speakers and male pro-choice speakers as inherently problematic or particularly surprising. As someone who has been involved with pro-life activism for over a decade, my experience with the abortion debate is that women make up the vast majority of the pro-life movement (contrary to the stereotypes peddled by abortion advocates). And, as someone who has been a student of this issue for the better part of 13 years, I’m also very alive to the fact that men have been intimately involved in promulgating and perpetuating the practice of abortion (including the all-male group of judges in the Supreme Court of the United States Roe v Wade decision, the mostly male group of judges in the Supreme Court of Canada R v Morgentaler decision, the mostly male politicians who will have crafted the permissive abortion regime in Canada, and the many male abortionists who have performed countless abortions over the course of their careers – including the venerable Henry Morgentaler himself).

And so, we return to these two debates. I think these two debates make it quite clear that there is no such thing as the mythical anti-abortion male mob seeking to enslave the bodies of the pro-abortion female freedom fighters. Stephanie Gray Connors and Maaike Rosendal are eloquent, articulate, and passionate pro-life women who have committed their lives to being a voice for the pre-born, including taking a stand in public debates against the pro-choice men who seek to preserve the status quo on abortion.

In short, contrary to how pro-choice activists and pro-abortion feminists have tried to frame this debate, there are women and men on both sides of the issue. To frame the issue of abortion as being about women only—women’s rights, women’s interests, and women’s efforts—is patently untrue and deliberately misrepresentative of the depth and breadth of the issue.

I am not someone who believes that only women should have a voice on the issue of abortion, which has severe consequences on men and women across the country.

If there can be pro-choice men like Dr. Peter Singer who defend abortion access and pro-abortion men like Dr. Fraser Fellows who perform abortions, then there can also be pro-life men who work to protect vulnerable pre-born children and promote a culture of life.

This is not simply a woman’s issue. It is ultimately a human issue.

This is not simply about women’s rights. It is ultimately about human rights.

A Failed Moral Argument for Choice—Part 3: Let There Be Reason

by Leave a Comment

In my previous blog post on Dr. Parker’s book,[1] I addressed the complexities of Dr. Parker’s faith, which he wields in an attempt to give himself credibility and assert that advancing abortion access “is precisely the Christian thing to do.”[2] After an in-depth analysis of the nature of his beliefs, I concluded that, while Dr. Parker is evidently a man of deep faith and spiritual convictions, he cannot claim to be a Christian, as properly understood in relation to the Bible. Now I turn my attention to one final subject: reason.

I have frequently argued—and continue to believe to this day—that the core question that must be answered in the abortion debate is this: Is the preborn fetus a human?[3] This question is fundamental because, while it may sound empowering and even common-sense to use the language of being “pro-choice”, whether or not being “pro-choice” is, in fact, positive depends entirely on the nature of the choice being exercised.

We would correctly denounce anyone who claimed moral superiority for being “pro-choice” if the choice in question was the choice to inflict cruelty on animals. We would also correctly decry the suggestion that it is positive to be “pro-choice” if the choice in question involves afflicting physical, emotional, psychological, or sexual abuse on another human being. And there are many who are currently denouncing Elon Musk’s infamous “free speech maximalism”—which, arguably, is a fundamentally “pro-choice” position, insofar as he is advocating for the unfettered right to choose what one says in public spaces—precisely on the basis of their concern that some people may use their choice to perpetuate hatred and harm.[4] To be clear, I am not comparing the choice to have an abortion with these other choices or suggesting that these choices are all morally equivalent. I am simply making the point that, before we laud or decry being “pro-choice” in the context of abortion, we must first determine what is being chosen. In this context, that requires us to know whether or not the unborn fetus is a human.

Since Dr. Parker is a doctor—specifically, an OB-GYN—I had hoped that he would have a well-reasoned answer to this question. And I should clarify that I did not presume that his well-reasoned answer would be identical to mine. Quite the contrary, in fact. I knew that Dr. Parker was an abortionist, and so I knew that his answer to the question of the humanity of the unborn fetus would support his pro-abortion position. Still, my hope and expectation was that, as a physician, he would have an evidence-based, well-reasoned answer to this question. And that itself would have made his position respectable, even if it was an answer that I ultimately disagreed with.

It was with genuine disappointment, then, that I found myself reading the same tired statements that I have heard repeated over and over again by other abortion supporters, statements that lack intellectual consistency and coherent reasoning. While I by no means claim to be a scientific expert or authority on matters of healthcare, I—like any human being—am still able to test the veracity of Dr. Parker’s claims and evaluate the quality and consistency of his reasoning. What’s more, a large part of my professional expertise requires me to carefully scrutinize the integrity and logical coherence of arguments, whether my own or those of others. And my conclusion is that Dr. Parker’s claims, despite being sincerely held, are not scientifically supported or well-reasoned.

Unpacking Arguments Against the Humanity of the Unborn

One of the first things to note is that Dr. Parker was willing to overstate his position in ways that contradicted the other authoritative voices he cited in support of his position. In the chapter “Preaching Truth”, Dr. Parker makes the bold assertion that he “can authoritatively attest that life does not begin at conception.”[5] Fascinatingly enough, he contradicts himself a few sentences later when he writes: “the fact is, as Justice Harry Blackmun so eloquently wrote way back in 1973, in the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade, there is no historical, philosophical, theological, or even scientific consensus on when life begins.”[6] The problem is that Dr. Parker cannot authoritatively assure readers that life does not begin at conception if there is, in fact, a lack of scientific consensus on when human life begins.

So, let us unpack Dr. Parker’s claims in more detail.

In the Prologue to his book, while discussing how he approaches interactions with the women he provides abortion to, Dr. Parker writes the following:

But if they ask me questions, as they frequently do, I answer them as their doctor—and not as their confessor or their friend—and I give them the medical truth.

Before twenty-two weeks, a fetus is not in any way equal to “a baby” or “a child.” It cannot survive outside the uterus because it cannot breathe—not even on a respirator. It cannot form anything like thoughts. Up until twenty-nine completed gestational weeks, despite what the antis may say, the scientific consensus is that it cannot feel anything like pain.[7]

This paragraph is fairly representative of Dr. Parker’s core arguments around the unborn fetus not being human (although he does make a number of other side points that I will address in an effort to be comprehensive, thorough, and fair.)

Value at Viability?

Dr. Parker’s first core argument is that the fetus’ lack of viability precludes him or her from being recognized as a human being. This is consistent throughout the book. For example, when discussing the post-abortion process of piecing the unborn fetus back together to ensure that no part has been left inside the woman, Dr. Parker comments that, “no matter what these parts may look like, this is organic matter that does not add up to anything that can live on its own.”[8]

The argument about viability is a common one. For those who support abortion, there is this ongoing difficulty of identifying when human life begins, while somehow preserving the position that abortion is mostly permissible. Notwithstanding the Canadian legal fiction that a fetus remains sub-human until the moment of birth, very few people truly believe that human life only starts at the moment of birth. How could they? After all, what is the difference between the preborn child a few seconds before birth and the newborn child a few seconds after birth? Humanity is not magically endowed by the birth canal. And so human life must begin before birth. Of course, then there is the matter of late-term abortions, which many abortion supporters find intuitively uncomfortable. In the desperate effort to pinpoint a logical moment in pregnancy at which humanity begins, viability frequently emerges as one solution, perhaps because human life beginning at viability both sounds more logical than life beginning at birth and simultaneously shields most abortions from legal intervention.

The problem is this: the point of viability is not static. As medical technology and healthcare interventions advance, the point at which a child is viable has moved earlier and earlier in the pregnancy. When the US Supreme Court issued its infamous decision in Roe v Wade, it wrote: “Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks.”[9] In the decades since then, progress in medical technology has steadily moved that line earlier and earlier. Dr. Parker seems to assert viability is somewhere between 22 and 25 weeks.[10] And, despite Dr. Parker’s bold proclamations that a preborn fetus before twenty-two weeks “cannot” and “will not” survive, “not ever”, that is simply not the case (a verifiable fact that I established in my previous blog post). Many children have survived being born before 22 weeks gestation, including one young boy who recently celebrated his first birthday, conquering all odds after being given a 0% change of survival when he was born at 21 weeks and 2 days.

Not only has the point of viability changed with time and with technological advancement, but it will also change depending on the country in question and the medical technology that is available in different locations within that country. To suggest that something as concrete and scientifically verifiable as when human life begins is based on something as varied and unstable as the point at which the preborn fetus is viable is ludicrous. It is to conflate a static, existential truth (namely, what constitutes “personhood”) with a highly varied and contextual medical determination (what constitutes “viability”).

Interestingly enough, Dr. Parker seems to indirectly concede this point. While he at times discusses viability in a medical sense, he shifts his definition of the term, eventually drawing on a more philosophical and abstract understanding of “viability”. In a longer passage, Dr. Parker elaborates even further on how crucial viability is to his conception of human life:

A full-term pregnancy lasts forty weeks, on average. And up until at least twenty-two weeks, the fetus is not “viable.” That is, it cannot—it will not—survive outside the uterus, not with the assistance of medical technology, as in a respirator, and not with the spiritual support of earnest and hopeful prayer. Not ever. Up until twenty-two weeks, fetal development is insufficient to sustain life. A baby born at that gestational age cannot breathe. Its body weight cannot support life. Its skin is permeable. The antis may want to call a twenty-two week fetus a “person,” but if born, it will die.

The antis don’t want to hear this, but “life” is a gray area. There is a period, between about twenty-two and twenty-five weeks of gestational age, during which “life” is a vague state. A fetus may or may not be viable in that period, and there’s no way to reliably predict outcomes. A fetus born during this period is not definitely consigned life. Nor is it destined to die. Depending on various different factors—its weight, its lung development, the health of its mother, the expertise of the doctors in charge, and the technological capacity of the neonatal facility—it may live. Or not. And if it lives, it may grow up into a healthy adult, or it may suffer, afflicted with extensive organ and brain damage, and die young. These are the medical facts, having nothing to do with religious belief, or the power of prayer, or the hopes of parents to raise beautiful children. The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists does not recommend trying to resuscitate babies born at twenty-three weeks. At twenty-four weeks, doctors understand that it’s a crapshoot and they let the parents, together with their attending doctors, decide. At twenty-five weeks, the America Medical Association recommends resuscitation. But within these guidelines, doctors understand that “life” is not assured and that its “sanctity” is merely a hope.[11]

Here we see a very different understanding of “viability” and the notion of “life”. While Dr. Parker starts off with discussing when a preborn fetus can physically survive on his or her own, he shifts to discussing the lack of assurances that this life will endure into the future. Whether this bait and switch was intentional or not is ultimately irrelevant. What matters is that it is a change, and a meaningful one at that, because Dr. Parker is no longer discussing a medically verifiable point in time, but rather a much more abstract, esoteric principle about the assurance and continuance of life.

I understand the point that Dr. Parker is seeking to make, and he’s not wrong in asserting that life is never assured, particularly for a child born prematurely. However, the harsh reality of human existence is that life is never assured. Arguably, tragedy is always just around the corner. And so, suggesting that the value of human life—whether that life has sanctity and is worth protecting—is contingent on whether that life is assured is untenable and unascertainable. To use a tragic hypothetical: a new mother and her newborn child could leave the hospital and get hit by a car, fatally killing them both. Their lives were not assured beyond that moment in time—which, for the child, was likely a matter of mere hours or days—and yet both of their lives were of infinite value, full of sanctity and worthy of protection.

Recall that the start of human life is about more than abortion. Identifying when human life begins also means identifying when human rights begin. It is both inadvisable and illogical to base something as serious as the commencement of legal protection and human rights on the ever-changing point of viability.

Having dispensed with that unreasonable assertion, we move on to Dr. Parker’s next claim: that the preborn fetus “cannot form anything like thoughts”.

Cogito, ergo sum?

When reading the book, I found that Dr. Parker makes many confident assertions—presumably drawing on his medical background—about what the preborn fetus can and cannot do without offering any sources to support his claims. This assertion that the preborn child “cannot form anything like thoughts” is one such unfounded—and, apparently, untrue—claim. I say it is untrue because experts and researchers have found that the preborn fetus experiences both REM and non-REM sleep, meaning that he or she dreams in utero.[12] It has also been accepted that preborn fetuses can create and retain memories, and fetal memory—combined with infant dreaming—was at one point thought to potentially explain sudden infant death syndrome.[13] In short, while Dr. Parker’s lack of support for his brazen claims makes it impossible for me to consider the medical evidence that he was theoretically drawing on, I find it difficult to comprehend how a preborn fetus could experience REM sleep, create memories, and store those memories, all while being completely unable to “form anything like thoughts”.

Even if Dr. Parker’s assertion was accepted on its face, however, he makes no attempt to explain the difference between a full-term preborn child and a newborn child. In those few hours of labour—and, really, in those few seconds that distinguish a preborn child from a newborn child—what changes anatomically to enable the newborn child to form thoughts? How is Dr. Parker evaluating the ability to “form anything like thoughts”? I am familiar with the more articulate argument that the preborn fetus is not sentient—not conscious of its existence—but that argument too runs into the problem that, to my knowledge, full-term preborn children experience no anatomical change during birth that suddenly enables them to contemplate their own existence. If sentience, consciousness, and the ability to engage in higher thinking are to be determinative of when human life begins, then it is unclear how full-term preborn children and newborn children will be differentiated. (And hopefully it goes without saying that a definition of the commencement of human life that permits the killing of newborn children—infanticide—is not a viable definition. Pun intended.)

The Problem of Pain

Then we reach Dr. Parker’s comment about the preborn fetus not being able to feel pain. Reiterating a point he referenced previously, Dr. Parker writes:

Truth: Until twenty-nine weeks, a fetus can’t feel anything like pain. This is the established opinion of a 2005 clinical review in the Journal of the American Medical Association, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists agrees. Both consider the inability of a fetus to feel pain before the third trimester an established fact. And yet, despite the empirical evidence given by science, and not contradicted, the antis continue to disseminate their own version of “truth”—which is to say, lies—and to pass laws that support an entirely false idea about what fetuses in utero can “feel.”[14]

Now, the issue of a preborn child’s ability (or lack thereof) to feel pain is something that pro-life advocates discuss quite often, so I understand why Dr. Parker mentions it in his critique of the “antis” position. However, in my 13 years of experience in the pro-life movement, no pro-life individual has ever asserted in my presence that the preborn fetus is a human being because he or she feels pain. Rather, the importance of the unborn child feeling pain is exclusively about the humaneness—or lack thereof—of the abortion procedure.

It is also ludicrous to suggest that the ability to feel pain is a prerequisite to being recognized as human. There are currently human beings living today who are incapable of feeling pain.[15] It would be foolish to suggest that these individuals are not, in fact, human beings and therefore do not deserve the benefits that come with recognition as a human being (e.g., human rights, inherent dignity, intrinsic value, etc.). While we may think of the ability to feel pain as inherent to human beings, it is clearly not an experience shared by all human beings. The ability to feel pain is also by no means exclusive to our species. In short: the ability to feel pain cannot be a prerequisite for being considered a human being. Therefore, even if the unborn child cannot feel pain—and, to be clear, there are experts who suggest in no uncertain terms that the unborn child can feel pain, perhaps as early as 12 weeks[16]—a preborn fetus can still be (and, in fact, is) a human being.

Ancestral Life, Premature Death, and Other Abstract Arguments

Perhaps the culmination of Dr. Parker’s argument about the humanity—or, from his perspective, the lack thereof—of the unborn fetus can be found in his detailed description of an encounter he had with some University of Alabama students who opposed abortion. Dr. Parker writes:

I can understand why the antis like to insist that “life begins at conception.” It’s a simple way to comprehend human reproduction, and because of its simplicity, it offers moral clarity. What I tried to impress upon those students that day is that the scientific truth about life is complicated—but complication doesn’t conflict with a deeply moral, or even religious, orientation. It’s just that a nuanced moral stance requires wrestling with science and God in a way that might be difficult. It might take some time.

An egg, unfertilized, is alive. And sperm are alive. The human beings who generated those cells, which are called gametes, are also alive. These humans move and think; their cells consume and create energy. Men and women who have engaged in sexual intercourse are healthy, or not; they have good nutrition, or not. They carry with them the DNA of generations of ancestors who were also once alive. Within that DNA are maps or codes for possible future outcomes: brilliance, depression, obesity, schizophrenia, heart disease—all these living secrets are contained in each human cell, whether fertilized or not. So the idea that life begins at conception is already false: life begins long before conception with the lives that enabled those gametes to come into being.[17]

Here we see Dr. Parker again return to this esoteric, abstract conception of “life”. While this is a fascinating line of conversation, ideal for philosophical circles and perhaps even for everyday life, Dr. Parker is once again using a bait and switch tactic. Having said that “the scientific truth about life is complicated”, he then switches to a distinctly non-scientific definition of life, waxing lyrical about “life begin[ning] long before conception with the lives that enabled those gametes to come into being.” This is all well and good and intriguing, but it does little to address the ethics or morality of abortion. More importantly, Dr. Parker slyly skips over crucial scientific facts, such as the fact that egg and sperm cells, while alive, have the DNA of the woman and man, respectively, whereas the newly formed gamete has his or her own DNA, making the newly conceived unborn child genetically distinct from the egg and sperm cells that Dr. Parker tries to frame as essentially scientific equals.[18] If anything, despite its momentarily single-celled nature, the gamete is much closer to the “human beings who generated” the egg and sperm cells than it is to the egg and sperm cells themselves.

Dr. Parker then goes on to list a number of scenarios and challenge whether the unborn fetus is still “life” in this context. He mentions that a “large number” of “fertilized eggs” never successfully implant in the woman’s uterine wall, and he mentions that ectopic pregnancies occur. He asks: “Do all these conceptions qualify as ‘life’ as the antis define it? A ‘person’ with rights equal to a woman’s rights?”[19] He similarly points to miscarriages and embryos that fail to thrive, asking: “Is an embryo that fails to thrive ‘life’? On the same level as a healthy newborn? Or on the same level as the woman carrying it?”[20]

While Dr. Parker seems to be using these questions to try to expose an alleged absurdity in the “life begins at conception” position, his proverbial “aha!” moment falls flat with one word: Yes. Yes, the “large number” of “fertilized eggs” that never successfully implant in the woman’s uterine wall do, in fact, quality as “life”. Yes, miscarriages and embryos that fail to thrive are life “[o]n the same level as a health newborn” and “on the same level as the woman carrying it”. While these embryos clearly did not have the opportunity to fully develop and experience the fullness of life, neither did children who die in infancy, teenagers who die before adulthood, or adults who die of anything other than old age.

Each of these individuals—the teenager who dies in a tragic car crash, the infant who dies of sudden infant death syndrome, and the preborn child who dies of a heart wrenching miscarriage—will have lived a life that was prematurely cut short. However, while this brevity of these lives is tragic, it does not change that fact that these were, in fact, human beings. To put it succinctly: The length of one’s life does not alter the fact of one’s existence as a human being. And so, while miscarried embryos and embryos that never implant may die very early in their lives, they do still constitute human beings, as defined by science.[21]

Returning momentarily to his anecdote about the students from the University of Alabama, Dr. Parker writes:

In my conversation with the young anti-abortion activists at the University of Alabama that day, I presented fatal fetal anomalies as clear-cut cases for the necessity of preserving abortion rights up to and beyond twenty weeks. They countered that sometimes miracles happen that allow these fetuses to survive. Yes, I answered, maybe. But most of the time they don’t. And the students were forced to conceded that, sometimes maybe, abortion does not equal murder. And then I brought my argument home: If you can agree that certain medical conditions might justify abortion, then how can you exclude social, or personal, or financial conditions? If abortion is permissible in the case of a fatal fetal anomaly, then why not in the case of a homicidal, battering partner? Or a dire lack of resources? Or a drug dependency? How can the state adjudicate the circumstances of a woman’s life at all?[22]

Unfortunately, the fact that Dr. Parker managed to outwit a handful of university students by no means demonstrates the strength or veracity of the argument that he “brought home”. Now. Dr. Parker would likely be delighted to know that I agree with his assertion that, if abortion is justified in cases of fetal abnormality, we cannot then wrinkle our noses at abortion in cases of domestic violence, poverty, substance abuse, or other life circumstances that women often face. If the unborn child is not a human being, then there is no need to justify abortion—abortion would not end a human life, and abortion would therefore be no different than a woman having her tonsils or her appendix removed. It would be entirely her choice, a decision to be left up to her and her doctor (and, presumably, the loved ones in her life who would offer helpful feedback and tangible support). However, the opposite is also true: namely, that, if the preborn child is a human being, no justification for abortion is adequate, because abortion would end a valuable human life deserving of equal protection as the life of the woman.

However, up to this point, Dr. Parker has still not established that the unborn child is not a human being. Therefore, regardless of what these university students may have been duped into agreeing to, Dr. Parker’s argument is still not made out. Fatal fetal anomalies in a preborn child are by no means “clear-cut cases for the necessity of preserving abortion rights up to and beyond twenty weeks”, just as disabilities in a born human child in no way justify ending his or her life. Similarly, domestic violence, poverty, homelessness, and substance abuse by no means justify abortion, just as these admittedly heartbreaking life circumstances in no way justify ending the life of a newborn infant, two-year-old toddler, rebellious teenager, or any other human being, for that matter.

The presence of personal tragedy does not negate the existence of the other’s humanity.

The “Illusion” of the Infant

I will touch on one final comment that Dr. Parker makes in regards to the humanity of the unborn child. In discussing his personal frustration around what he frames as the sentimentality that came with the advent of sonograms, Dr. Parker states:

That the fetus has human features—fingers, eyelids, toes, ankles—only enhances the illusion that this is already a baby, their baby. But to refer to the fetus in utero as a baby is inaccurate. It reflects a hope, not a reality. In reference to a fetus, “baby” is a cultural term, not a scientific one.[23]

This passage is perhaps most revealing of all. In a strangely cautionary and distinctly unscientific tone, Dr. Parker explicitly disregards the obvious, empirical, observable evidence for the humanity of the unborn child. Despite recognizing that the features that the preborn fetus possess are, in fact, “human features”, Dr. Parker deftly avoids the obvious conclusion—namely, that the unborn child possesses human features because he or she is a human being—and chooses instead to zealously assert that these features are simply part of the visual deception that “enhances the illusion that this is already a baby”. This passage feels almost hysterical, as though Dr. Parker is warning readers about a conspiratorial plot—likely, in his mind, attributed to the amorphous “antis”—to control women’s bodies by portraying the fetus as a human with “fingers, eyelids, toes, ankles”. While Dr. Parker’s impassioned and fervent forewarning would be almost endearing if it were true, he seems to miss a glaringly obvious fact that annihilates his assertion that this is an “illusion”: namely, that the “antis” didn’t give “human features” to the preborn fetus, and that, in this context, sociology and anthropomorphism cannot explain away the biological reality that the unborn child’s human features are concrete facts of reality, not projected parental hopes.

And this, my dear readers, is the perfect place to close this blog post. Because, as I have hopefully established through my commentary and as I think Dr. Parker himself makes quite clear in this passage alone, his conviction that life does not begin at conception is “not a scientific one”. It is not based on medical evidence, it is not based on coherent reasoning, and it is not based on a rational weighing of the evidence. Dr. Parker clearly believes that the unborn child is not a human, and I’m sure that he hopes that his work is the morally justified, compassionate contribution to women’s wellbeing that he would like it to be. But hoping that that is the case does not make it true. His claim that the unborn child is not a human being is a cultural one, not a scientific one. In short, to borrow his own words, Dr. Parker’s conviction “reflects a hope, not a reality.”

[1] WJ Parker, Life’s Work: A Moral Argument for Choice, (New York: 37 Ink/Atria, 2017) [Life’s Work].

[2] Life’s Work.

[3] I recognize that some abortion supporters, acceding to the humanity of the unborn child, shift their line of justification to asserting that the unborn child is not a person. While I will not address this argument in this blog post, I would encourage readers to watch a short video I made many years ago on this question. For a more nuanced discussion of this issue, consider reading this article: John Janez Miklavcic and Paul Flaman, “Personhood status of the human zygote, embryo, fetus”, The Linacre Quarterly 84(2) (May 2017), 130, online: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5499222/#.

[4] See, for example, Pranshu Verma, “Elon Musk wants ‘free speech’ on Twitter. But for whom?”, The Washington Post (6 May 2022), online: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/05/06/twitter-harassment/.

[5] Life’s Work at 145.

[6] Life’s Work at 145 (emphasis added).

[7] Life’s Work at 12-13.

[8] Life’s Work at 95-96.

[9] Roe v Wade, 410 US 113 (1973) at para 160.

[10] Life’s Work at 150-151.

[11] Life’s Work at 150-151.

[12] See American Institute of Physics, “Baby’s First Dreams: Sleep Cycles Of The Fetus”, Science Daily (14 April 2009), online: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090413185734.htm, citing Schwab et al., “Nonlinear analysis and modeling of cortical activation and deactivation patterns in the immature fetal electrocorticogram”,Chaos An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science, 2009; 19 (1): 015111 DOI: 10.1063/1.3100546.

[13] Christos, G A, “Infant dreaming and fetal memory: a possible explanation of sudden infant death syndrome”, Med Hypothesis, 44(4) (April 1995) 243, DOI: 10.1016/0306-9877(95)90172-8, online: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7666822/.

[14] Life’s Work at 157-158.

[15] David Cox, “The curse of the people who never feel pain”, BBC (27 April 2017), online: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20170426-the-people-who-never-feel-any-pain.

[16] Stuart WG Derbyshire and John C Bockmann, “Reconsidering fetal pain” (2020), Journal of Medical Ethics 46, 3-6, online: https://jme.bmj.com/content/medethics/46/1/3.full.pdf.

[17] Life’s Work at 148-149.

[18] See, for instance, Fred de Miranda and Patricia Lee June, “When Human Life Begins”, American College of Pediatricians (March 2017), online: https://acpeds.org/assets/imported/3.21.17-When-Human-Life-Begins.pdf.

[19] Life’s Work at 149.

[20] Life’s Work at 149-150.

[21] See, for instance, Fred de Miranda and Patricia Lee June, “When Human Life Begins”, American College of Pediatricians (March 2017), online: https://acpeds.org/assets/imported/3.21.17-When-Human-Life-Begins.pdf.

[22] Life’s Work at 152-153.

[23] Life’s Work at 155.

A Failed Moral Argument for Choice—Part 2: Let There Be Faith

by Leave a Comment

Blatant falsehoods. Verifiable inaccuracies marketed as scientific facts. A book set apart by its dearth of truth. This is where we left off in my previous blog post about the truth—or, rather, the lack thereof—that was found in Dr. Parker’s so called “moral argument for choice”. In this blog post, I want to explore a different subject: faith.

Now, normally, I would avoid discussing personal attributes and characteristics of an individual that I am critiquing, simply because I never want to make the mistake of launching an ad hominem attack. Ad hominem attacks are a form of logical fallacy where someone attempts to critique an individual’s position by discrediting the individual, rather than responding to the individual’s argument. Ad hominem attacks are convenient ways to avoid having to contend with the core content of an individual’s claim, meaning that, if you are attempting to launch an intellectually honest critique—as I am seeking to do here—they should be avoided at all costs.

In this situation, however, Dr. Parker has used his individual identity—namely, his self-identification as a Christian—to bolster his argument. In fact, it is on precisely and exclusively this claim to faith that Dr. Parker premises his entire “moral argument for choice”. Consider part of the summary of his book:

In Life’s Work, an abortion provider and Christian reproductive justice advocate draws from his personal journey and professional scientific training as a doctor to reveal how he came to believe, unequivocally, that helping women in need, without judgment, is precisely the Christian thing to do.[1]

Many physicians can launch a defense of abortion, and many reproductive justice advocates can spout rhetoric about bodily autonomy and choice. But Dr. Parker is not attempting to reproduce the standard pro-abortion rhetoric. Rather, he is trying to make a “moral argument for choice” that leads to the conclusion that being an abortionist “is precisely the Christian thing to do.” In order to do this, Dr. Parker must establish that he is, in fact, a Christian. Perhaps un-intuitively, it is therefore his theoretical Christian faith, rather than his professional scientific training, that functions as the foundation for his entire argument. And so, to respond in kind, it is Dr. Parker’s theoretical Christian faith that I will examine and critique. Because the simple truth of the matter is that, believe what he may, the obscure set of beliefs that Dr. Parker holds lead nowhere close to anything remotely akin to orthodox Christian beliefs.

Right off the bat, Dr. Parker demonstrates a stark sense of Biblical illiteracy for someone who relies so heavily on his faith in making his argument. Before we even reach Chapter 1, Dr. Parker makes the following unbiblical statement in the Prologue to his book:

The Jesus I love has a nonconformist understanding of his faith. He realizes that the petty rules and laws laid down by the fathers and authorities are meaningless, and that to believe in a loving God is to refuse to stand in judgment of any fellow mortal.[2]

Now, I can’t say that I know much about this Jesus that Dr. Parker loves, because the Jesus of the Bible believes nothing of the sort. First of all, in Matthew 5:17, Jesus says: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.”[3] So Dr. Parker flagrantly contradicts the Biblical text by suggesting that this same Jesus “realizes that the petty rules and laws laid down by the fathers and authorities are meaningless […].”

Secondly, Dr. Parker’s later claim about refusing to stand in judgment of a fellow mortal seems, at first glance, to reflect what Jesus says when he exhorts us to not judge others. However, Dr. Parker’s belief is not simply that humans should not judge humans. As his book continues, it becomes increasingly apparent that Dr. Parker’s belief is that “God is love, and God does not judge.”[4] So again, Dr. Parker is not advocating for a Christian worldview that takes the ability to judge out of human hands and places it firmly in the hands of the Eternal, Righteous Judge. Rather, he is advocating for a theology that says God’s loving nature results in God refusing to judge, meaning that we as Christians should similarly refuse to judge those around us. Case in point, Dr. Parker’s so-called “Christian” justification for his decision to perform abortions:

Once I understood that the faithful approach to a woman in need is to help her and not to judge her or to impose upon her any restriction, penalty, or shame, I had to change my life.[5]

That, dear reader, is not a biblically sound position. And I can prove that using one of the clearest examples of compassion and grace in the Bible: Jesus’ response to the woman caught in adultery.

Picture this: the leaders and teachers of the law drag an adulterous woman before Jesus, pointing out that the Mosaic Law required such women to be stoned to death. They challenge Jesus, asking him what they should do. After casually writing on the ground with his finger for a while, Jesus says: “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” Feeling convicted and smarting from Jesus’ words, the crowd of religious leaders and bystanders disperses, leaving only Jesus and the adulterous woman remaining. Jesus, noticing that the crowds have left, asks the woman: “Has no one condemned you?” She responds: “No one, sir.” And then Jesus says: “Then neither do I condemn you. Go now and leave your life of sin.”[6]

In this passage of scripture, Jesus explicitly states that he does not condemn the woman who is caught in adultery, and he certainly proves that any condemnation from the religious leaders and community members is not justified. However, Jesus also tells the woman to go and leave her “life of sin”, meaning that he judges the woman’s actions as sinful, as wrong, as needing to be avoided. Not only does Jesus evaluate—or, put another way, judge—the morality of the woman’s actions, but he also issues a sentence, a course of action: sin no more.

Jesus’ approach here is a brilliant one, because he illustrates that it is possible to evaluate the rightness or wrongness of someone’s actions without condemning someone’s identity. It is possible to look at someone’s behaviour, identify it as sinful (i.e, as “missing the mark”), and still compassionately and lovingly call them to change, to live by a higher standard.

Contrary to Dr. Parker’s worldview, therefore, love is not incommensurate with judgment. God’s loving nature does not vitiate God’s ability to judge someone’s character or behaviour. And similarly, our call as Christians to love our neighbour as ourselves does not require us to suspend all judgment, turn a blind eye to the presence of immoral activities, and remain silent in the face of injustice for fear of accidentally imposing a restriction or penalty. The loving response to a woman in a crisis pregnancy does not require Christians “not to judge her or to impose upon her any restriction”, to borrow Dr. Parker’s words. Rather, the loving response to a woman in a crisis pregnancy can be the response that Jesus provides the woman caught in adultery: judging the behaviour and encouraging a better course of action, all without condemnation. This is what allows one to judge the act of abortion as immoral and encourage women in crisis pregnancies not to have abortions, all without condemning the women themselves or condemning those women who have already had abortions.

Of course, this is not to say that we as Christians must always feel the need to continuously remind people of the moral quality of their actions. There are certainly times when that course of action will do more harm than good. My point, however, is simply that love and judgment are not incompatible.

Now, you might have noticed Dr. Parker’s not-so-subtle jab at “the fathers and authorities” who have “laid down” the “petty rules and laws”. Unfortunately, Dr. Parker’s distinctly feminist worldview features in his interpretation of the Bible, causing him to write the following:

And though through Mike Moore […] I became enraptured with the idea of God’s radical, egalitarian love, I was not yet in possession of the intellectual tools to unpack or query the fundamental sexism embedded in the ancient Scripture, or to discover for myself a more nuanced, or feminist, vision of justice. Now I see the Bible as it was written: the inspired word of God, but also a historical document preserving the ancient hegemony of men; starting with Eve, women are always thrown under the bus when it suits the men in power to do so.[7]

Dr. Parker goes on to extend his feminist critique to the church, writing that “[t]he churches [he] was raised in were patriarchal” because “[t]he father was the head of the family, just as Jesus was the head of the church.”[8] While Dr. Parker’s comments are fair insofar as it is absolutely possible for sinful humans—whether Christian or otherwise—to be sexist and patriarchal at times, Dr. Parker seems to make the mistake of conflating the presence of problematic practices in the church and in the Bible as the endorsement of those behaviours as morally upright Christian living. To remedy this perceived wrong, it seems that Dr. Parker has decided to cherry-pick which Christian principles he likes and which he does not.

The end result, therefore, is that Dr. Parker has abandoned true Christianity by dismissing a litany of key Christian beliefs that are absolutely crucial to a genuine Christian worldview. On page 195 of his book, Dr. Parker casually comments: “I don’t believe in moral absolutes”—a statement that has no synthesis with the Bible.[9] A few pages later, he similarly states: “I don’t think of the world in terms of good and evil”—again, a rejection of the fundamental Biblical narrative.[10] In the span of a mere seven pages, Dr. Parker dismisses two key precepts of an authentic Christian worldview. I would argue that these two statements are so incompatible with true Christianity that, on the basis of these two statements alone, one can reasonably conclude that Dr. Parker is not walking in step with any Biblically defensible understanding of Christianity at all.

And then we reach the final chapter in Dr. Parker’s book, and what a chapter it is. While by this point in the book it was clear to me that Dr. Parker certainly does not adhere to a true Christian worldview, it became immediately apparent to me that Dr. Parker was strategic. For it is not until the last chapter of his book that Dr. Parker comes clean about just how far he has departed from a truly Biblical worldview, and I am quite confident that, had he been honest and upfront about the truth of his spiritual beliefs, his entire Christian “moral argument for choice” would have been undermined. How shrewd, therefore, that the most damning evidence against Dr. Parker’s self-proclaimed Christian faith is found only at the end of his book, long after he would have in theory persuaded some readers to accept his flawed interpretation of the Bible and his overly simplistic theology about judging others as justification for his problematic and supposedly “Christian” justification of abortion.

In the final chapter of his book, Dr. Parker writes about various spiritual experiences he has had, which have led him to develop the following problematic—and profoundly unbiblical—beliefs:

If God is human and humans are of God, then God has to love everything about us, and we have to love all that belongs to God.[11]

…the more I read, the more I understood that I needed a God of transcendence and justice more than I needed one that enshrined and preserved the Bible’s antique, patriarchal worldview.[12]

More: my God is a radical God who requires us to love one another because of our sinfulness and to be generous with one another even when our impulses want to lead us back to the safety of those childish, narrow beliefs that make us afraid to act.[13]

… as circumstance forced me out of my complacency, professionally, so did it force me to articulate a new understanding of God, which would prompt, embrace, and support my professional choice. This understanding I came to on my own, with my books, and my tapes, and the voices of my loving mentors and personal saints in my head. And I reassert it here, in the hope that other Christians, and other people of faith, might find in my evolution some comfort—and perhaps some inspiration to see abortion as part God.[14]

If God is wholly Other, then the miracle of life is not some ordinary meeting of sperm and ovum—a morally neutral, purely biological event—but the agency and the responsibility that come with being able to participate with God in a creative process. God is not human. God is not on the planet. God does not have babies, or make babies. People do. […] God has no hands but your hands. God has no ability but your ability. That is what the Bible means when it says that you are God’s child.[15]

The God part is in your agency. The trust—the divine trust—is that you have an opportunity to participate in the population of the planet. And you have an opportunity not to participate. […] The part of you that’s like God is the part that makes a choice. That says, I choose to. Or, I choose not to. That’s what’s sacred. That’s the part of you that’s like God to me.

The procedure room in an abortion clinic is as sacred as any other space to me, because that’s where I am privileged to honor your choice. In this moment, where you need something that I am trained to give you, God is meeting both of us where we are.[16]

At that, dear reader, is the truth of what Dr. Parker believes. It may be interesting. It may be novel. It may be edgy and it may be intriguing and it may resonate with you. But whatever value there is to be derived from Dr. Parker’s positions, it cannot be asserted as representative of Biblical Christianity. And so, while Dr. Parker can perhaps speak on behalf of abortion providers and offer insight into how abortionists approach the abortion debate, he cannot claim to be a “Christian reproductive justice advocate” and he cannot claim that his work “is precisely the Christian thing to do.” I do not doubt that Dr. Parker is a man of deep faith. But I would argue that, according to any reasonable definition and understanding of the Christian worldview, Dr. Parker does not offer a defensible Biblical or Christian “moral argument for choice.”

And with that, I draw my second blog post to a close. Having dealt with the issues of truth and faith in Dr. Parker’s book, I will move on to the last part of my tripartite critique: an analysis of the substantive arguments and reasoning that makes up Dr. Parker’s “moral argument for choice”.

 

 

[1] Parker, W. J. (2017). Life’s Work: A Moral Argument for Choice. New York: 37 Ink/Atria [Life’s Work].

[2] Life’s Work at pg. 16.

[3] Matthew 5:17, NIV [emphasis added].

[4] Life’s Work at pg. 55.

[5] Life’s Work at pg. 37.

[6] John 8:11, NIV.

[7] Life’s Work at pg. 23 [emphasis added].

[8] Life’s Work at pg. 23.

[9] Life’s Work at pg. 195.

[10] Life’s Work at pg. 202.

[11] Life’s Work at pg. 204.

[12] Life’s Work at pg. 207.

[13] Life’s Work at pg. 207.

[14] Life’s Work at pg. 210.

[15] Life’s Work at pg. 212.

[16] Life’s Work at pg. 212.

A Failed Moral Argument for Choice—Part 1: Let There Be Truth

by 2 Comments

I recently finished reading “Life’s Work: A Moral Argument for Choice” by Dr. Willie Parker, a self-proclaimed Christian abortionist in the United States. I was interested in this book for two reasons: first, since Dr. Parker is an abortionist, his proximity to the practice gives him a unique perspective and opportunity for insight when it comes to the abortion debate that I felt was worth being familiar with. Second, I have become increasingly perturbed by the disconcerting phenomenon of Christians taking a pro-abortion stance and using the Bible to defend their position; thus, I wanted to read Dr. Parker’s attempt to justify abortion using a Biblical framework

Now, as someone who has written a book myself, I have some degree of respect for those who are capable of communicating their beliefs, ideas, and passions in a book. In short, I picked up Dr. Parker’s book with this tentative position of default respect. However, I was surprised—impressed, even—at how quickly he lost my respect. It was not the caliber of his writing that lost me, which was consistently clear, articulate, and grammatically correct. Rather, it was his analysis—or, shall I say, his lack thereof.

I will launch a full-scale critique of Dr. Parker’s “argument” another time. For the time being, I will limit my critiques to something that Dr. Parker referred to ad nauseam and claimed to promulgate: truth.

Context: In the prologue to his book, Dr. Parker writes that he is constantly “travelling the country like a twenty-first-century Saint Paul, preaching the truth about reproductive rights…” (Parker, 2017, Life’s Work, pg. 5). I confess that, when I first read those words, I physically cringed, irked by the fact that Dr. Parker seems to think so highly of himself and his work that he felt entitled to compare himself to the man who is credited with writing 13 books of the Bible, the most influential book and the bestselling book of all time. Forgive my less biased perception of Dr. Parker, but I have a hard time seeing the comparison.

There is, however, an equally problematic reference that Dr. Parker makes in that same quote. It is his reference to “the truth about reproductive rights”. For someone who writes “I don’t believe in moral absolutes” and “I don’t think of the world in terms of good and evil”, Dr. Parker sure speaks a lot about “truth” (Parker, 2017, Life’s Work, pg. 195 and 202). Unfortunately, the “truth” he speaks of was shockingly, frequently untrue. (Perhaps this is reflective of his unbelief in “moral absolutes”—perhaps “truth” is as malleable, inconsequential, and subjective for him as morality seems to be.)

The first time I found a statement that is objectively, verifiably untrue in Dr. Parker’s book, I was immediately incensed and deeply disturbed. In the middle of the chapter of his book ironically called “Preaching Truth”, Dr. Parker makes the following assertion:

A full-term pregnancy lasts forty weeks, on average. And up until at least twenty-two weeks, the fetus is not “viable.” That is, it cannot—it will not—survive outside the uterus, not with the assistance of medical technology, as in a respirator, and not with the spiritual support of earnest and hopeful prayer. Not ever. Up until twenty-two weeks, fetal development is insufficient to sustain life. A baby born at that gestational age cannot breathe. Its body weight cannot support life. Its skin is permeable. The antis may want to call a twenty-two-week fetus a “person,” but if born, it will die (Parker, 2017, Life’s Work, pg. 150) [emphasis added].

(As an aside, note that Dr. Parker is making the peculiar and weak claim that the supposed inevitability of a premature child’s death means that he or she is not a “person.” At the risk of spoiling a future blog post that I will write on this statement and Dr. Parker’s similarly cringe-worthy “analysis”, let me state unequivocally right now that, if the inevitability of death is grounds for denying the preborn child personhood, then no living human is a person, since we will all eventually die. Dr. Parker is arguing in this section that life does not begin at conception and, by extent, that the human fetus is neither alive nor valuable. He is arguing this on the grounds that the child’s viability and survival are still in question. Let me simply ask this question: How can someone die if they are not alive? Rest assured, I shall return to this tragic—dare I say, non-viable—line of reasoning in a future blog post.)

At first glance, his comments seem persuasive. Dr. Parker is a doctor, after all. In fact, he is an ob-gyn. Surely he, of all people, can be trusted. Surely he, of all people, will know the truth on matters of healthcare.

But, for Dr. Parker, the truth seems to be irrelevant. This may seem unnecessarily harsh; however, as someone who cares deeply and personally for actual truth, I think the severity of my critique is justified because of how verifiably untrue Dr. Parker’s claims are.

As it so happens, I have looked into viability before, and so I knew with certainty that Dr. Parker’s claim that no child born at twenty-two weeks can ever be viable is demonstrably untrue. Premature children born before twenty-two weeks have survived with medical assistance. For many years, the youngest recorded preemie was James Elgin Gill, a Canadian man born in 1988. He was born at a mere 21 weeks and 5 days, setting a record as the world’s most premature baby. However, in 2017, USA Today reported that a new record was set by a baby girl who was born at just 21 weeks and 4 days. And then there is Amilia Taylor, born in 2006 in the United States at just 21 weeks and 6 days.

Each of these individuals—born before twenty-two weeks gestation—is living proof that Dr. Parker’s seemingly reliable statements and bold declarations of “cannot”, “will not”, and “not ever” are little more than reckless overstatements that he made to support his pro-abortion position about “viability”. With a simple Google search that took me less than two minutes, I was able to find three cases that contradict Dr. Parker’s assertions and demonstrate that premature children born before twenty-two weeks can, in fact, survive outside of the womb with medical support. And yet, because Dr. Parker is a doctor, his falsehoods carry an air of reliability and professionalism, and have been dispersed en masse to the public. I am grieved by the knowledge that there are likely now hundreds and thousands of individuals around the world who have innocently placed their trust in Dr. Parker, expecting to receive the truth, and, through no fault of their own, have accepted his flagrant falsehoods as scientific facts.

This was not the only factual inaccuracy in Dr. Parker’s book. Contradictions abound. Take, for instance, Dr. Parker’s discussion of pro-life legislative measures that have recently been enacted in the United States. On page 146, Dr. Parker writes:

Bills proposing that fetuses are people have come before legislatures in at least twenty-eight states. None have passed [emphasis added].

A mere eight pages later, Dr. Parker directly contradicts himself in his discussion on fetal personhood and related legislation, where he states:

In 2016, “personhood” bills were introduced in Alabama, Colorado, Mississippi, Rhode Island, Iowa, Maryland, Missouri, South Caroline, and Virginia. The only state in which such a bill has passed has been Kansas, which in 2013 affirmed the Pro-Life Protection Act, declaring that “life beings at conception.” [emphasis added].

Note that, in a few short pages, we have gone from every single bill “proposing that fetuses are people” failing to “such a bill” passing in Kansas. Once again, Dr. Parker demonstrates that his view of truth is like his view of morality: lacking absolutes and free to toss around, manipulate, and twist to suit one’s personal or rhetorical preferences.

There is one final factual inconsistency that I will expose before I leave this preliminary element of my critique of Dr. Parker’s demonstrably defunct “argument”. On page 117, Dr. Parker repeats the same, tired rhetoric that “[t]he Bible does not contain the word ‘abortion’ anywhere in it” in a pitiful attempt to justify abortion through a Biblical worldview. And yet, on page 207, he writes:

In my view, the only Christianity that mandates an anti-abortion view is an emotion-based faith—a rigid reading of Scripture that invites no questioning or interpretive consideration [emphasis added].

Now, I will save my comments about Dr. Parker’s so-called “Christian” faith for a later blog post. For now, I would simply like to point out the completely contradictory nature of asserting that the Bible is (a) completely void of any commentary on abortion whatsoever on the one hand, and then (b) asserting that only a literal, “rigid reading” of the Bible could result in a Christian coming to a pro-life worldview on the other hand.

After reading his book, my conclusion is that Dr. Parker’s only contributions to the abortion debate are slightly more articulate versions of the same illogical, contradictory, factually-flawed mantras and slogans that already contaminate what could otherwise be rational, scientific, intellectually-honest conversations on the subject of abortion. If anything, his willingness to wield his professional credibility in defence of this unprofessional nonsense and throw his weight as a doctor around in order to convince people of the credibility of the blatant falsehoods he has peddled is the only additional damage that Dr. Parker has done—and, believe me, it is damage he has done to his own side, not to the pro-life community.

Dr. Parker may care a great deal about the practice of abortion. But of objective, verifiable, absolute truth Dr. Parker seems to care very little.

With that, I shall move forward in my critique; my next post will examine a premise central to his rhetoric: the merger of his dubious Christianity and his intellectually vacant “moral argument for choice.”

Why “Choice” is an Unhelpful Term in the Abortion Debate

by 1 Comment

Pro-choice. Anti-choice. My body, my choice.

Somehow, the abortion debate has been characterized by this one word: choice.

I first started thinking of the term “choice” and its utility (or lack thereof) in the abortion debate when I started working on my spoken word: Pro-Woman, Pro-Choice, Pro-Life. I had a few different goals in making that video. As I said in the video, one of my goals was “to challenge the idea that choice is what abortion is all about.” I nuanced the word choice and discussed the reality of coerced abortion, which is a pervasive problem that too few pro-abortion individuals acknowledge.

However, I had another goal: I wanted to commandeer the term “choice”. Because, if we are honest, saying that someone is “pro-choice” or “anti-choice” is utterly unhelpful and entirely unenlightening. Here’s why:

If you think about it, when it comes to classifying choices, everyone has three categories of choices: “good” choices, “bad” choices, and “neutral” choice. For example, here would be an example of some of the choices I have listed in each of these three categories:

Good Choices: having access to education, caring for one’s children, being politically engaged, etc.

Bad Choices: sexual assault, murder, speeding, theft, littering, smoking, etc.

Neutral Choices: favourite ice cream flavour, favourite animal, favourite colour, etc.

Note: I put those descriptive words in quotations because I am of the opinion that, regardless of how someone personally classifies a choice, there is an absolute truth about the classification of that choice. For example, many rapists would classify the choice to sexually assault someone as “good” or “neutral”, but that choice is objectively and absolutely wrong, regardless of their personal classification. This also works in the reverse. For example, I classified smoking as a “bad” choice because of the health side effects associated with cigarettes. However, I do not think that smoking is, from a moral perspective, an absolutely wrong choice.

Let’s return back to our lists. We all have these three lists. Yes, there are some objective moral absolutes that, in my opinion, override the perceived correctness of our subjective categorization. Regardless, we each have these three lists that are informed by many factors, including our political ideology, our religious identity (or lack thereof), our family background, our cultural context, and our personal preferences.

Now, I mentioned that I oppose sexual assault. Technically, that makes me “anti-choice”. And you know what? I absolutely am anti-choice when it comes to sexual assault! I do not think sexual assault is ever a legitimate choice that an individual is entitled to make. And, if he or she chooses to make that choice, I am more than happy to be “anti-choice” and remove his or her freedom via incarceration. So you better believe I’m “anti-choice” in that sense. And I certainly hope that most people would agree with me and be “anti-choice” in relation to rape and sexual assault.

However, I also mentioned that I support people having the choice to access education. So I am “pro-choice” in the sense that I want people to have equal opportunities when it comes to accessing education, should they wish to do so. And I think most people are “pro-choice” in that regard, since most individuals support equal access to education for all.

So then, we come to a position where most of us are “pro-choice” on some issues and “anti-choice” on others. Do you now see the futility of these labels?

The issue is that labels like “pro-choice” and “anti-choice” do not have intrinsic values embedded in them. They are not value-laden statements. The value of the label is directly linked with the underlying subject matter, not the label itself. That is why being “pro-choice” is good for education (ie. because education is good), but bad for sexual assault (ie. because sexual assault is bad). The same goes for the “anti-choice” label: being “anti-choice” is good when discussing sexual assault (ie. because sexual assault is bad), but bad for choosing one’s favourite ice cream flavour (ie. because one’s favourite ice cream flavour is neutral and functions exclusively as a personal preference).

Determining whether being “pro-choice” or “anti-choice” on any given subject matter is easy when everyone agrees on the moral value of the underlying issue (eg. everyone agrees that sexual assault is bad – and I say “everyone” because even a rapist would demand justice if he/she was sexually assaulted). Things become much trickier when there is disagreement. And that is precisely what we see in the abortion debate.

In the Great Abortion Debate, you have two camps: those who support abortion (ie. “pro-choice”/pro-abortion) and those who oppose abortion (ie. “anti-choice”/anti-abortion/pro-life). Those who support abortion are “pro-choice”, because they support abortion as a legitimate solution to an unwanted or crisis pregnancy. However, that is not a negative thing in their minds. There is nothing wrong to them about being “pro” a choice that, in their minds, is categorized as helping women. Similarly, those who oppose abortion can be called “anti-choice”, because they are “anti” a choice that, by their evaluation, results in the violent destruction of an innocent life. However, that is not a negative thing in their – our – minds. There is nothing wrong to them – to us – about being “anti” a choice that ends another human life.

The real issue that needs to be addressed is this dualistic method of characterizing and framing the issue of abortion. Abortion is either right (“good” or “neutral”) or wrong (“bad”). Part of the problem really comes down to what this “choice” is that we talk about so flippantly. If abortion ends the life of a separate living human entity, then it ends a human life – that is the “choice” being made. If abortion does not end the life of a separate living human entity, then it is just another medical decision women sometimes need to make – that is the “choice” being made.

So which is it? Is abortion right? Is abortion wrong? It is helpful to have these conversations. In fact, it is necessary to have these conversations. But we cannot have these conversations effectively when we devolve into the lazy labelling tactic of just accusing someone of being “anti-choice”.

Pro-choice. Anti-choice. These words and labels are empty without context, without information, without the necessary details required to reach an educated conclusion about the rightness or wrongness of abortion as a subject matter. So it is unhelpful and unwise to limit the abortion debate to these two overly simplistic labels. Again, whether you consider yourself “pro-choice” or “anti-choice” is irrelevant unless we first define the value of the choice we are discussing.

So to all my pro-life friends, I say: don’t let yourself be limited. Do not let people delegitimize you with meaningless mantras like “anti-choice”. You are “anti-choice”. So what? There is nothing wrong with that unless abortion is a good/neutral subject matter. So do not let the conversation end after you have been labelled. Push further. Have that difficult conversation about the rightness or wrongness of abortion as a subject matter. Be courageous. Be respectful. And be bold. (And, while you’re at it, be sure not to label others. It’s not helpful.)

To all my pro-abortion friends, I say: don’t let yourself be limited. Many flaunt the “pro-choice” label as though it is their badge of honour, their symbol of tolerance, their ticket to the ultimate woke life. Do not give in to that temptation. Perhaps there is nothing wrong with being “pro-choice” in the context of abortion. But perhaps there is. Do not skim over that detail. Wrestle with that question. Labels limit discussions. Do not accept that as your standard.

Stay curious, my friends.

The State of Freedom in Canada

by 2 Comments

“I am a Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, or free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.” – John G. Diefenbaker

This quote was shared in one of my law classes a few weeks ago. I can only imagine the way John Diefenbaker felt when he wrote those words. Perhaps he was worried about the state of his country, and therefore all the more passionate about passing the Canadian Bill of Rights. Perhaps he was proud of the nation he helped govern. As I read these words, I sense a mixture of pride and passion, a combination of satisfaction at the state of Canada at the time and of determination to ensure that Canada remained founded in such freedom.

I wonder what Prime Minister Diefenbaker would think of our nation now.

I am concerned: concerned for our nation and concerned for the security of the lofty ideal we call freedom. Maybe I am too cynical for my own good. But freedom, I am discovering, is an endangered species. Freedom is an invaluable ideal that has been choked by progressives, chastised by political correctness, and condemned by radical ideologies.

I am afraid that John Diefenbaker’s words are no longer as true as they once were. If he were to speak these words today, I fear that they would need the following updates:

“I am a Canadian. I am free to speak without fear, unless my university dislikes what I say. I am free to worship in my own way, unless my beliefs offend someone – then I will be denied the ability to care for children and denied the ability to associate with like-minded individuals. I am free to stand for what I think right, unless I am a pro-life person who gets too close to an abortion clinic. I am free to oppose what I believe wrong, unless I am a pro-life physician who refuses to provide abortion, birth control, or euthanasia & assisted suicide. I am free to choose those who shall govern my country, unless I am a pro-life person trying to run in politics or trying to access state-run employment subsidization programs. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind personkind (but only for those who agree with state-sanctioned secularism and who bow to government ideological coercion on issues like abortion).”

Freedom, you see, is not what it used to be.

There is hope, of course. Students are rallying, lawyers are fighting back, and courageous everyday Canadians are refusing to let liberty be wrenched from their hands. Freedom may be endangered, but it is not extinct.

We must, however, remain vigilant. We must remain alert and attentive, refusing to let distractions destroy our determination.

To those of you who do not care, or to those of you who doubt the severity of the situation, I challenge you to read the words of Martin Neimöller. He knew a thing or two about the dangers of complacency and apathy. You would be wise not to make them your bedfellows mistresses  partners.

To those of you who fear, like I do, for the state of freedom in Canada, I encourage you to pray, to fight, to act, to speak, to stand, to remain, and to pray some more. And perhaps, when you hear the national anthem play, do what I do and relish being able to sing that one line just a little bit louder.

May God truly keep our land glorious and free.

Ten Years Later: A Reflection (Part 2)

by Leave a Comment

#6: Because abortion is a gruesome medical practice.

I suppose this reason is a branch off of the first reason I listed in Part 1—which was that the unborn child is human—but I wanted to be more specific.

Any surgical abortion—whether at 12 weeks, 22 weeks, or 32 weeks—involves the violent and gruesome dismemberment and decapitation of an unborn human being. For those who don’t believe me, I would highly recommend that you listen to the testimony of Dr. Anthony Levantino, a former abortion provider who performed over 12,000 abortions in the first and second trimester.

Listen to him describe the procedure. And then explain to me how abortion is justifiable.

 

#7: Because I am a feminist.

Modern-day feminists have made reproductive rights and support of abortion one of the key tenets of third/fourth wave feminism. In fact, while I was completing my degree in Women’s Studies, many of my feminist classes would periodically erupt into debates over whether it was even possible to be a “pro-life feminist”.

I find discussions of these quite fascinating, because really what they demonstrate is an extreme form of historical amnesia. It seems as though the entire modern-day feminist movement has literally forgotten—either intentionally or unintentionally—the fact that the very first feminists were extremely pro-life. In fact, the women who founded feminism were adamant that, in order to effectively argue that all human life, male and female, was equally valuable, you also had to argue that all human life, born or unborn, was also equally valuable. So being pro-life and being pro-woman were belief systems that were inextricably linked and intertwined for early day Western feminists.

The summary of feminism’s historical connection to the issue of abortion is that the women who founded the feminist movement were adamantly opposed to abortion as a medical practice. The reasons for this were three-fold:

  • The founders of feminism believed that abortion ended a human life, and therefore that abortion was morally reprehensible. In light of the fact that feminists were advocating for the equal valuing of all human life, regardless of gender, this stance is understandable and intellectually consistent.
  • Early feminists noted that women were often pressured to have abortions against their will. This pressure was either direct, and was often exerted by male partners and other patriarchal figures in women’s lives, or it was indirect, which can be seen in the pressure that many women faced to have abortions for economic reasons and because of economically non-ideal circumstances. In both of these cases, the founders of feminism recognized that these external and/or internal pressures actively undermined women’s autonomy, women’s agency, and women’s ability to act as empowered, equal human beings.
  • Finally, early feminists believed that women’s empowerment did not have to rely on the oppression of others—in other words, the right to control one’s body could not include the right to destroy someone else’s body.

It was Frances Wright who famously said:

“whenever we establish our own pretentions upon the sacrificed rights of others, we do in fact impeach our own liberties, and lower ourselves in the scale of being!…”

And it was renowned feminist Elizabeth Cady Stanton who, in 1873, said:

“When we consider that women are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit.”

So, one of the main reasons why I am still pro-life is because I hold a traditional feminist worldview. And, as the founders of Western feminism aptly pointed out, this necessitates adopting a pro-life feminist ethos.

Does this mean that you cannot be a pro-abortion feminist? Absolutely not. But it does mean that your feminist worldview will be inconsistent, illogical, incomplete, and, as we are seeing more and more today, tyrannical in its attempt to justify the oppression of others to attain the supposed empowerment of women.

So my dear feminist colleagues, pro-life and pro-choice: you would do well to remember that “whenever we establish our own pretentions upon the sacrificed rights of others, we do in fact impeach our own liberties, and lower ourselves in the scale of being!…”

 

#8: Because I oppose sexism.

Let’s talk about sex-selection abortion. In my most recent video addressing the issue of abortion, I said the following:

“Sex selection abortion is the epitome of misogyny.

It is a practice that says only boys are welcome into society.

The notion that abortion empowers women is something that I must question:

How can abortion empower women when it promotes blatant discrimination?”

Sex selection is the practice of using medical techniques to choose the sex of offspring. While sex-selection by definition and in theory can apply to male or female children, it is almost exclusively used to discriminate against female children and choose male children. Sex-selection abortion is when an abortion is performed solely because of the child’s sex. Again, while sex-selection abortion in theory can be used to target male and female children, research indicates that it is used around the world to systematically target female children.

Typically, when we think about sex-selection abortion, we think about East Asian countries, usually China or India, where there is a strong preference for male children. We often think about research that has revealed that China has seen the sex ratio at birth move from approximately 106 males per 100 females in the 1960s and 1970s, to almost 112 males per 100 females in the 1990s[1], with recent research showing that the sex ratio at birth “is over 130 [males for every 100 females] in several Chinese provinces from Henan in the north to Hainan in the south.”[2] The research is equally dismal when it comes to countries like South Korea, where, in 1992, the sex ratio at birth in some cities was already 125 males for every 100 females.[3] And so, because of this East Asian focus, when we think about why sex selection is taking place, we often point to deeply rooted sexist beliefs in countries like India, where scholars have stated that sex-selective abortion “is only the latest manifestation of a long history of gender bias in the country, apparent in the historically low, and declining, population ratio of women to men.”[4]

However, the notion that sex-selective abortion is only a phenomenon in countries like China, India, and South Korea is a very ethnocentric idea. Researchers state that, while certain cultures practice sex-selective abortion more frequently, sex-selective abortion is a phenomenon that takes place around the world. Take, for instance, my country, Canada. Studies indicate that 92% of Canadians are against the practice of sex-selective abortion. And yet, there is already research that proves that sex-selective abortion is being practiced quite regularly in Canadian society.[5]

Now, the natural ratio of males-to-females at birth is already slightly male-biased, resting at around 1.05 male children for every 1 female child. However, findings that were published by the National Bureau of Economic Research who that, while “the sex ratio for first births among first generation South and East Asian immigrants to Canada is only slightly higher than the norm at about 1.08, the ratios become increasingly skewed for each subsequent birth where all previous children are female. For example, the sex ratio for third births to Chinese, Korean and Vietnamese immigrants who already have two daughters is 1.39. For Indians, that ratio is 1.90—almost two boys born for every girl.”[6]

This is not simply a Canadian problem. Research from around the world indicates that sex-selective abortion is taking place, particularly within specific immigrant population groups. The trends of sex-selection and sex-selective abortion that have been noticed in Canada and Australia have also been identified internationally, including in England and Wales[7], Nepal[8], Bangladesh[9], Pakistan[10], Taiwan[11], Japan[12], Vietnam[13], Azerbaijan, Armenia, and Georgia[14][15], Albania, Kosovo, Montenegro, and Macedonia[16], Brazil[17], and in the United States[18].

What these findings make clear is that, while the age-old existence of male preference is particularly strong in certain countries, the relatively modern phenomenon of sex-selective abortion is occurring around the world.

Now, a discussion of why sex-selective abortion is occurring cannot take place without considering the role that abortion laws—or a lack of abortion laws—has on the practice. For example, in many ways, Canada’s laws in relation to the issue of abortion have actually created an environment in which these types of phenomenon can occur. While “[s]ex-selective abortion has historically been considered an Asian phenomenon”, Professor Lena Edlund, associate professor of economics at Columbia University, notes that “a variety of factors, including the affordability and ease of access for abortion and sex determination services, as well as Canada’s deep-rooted respect for diversity, have enabled sex-selective abortion to ‘take on a life of its own and persist’ in spite of public condemnation.”[19]

Canada has the most liberal abortion laws of any Western nation; more specifically, Canada has no laws restricting abortion. What this means is that, by law, you can have an abortion at any stage of a pregnancy, all the way until the moment of complete birth. You can also have an abortion for any reason or no reasons at all, meaning that having an abortion because of sexist beliefs and historical male preferences is permitted. While there was a legislative effort to have Canada officially decry the practice of sex-selective abortion, this was viewed as being a “pro-life” or “anti-choice” effort and was shut down (despite the fact that 92% of Canadians do not agree with the practice of sex-selective abortion.)

Now, Canada is one of only three nations that do not have laws on the issue, the other two being China and North Korea (although, technically, China does have restrictions on sex-selective abortion; they are just not effectively enforced).

So what this means is that, while Canada is in theory trying to foster support for reproductive rights and support a women’s right to choose, as it is often called, what is really happening is that Canada’s lack of laws regulating abortion are creating a perfect storm for the introduction, adoption, and perpetuation of the misogynistic practice of sex-selective abortion. As one researcher wryly pointed out, while Canada has made it “illegal for prospective parents to select embryos for in vitro fertilization based on gender […] it is perfectly legal for parents to choose to destroy a 19-week-old fetus [..] for precisely the same reason.”[20]

And so, ladies and gentlemen, I work closely with pro-life activists on a regular basis to ensure that this type of blatant misogyny does not continue being perpetrated through the sexist practice of sex-selection abortion.

 

#9: Because I oppose ableism.

In the summer and fall of 2017, it was announced by news outlets around the world that Iceland had “cured” Down Syndrome.[21] Perhaps under different circumstances, this would be considered joyous news. However, when we consider the precise way in which Iceland “cured” Down Syndrome, it becomes apparent that this was not some sort of medical breakthrough, but rather a nation-wide manifestation and implementation of eugenics.

This is how Iceland “cured” Down Syndrome. In the early 2000s, they introduced a prenatal genetic test that screens for chromosomal abnormalities, the most common of which is Down Syndrome. The test, which is extremely accurate, is optional, but medical professionals are required to provide information about the importance and availability of this test to every pregnant woman in Iceland. The vast majority of women choose to take the test, and, when test results come back positive for Down Syndrome, 100% of women opt to have an abortion. In fact, doctors in Iceland report that only 1-2 children with Down Syndrome are born every year or two.[22] And even these children are only born because of the imperfect accuracy of the test. In a country were 100% of children diagnosed with Down Syndrome are aborted, it is terrifying to imagine what the fate of these children would have been had the medical technology been slightly more accurate.

To be clear, Iceland is not the only country that demonstrates this type of blatant discrimination against individuals with Down Syndrome. “According to the most recent data available, the United States has an estimated termination rate for Down Syndrome of 67 percent (1995-2011); in France it’s 77 percent (2015); and [in] Denmark, 98 percent (2015).[23] Some estimates, however, have stated that the termination rate in North America is significantly higher, close to 92 percent.

Now, perhaps your first instinct was to say, “Ah, but these women are making this choice to have an abortion. They are not being coerced. So, if this is the decision they want to make, so be it.

But we must remember, dear readers, that choices do not take place within a vacuum. If 100% of women in Iceland are choosing to abort unborn children diagnosed with Down Syndrome, the next question must be: Why?

Consider this: Our world has historically demonstrated consistent disregard, discrimination, and hatred against disabled individuals. Whether through the circus freak shows of the past, where “normal” people like us would pay money to gawk at and mock differently-abled individuals, or through the widespread institutionalization of disabled individuals, we see that our society has continuously oppressed and persecuted disabled individuals, labeling them as the “other”, deeming them “abnormal”, and ostracizing them as a result.

So forgive my skepticism, but when I hear that 100% of women are choosing to have abortions when they discover that their children will likely have Down Syndrome, it is within this historical context that I consider this information. I am not suggesting that women are the unique perpetrators of violence towards disabled people. Rather, I am saying that, in a society that has consistently discriminated against disabled individuals, it is unsurprising to see members of society—from the researchers who created this prenatal genetic test, to the healthcare professionals who share the results, to the parents who choose to have an abortion—continue to perpetuate these problematic narratives that ultimately convey the message that it is better to be dead than to be disabled.

Disability rights activists and experts have noted this. Consider this quote from disability rights scholar Chris Kaposy:

Some of the common motivations for selective termination reflect inaccurate assumptions about living with Down syndrome or parenting a child with Down syndrome. In the empirical study I have been discussing, 83& of respondents who had terminated were motivated by a belief that Down syndrome would be excessively burdensome for the prospective child. In contrast, a study that asked people living with Down syndrome about their lives revealed that 99% are happy with their lives. Among prospective parents who had terminated, 73% believed that the burden of having a child with Down syndrome would be too great for their other children. Again, in contrast, research involving parents of children with Down syndrome shows that 95% of parents with other children say that their children with Down syndrome have good relationships with their siblings. Over 90% of the children themselves say they have feelings of affection and pride for their siblings with Down syndrome […] These divergences suggest that perceptions about parenting a child with Down syndrome are distorted by stereotyped ways of thinking.[24]

We must also consider what message this is sending to disabled individuals. Consider the words of disability rights activist Thomas Shakespeare:

As a result of the popularity of genetics, disabled people risk once more being defined as medical abnormalities and invalids, rather than as citizens, or victims of injustice. They see measures being implemented to prevent the birth of others with their conditions. They might think of whether their own parents would have taken advantage of such technologies. They might consider differential treatment of fetuses with and without disability to be discriminatory: in UK, termination is illegal after the 24th week of pregnancy, except in case of severe abnormality. No matter if these late terminations are very rare: the message has been sent that it is better to be dead than disabled.[25]

Now, I want to be clear: I have nothing against medical technological advancements, and I have nothing against seeking to improve the health, wellbeing, and quality of life of any and every member of society. However, I reject the notion that the sudden proliferation of prenatal genetic testing and the subsequent widespread termination of individuals with chromosomal abnormalities is a phenomenon that was born out of a genuine desire to improve the lives of disabled people. Research states that “the majority of disability arises not from genetic causes but from lifestyle, disease and other environmental factors.”[26] Research also reveals that “[e]ighty-five percent of adult disability is caused after the age of 13, and more than ninety percent of infant disability is because of social and not genetic causes.”[27]

Let us not deceive ourselves. It is not good will or philanthropic intent that fuels this sudden desire to “cure” disability. It is simply a new manifestation of old-fashioned hatred, discrimination, and ablesim. As one writer put it, if the word “cure”, which “for centuries meant ‘the care of souls’ has now come to mean ‘making sure that people with Down Syndrome are never born’”[28], then we are indeed a pitiful society.

So no, Iceland has not “cured” Down Syndrome. It, like the many other Western, developed nations, has simply created a systemic, state-run machinery that has been given the power, by medical, political, and social forces, to determine who is valued and who is not, who gets to live and who does not.

And I, for one, want to be on the right side of history: condemning ableism, combatting sexism, and promoting a pro-life ethos that treats all human beings—male and female, disabled or able-bodied, born or unborn—with equal value.

 

#10: Because I oppose eugenics.

As I have written about previously, eugenics has played a disturbing role in the rise and proliferation of both birth control and abortion. This was largely due to the influence of Margaret Sanger, who was the founder of Planned Parenthood, which today is the largest abortion provider in North America and a prominent advocate and provider of abortions in developing nations in the Global South. It was Margaret Sanger who really ushered in eugenics and married it with the movement from reproductive rights. It was Margaret Sanger who spoke about the need to export birth control to the “biologically less endowed stocks” of humans in India. It was also Margaret Sanger who made the following statement:

Every feeble-minded girl or woman of the hereditary type, especially of the moron class, should be segregated during the reproductive period. Otherwise, she is almost certain to bear imbecile children, who in turn are just as certain to breed other defectives. The male defectives are no less dangerous… Moreover, when we realize that each feeble-minded person is a potential source of an endless progeny of defect, we prefer the policy of immediate sterilization, of making sure that parenthood is absolutely prohibited to the feeble-minded.[29]

If that isn’t enough, Margaret Sanger made this statement as well:

Every single case of inherited defect, every malformed child, every congenitally tainted human being brought into this world is of infinite importance to that poor individual; but it is of scarcely less importance to the rest of us and to all of our children who must pay in one way or another for these biological and racial mistakes.[30]

These are the words of Margaret Sanger, who is considered the founding mother of birth control, Planned Parenthood, and, by extent, abortion.

So this, ladies and gentlemen, is the eugenics mentality. It is a mentality that believes only certain individuals with certain characteristics and body types belong in our society. It is also a mentality of entitlement, a mentality that believes that, somehow, we as individuals, as parents, as “normal” members of society, have the right to decide which lives are valued and which lives are not, who gets the ability to live and who does not. If this eugenics mentality sounds familiar, that’s because our society has faced this enemy before. Historically, we have seen it manifested as the colonization of Indigenous peoples lands, the violence and racism directed at racial minorities, and the systemic extermination of Jewish, disabled, and homosexual individuals in Nazi Germany. Sex-selective abortions—and other discriminatory forms of “pregnancy termination”—are simply the latest manifestation of this ancient eugenics mentality.

This is a mentality that pervades, infects, and taints the pro-abortion/pro-choice movement. And it is one that I will not support, condone, or participate in. As I said above: I, for one, want to be on the right side of history.

 

BONUS: #11: Because Justin Bieber is pro-life.

Yes, this is true. And yes, this definitely used to be one of the tactics I used to use to get young people in schools to be pro-life. Whether it was effective or not is completely irrelevant. It’s hilarious and 100%. I’ve never been a fan of Justin Bieber’s music (just a personal preference kind of thing), but I’ve always been a fan of his pro-life stance (because he knows that abortion isn’t a “personal preference kind of thing”).

Also: If you made it all the way to the end of Part 2 of this article, I thought you deserved a good chuckle (especially since I probably would’ve skimmed the article myself)! So if you read all the way through both Part 1 and Part 2, well done! You are a champion!

 

So there you have it. 10 hours of reading later, you now know my top 10 reasons for still being pro-life. I would love to hear what your reasons are!

Cheers, everyone. Stay logical, stay consistent, and stay pro-life!

 

[1] Junhong, C. (2001). Prenatal Sex Determination and Sex-Selective Abortion in Rural Central China. Population & Development Review Population and Development Review, 27(2), 259-281. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1728-4457.2001.00259.x/epdf

[2] Canadian Medical Association Journal (2011). The impact of sex selection and abortion in China, Indian and South Korea. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110314132244.htm

[3] Ibid.

[4] Sen, G., & Snow, R. (1994). Power and decision: The social control of reproduction. Boston, MA: Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies, Dept. of Population and International Health, Harvard School of Public Health.

[5] Vogel, Lauren. “Canadian Medical Association Journal.” Sex selection migrates to Canada. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 16 Jan. 2012. Web. 20 Oct. 2014. <http://www.cmaj.ca/content/184/3/E163.full?sid=7d6004f8-2ab2-43df-b481-4109358bd7bc>.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Dubuc, S, & Coleman, D (2007). An Increase in the Sex Ratio of Births to India-born Mothers in England and Wales: Evidence for Sex-Selective Abortion. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1728-4457.2007.00173.x

[8] Lamichhane et al. (2011) Sex-Selective Abortion in Nepal: A Qualitative Study of Health Workers’ Perspectives. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1049386711000132

[9] Bairagi, R (2001), Effects of Sex Preference on Contraceptive use, Abortion and Fertility in Matlab, Gandladesh. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2673835?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

[10] Abeykoon, A.T. (1995) Sex preference in South Asia: Sri Lanka an outlier. https://www.popline.org/node/294235

[11] Lin, M., Liu, J., & Qian, N. (2014) More Missing Women, Fewer Dying Girls: The Impact of Sex-Selective Abortion on Sex at Brith and Relative Female Mortality in Taiwan. https://academic.oup.com/jeea/article-abstract/12/4/899/2318674

[12] Rohlfs et al. (2010) Causal effects of sex preference on sex-blind and sex-selective child avoidance and substitution across birth years: Evidence from the Japanese year of the fire horse. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304387808001284

[13] Bélanger, D. et al. (2003) Are Sex Ratios at Birth Increasing in Vietnam? https://www.cairn-int.info/resume.php?ID_ARTICLE=E_POPU_302_0255

[14] Michael, M. et al. (2013) The Mystery of Missing Female Children in the Caucasus: An Analysis of Sex Ratios by Birth Order. https://www.cairn-int.info/resume.php?ID_ARTICLE=E_POPU_302_0255

[15] Hohmann, S., Lefèvre, C., & Garenne, M. (2014) A framework for analyzing sex-selective abortion: the example of changing sex ratios in Southern Caucasus. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4208631/

[16] Guilmoto, C. Z. & Duthé, G. (2013) Masculinization of births in Eastern Europe. http://www.demographie.net/guilmoto/pdf/Pop%20Soc%202013%20English.pdf

[17] Dias Prto Chiavegatto Filho, A. & Kawachi, I. (2013) Are sex-selective abortions a characteristic of every poor region? Evidence from Brazil. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00038-012-0421-6

[18] Almond, D. & Edlund, L. (2008) Son-biased sex ratios in the 2000 United States Census. http://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/105/15/5681.full.pdf?inf_contact_key=1d19450156b07754154e59989576eebbd91b1411acd41c37e01fd3f6d879323c

[19] Supra, note 5.

[20] Soupcoff, M. (2012, April 18). A 10-cell organism is “protected” from sex selection. A fetus isn’t. Retrieved from http://news.nationalpost.com/news/marni-soupcoff-a-10-cell-organism-growing-in-a-petri-dish-is-protected-from-sex-selection-a-9-ounce-fetus-growing-in-a-womb-isnt

[21] Quinons, J., & Lajka, A. (2017). “What kind of society do you want to live in?”: Inside the country where Down syndrome is disappearing. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/down-syndrome-iceland/

[22] Ibid.

[23] Ibid.

[24] Kaposy, Chris. “A Disability Critique of the New Prenatal Test for Down Syndrome.” Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 23.4 (2013): 299-324. Project Muse. Dec. 2013. Web. P. 306-307.

[25] Shakespeare, Thomas William. “Choices, Reasons and Feelings: Prenatal Diagnosis as Disability Dilemma.” ALTER – European Journal of Disability Research / Revue Européenne De Recherche Sur Le Handicap 5.1 (2011): 37-43. Science Direct. Web. P. 39.

[26] Ibid.

[27] Peters, Yvonne, and Karen L. Lawson. Ethical and Human Rights Implications of Prenatal Technologies: The Need for Federal Leadership and Regulation. Winnipeg: Prairie Women’s Health Centre of Excellence, 2002. University of Ottawa. Web. P. 7.

[28] Camarata, S. (2018). Iceland “Cures” Down Syndrome: Should America Do the Same? https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-intuitive-parent/201801/iceland-cures-down-syndrome-should-america-do-the-same

[29] Sanger, M. (1922). The Pivot of Civilization. Brentano’s: USA. P. 101-102

[30] Ibid at p. 273-274.

Ten Years Later: A Reflection (Part 1)

by 1 Comment

It has been exactly 10 years and 10 days since I first posted my pro-life grade school speech on YouTube. Which means that it has been almost exactly 10 years since my family and I first realized just how viral the video was becoming, as tens of thousands of people watched the video each day, sometimes each hour. Looking back, I am amazed at how much time has passed so quickly. I am shocked at how many incredible opportunities and experiences I have had the pleasure and privilege of partaking in, all because of that one video. And, if I am perfectly honest, I am somewhat nostalgic as I meditate upon the memories of cheeky, opinionated 12-year-old Lia Mills, who believed—and still believes—that she will see abortion end in her lifetime. I was young, naïve, and ready to take on the world. Now, I am just ready to take on the world.

It is fascinating to have that video still floating around, still reminding me of what I was like at 12 years of age. It functions, in many ways, as a blunt reminder of just how much I have changed over these past 10 years. I have grown wiser, more eloquent, and (dare I say!) more beautiful. But I have also grown harder, more strategic, and (I fear) exponentially more cynical.

However, there are some things that have not changed. I am still opinionated (some would say too opinionated for my own good). I am still cheeky (you should hear my response to the “Men-don’t-have-uteruses-and-therefore-can’t-talk-about-abortion” argument). And, above all, I am still passionately pro-life.

This last fact is of no surprise to me, although I suspect it is of immense surprise to the thousands upon thousands of pro-abortion radicals and third wave feminists who patronizingly reassured 12-year-old me that I would grow out of this “pro-life phase”. Well, here I am. I am 10 years older, I have a degree in Feminist & Gender Studies, and I am still 100% pro-life. No exceptions. No compromise.

(That paragraph probably warranted a trigger warning… I can practically hear all the pro-abortion feminists cringing, even as I write this.)

Now, I’m sure there are many a pro-abortion activist out there who feel defeated and heartbroken at the knowledge that I have not swung over to the dark side. (Somehow, their calls of “Come to the dark side! We have death and aborted fetal tissue!” were just not appealing…)

Why are you still pro-life/anti-abortion/anti-choice?, they wonder (writhing, I imagine, at the pain they experience when they think about a young woman making it through the feminist indoctrination program called university without losing her pro-life identity).

Well, I’m glad you asked! Because I’ve conveniently compiled a list of the top 10 reasons why I am still pro-life. Enjoy!

#1: Because Science

I have long believed that the ultimate question that needs to be answered in the abortion debate is the question: Are the unborn human? Why does this question matter? Because, if the unborn child is not human, then abortion would not “kill” anything, and I would have wasted the last 10 years of my life fighting against a procedure that is of little moral importance. But, if the unborn child is human, then no justification for abortion is adequate, because abortion would then end the life of a separate, living, unique, human entity that deserves the same rights, freedoms, and legal protections as the woman.

So we come to this question: Are the unborn human?

I will not go into the complexities of the evidence behind this, because otherwise you would be reading a book, not an article. For my simple explanation, you can watch my Rapid Response video addressing this very question. But don’t just take my word for it. Read what the American College of Pediatricians says on this question of when human life begins:

“The predominance of human biological research confirms that human life begins at conception—fertilization.  At fertilization, the human being emerges as a whole, genetically distinct, individuated zygotic living human organism, a member of the species Homo sapiens, needing only the proper environment in order to grow and develop. The difference between the individual in its adult stage and in its zygotic stage is one of form, not nature. This statement focuses on the scientific evidence of when an individual human life begins.”

The fact that we have this type of scientific information available to us, and yet countries like Canada still have laws that define human life as beginning at the moment of complete emergency from the birth canal (which, for the record, is a legal position that is justified by science that is now over 400 years old), is pitiful.

The unborn child is human. Abortion ends the life of that human child. Ending the life of an innocent human being is murder. Murder is immoral and should always be illegal. Therefore, abortion is immoral and should always be illegal. Enough said.

 

#2: Because women deserve better than abortion.

Again, I could write a book expanding upon this sentiment, and part of my book actually does go into this idea. For now, what is important to highlight is that abortion is physically, emotionally, psychologically, and spiritually harmful to a woman’s wellbeing. The physical effects alone are enough to warrant a deeply critical reconsideration of our society’s abortion-on-demand worldview.

For those who are unfamiliar with the physical and emotional side effects of abortion, I would strongly recommend that you watch a documentary called “Hush”. Hush is an incredibly well-researched, pro-information, and pro-science documentary that outlines in detail the health consequences of abortion on women, specifically the relationship between abortion and breast cancer, premature birth, and mental health issues. Pro-choice feminist filmmaker Punam Kumar Gill helps lead viewers through the scientific research, and she adopts an incredibly pro-woman, pro-information approach, despite her personal stance in support of abortion.

Watch the film. And then you will know what I mean when I say that women deserve better than abortion.

 

#3: Because human rights matter.

I reject the belief that human rights should only be given to pre-born human beings after they have exited the birth canal. If women’s rights are human rights, then children’s rights are also human rights. And human rights begin in the womb, when human life begins. It’s that simple.

 

#4: Because “my body, my choice” is really “our bodies, my choice”, and I believe in bodily autonomy, not coercive control.

As the brilliant, eloquent, give-this-woman-an-award-talented Laura Klassen outlines in her cheeky pro-life video, when a woman has an abortion, she doesn’t abort her own body. She aborts the body inside her body. So “my body, my choice” is wrong. Really, that slogan is saying “our bodies, my choice”. And this fundamentally violates my belief in personal liberty, bodily autonomy, and security of the person.

To believe that a woman and her doctor are entitled to use their bodies to coercively control—and end the life of—another human body is to welcome in the same arrogant, entitled, authoritarian mentality that permitted—and, through the horrific phenomenon of human trafficking, still permits—the enslavement of innocent human beings to dominant, privileged oppressors. Slave owners used the same tactics of dehumanization and degradation to justify using coercive control to enslave—and often murder—other human beings, particularly African American men, women, and children. If slave owners had created a pro-slavery movement, then “our bodies, my choice” undoubtedly would have been one of their favourite slogans.

So am I suggesting that, by exercising coercive control over the body of an innocent human child, a woman and her doctor are functioning as dominant, privileged oppressors? Yes. Yes I am. And any movement—whether you call it pro-abortion or pro-choice—that shields, justifies, and protects this type of oppressive behaviour is a movement that I will openly condemn.

 

#5: Because women deserve true choice.

“My body, my choice!” I’ve heard this mantra again and again and again. And yet, as I discuss in my “Pro-Woman, Pro-Choice, Pro-Life” spoken word video, most of my friends who are post-abortive have shared that their abortion decision was not the empowering experience that pro-choice activists make it out to be.

Many of my close friends were harassed, pressured, and coerced by their boyfriends, family members, friends, and medical professionals into “choosing” abortion. (You can watch this video, this video, and this video to hear their stories directly.)

So you can tell me all day about “a woman’s right to choose” and you can yell “my body, my choice” until you’re blue in the face. The voices of the women I have spoken to—women who were supposed to have been “empowered” by their abortion decision—make it crystal clear that, in the name of choice, women have lost true choice.

For this reason, I am still pro-life, and I will continue to oppose abortion. Because no woman should be coerced into having an abortion. And that is exactly what happens in countries like Canada, where our lack of laws and our hyper-polarization is allowing women to slip through the cracks and be forced to have abortions that they never wanted.

 

If you want to know the next 5 reasons why I am still pro-life, stay tuned for tomorrow, when I will be releasing Part 2 of this reflection! Until then, my dear readers!

Beware of the pro-choice echo chamber

by 3 Comments

Ten years. I have been doing pro-life activism for ten years. (I feel old just writing that…)

I have always been 100% pro-life, because I am convinced that is the only intellectually consistent position to hold. Unsurprisingly, when I first started my journey into the realm of pro-life activism, I had many pro-abortion advocates challenge my absolute pro-life stance. They presented complex arguments and asked difficult questions:

What if a woman is sexually assaulted? What if there is an ectopic pregnancy? What if a 10-year-old child becomes pregnant? Will you still condemn abortion in these situations?

Whether the pro-choicers asking these questions really wanted to hear my response or not, they were successful at drawing my attention to the complexity inherent within the abortion debate. Admittedly, at the young age of twelve, my burgeoning pro-life activist self had not yet considered these nuances. And so, spurred on by the desire to find answers to these ambiguities, I committed myself to research, intellectual curiosity, and the pursuit of understanding. Over time, I developed a well-informed, comprehensive, bulletproof pro-life message.

And then, after a few years of pro-life activism, I came to the fateful day when I realized that there were no new arguments or questions anymore. Each “new” question was simply a recycled, repackaged repetition of a question I had already answered. And no matter how hard I tried, I could not find a new challenge to end this perpetual cycle.

I was stuck in what I have come to call the “pro-choice echo chamber”.

The pro-choice echo chamber is a place where the same meaningless slogans and mindless mottos are repeated over and over again, where there is no growth, no development, no opportunity to improve, just the same empty words reverberating through hollow corridors, being used and reused and used again.

My body, my choice! Keep your rosaries off my ovaries! My body, my choice! You’re just pro-birth! My body, my choice! It’s just a clump of cells! My body, my choice! My body, my choice! My body, my choice! My body, my choice…!

And so the pro-choice echo chamber continues.

I have heard it all. Perhaps that sounds arrogant, but it is true. After ten years of listening to pro-choice rhetoric, I have come to conclude that there is nothing new under the sun.

But two weeks ago, something miraculous happened…

I was with a group of law students, and we had just come from a deeply fascinating presentation about statutory interpretation. (And yes, I am aware that only a law geek such as myself would find statutory interpretation “deeply fascinating”…)

Eventually, we came to the subject of abortion. After outing myself as being a pro-life absolutist, we began an hour-long conversation on abortion. The conversation was remarkably respectful, incredibly thought provoking, and refreshingly coherent. And then, for the first time in approximately seven years, I was asked a question that I could not answer.

Now, to be fair, I actually did have an answer. When I was asked the question, I offered my usual, polished, well-rehearsed response. But instead of my fellow pro-lifers nodding their heads and the opposing pro-choicers shaking their fists, the students around the table thoughtfully considered my words. And then, rather than devolving into emotionally-driven retorts, they pushed me further, challenging the premises of my reply, inquiring further about my line of reasoning, and pointing out inconsistencies between my default response and my absolute pro-life stance.

I was surprised. And impressed. And, believe it or not, incredibly thankful.

Because here’s the thing: I love being challenged. Nothing breeds growth, development, and strength like the persistent presence of civilized, coherent challenges.

It’s a universal truth: the existence of resistance creates the opportunity for improvement. This is true of physical strength and emotional fortitude, but it is also true of ideological advancement.

The unfortunate reality is that, despite the fact that I have purposely pursued pro-choice friendships—in part to avoid the dangers of the pro-life echo chamber—many pro-choice individuals have never welcomed ideological resistance, and so they have little to offer in that department.

To be clear, I have seen this in the pro-life movement as well, so I am not suggesting that this is a uniquely pro-choice phenomenon. However, because all mainstream spheres of our society—including education, academia, politics, media, business, entertainment, and law—buy into the pro-abortion ideology, the pro-choice echo chamber is validated, rather than shunned. It is embraced with open arms, welcomed without critique, and deified rather than destroyed. And for that reason, the pro-choice movement has become condemned to perpetually suffer from intellectual inconsistency and a lack of rhetorical creativity.

In short, the pro-choice movement is stagnant.

So beware, dear readers. Beware of the pro-choice echo chamber. (And, while you’re at it, beware of the pro-life echo chamber too.)

If you are pro-life, guard against these phenomena by surrounding yourself with intellectually curious pro-choice individuals who are willing to consistently and respectfully challenge your ideology.

If you are pro-choice, guard against the desire to repeat meaningless phrases or regurgitate mindless sayings by pursuing pro-life friends who promote constructive and civilized conversations.

I have adopted this approach in my activism, and I have never once regretted it. I am more consistent, intelligent, and coherent because of the pro-choice ideological challenges that I have faced and—thanks to some brilliant pro-choice friends—I now face again.

And now, if you’ll excuse me, I have a new challenge to consider. I will let you all know when I am ready to reveal my response.

Until then, stay intellectually curious and ideologically consistent.

Pro-life feminism vs. pro-abortion hypocrisy

by 4 Comments

Recently, as part of a personal feminist book-a-thon, I read F-Bomb: Dispatches from the War on Feminism by Lauren McKeon. I was particularly intrigued and interested in reading the book for two reasons. First, I know Lauren McKeon personally. She and I spent a fair amount of time together for an article that she wrote about me in Toronto Life Magazine. Second, I had been notified that her book talked about me and a number of my fellow pro-life activists. All that to say: I was curious to read what she had written and what her take was on my overtly pro-life feminist stance.

The book was engaging and well written, although I found myself slightly irritated for most of the book because there were no sources provided. (Call me a nerdy university student, but if you’re going to make grandiose claims and rather outlandish accusations, you’d better back them up with evidence.)

Then I came to Chapter 8, which is titled “Teen spirit: Clinic closures, access attacks, and the pro-woman rebranding of today’s anti-abortion activists.” And this is where things went downhill.

I had hoped that, unlike most pro-abortion feminists, McKeon would have taken time to truly get to know the pro-life feminist movement. She had been relatively fair for the duration of the book, having the decency to humanize her opponents prior to critiquing them (which is an approach that I found quite effective and engaging). Unfortunately, McKeon’s evaluation of pro-life feminists such as myself fell woefully short.

Things really fell apart for me when she made the following accusation:

“The linguistic pairing of anti-abortion and pro-women messaging is like a conversational escape hatch for those who don’t want to admit they’re limiting women’s rights, even though they are” (McKeon, 2017, p. 201).

*sigh*

In case you are wondering, this is one of the most overused “arguments” that pro-abortion advocates like to level at pro-life individuals.

Pro-tip for all of you pro-abortion individuals out there: This argument is really, really weak, so you might want to try mixing things up a bit.

There are two key claims that work together to create this rhetorical mess:

First, there is the accusation that, by opposing abortion, pro-life people are “limiting women’s rights”. If you believe that a woman has the right to exercise coercive control over the body of another human being, and if you believe that a woman has the right to ask a physician to end the life of this other human being, then sure—you got me! I’m limiting a woman’s rights! But in order to make that claim, you would need to show me where, in any legal or constitutional document, women are actually guaranteed these “rights”.

Spoiler alert: You won’t find any legal or constitutional document protecting these “rights” because these “rights” do not exist.

Second, there is the assertion that, by limiting women’s “rights”, pro-life people are doing something wrong. Now, in order to highlight how ludicrous this claim is, allow me to layout a hypothetical situation:

Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that I attack someone on the street. You call the police. The police arrest me. I accuse you and the police of limiting my rights. I am implying that you have done something wrong. Do I have a fair point?

Absolutely not.

While I may have the right to liberty, the Criminal Code provisions against battery and assault directly limit my right to liberty. In fact, these limitations are necessary in order to ensure that you and other citizens have your right to liberty. If these limitations were not in place, all manner of rights would be infringed upon. Therefore, in order to ensure social order, peace, and stability, limitations are placed on our rights on a regular basis. And it is undeniable that, while these limitations may restrict my personal right to liberty (which I interpret subjectively as bad), they create greater collective liberty in society (which we acknowledge objectively is good).

So just because pro-life people want to limit women’s “right” to forcibly control the body of another human being (which we have already established is not actually a right in the first place), does not automatically follow that pro-life people are doing something bad—or that we are creating “a way for society to control women”, as McKeon later asserts (McKeon, 2017, p. 201).

But this wasn’t the only stale, pro-abortion, isolationist tactic that McKeon relied upon. She also played the age-old you-can’t-call-yourself-a-feminist-if-you’re-anti-choice card, stating that the “anti-abortion movement’s women’s rights makeover” is “at odds” with the “wider feminist movement” because “[f]eminism, after all, generally works to broaden what we can do and achieve, not restrict it” (McKeon, 2017, p. 218).

As overused and unimaginative as this accusation may be, I think it is one of my favourite, primarily because it beautifully highlights the absurd degree of hypocrisy—and the painful lack of logic—within the “pro-choice” movement. Here is what that argument is really saying:

“You can’t choose to be a feminist. Real feminists support choice! And you, obviously, don’t support choice. And since I am a real feminist who supports all women’s choices, I’m not going to allow you to choose to identify as a feminist. I don’t support that choice because I am a real feminist who actually supports women’s choices….” (and so the idiocy continues).

My hope is that, as you read and re-read those lines, you will see the glaringly obvious double standard that “pro-choice” feminists have created, with the express purpose of excluding, ostracizing, and demonizing pro-life feminists. If you don’t see the hypocrisy in that line of “reasoning” (if you can call it that), then you will have successfully rendered me speechless (for all the wrong reasons).

Before I close, there is one last statement I’d like to highlight from the epilogue of McKeon’s book. McKeon is in the midst of appealing to her (she presumes) sympathetic readers and reminding them of how she hopes “we can learn to listen more to the other side” (McKeon, 2017, p. 269). And then she says this:

“But I do believe we have to let go of our liberal superiority, the belief that clearly reprehensible views aren’t powerful enough to gain mass traction” (McKeon, 2017, p. 269).

Now, to be fair, McKeon has discussed many views throughout her book, so she is not leveling this statement exclusively at pro-lifers. But there is something so beautifully ironic about McKeon counseling her readers to “let go of [their] liberal superiority”, while she simultaneously puts on a brilliant display of her own sense of liberal superiority by blanket-labeling entire segments of the population—including all pro-lifers—as holding “clearly reprehensible views”.

My pro-life feminism may be a reprehensible view to her, but it is a justifiable and logically consistent view to me. And the fact that she and other radical pro-abortion feminists like her feel entitled to exclude me and my fellow pro-life feminists from their supposedly inclusive, tolerant spaces tells me that their version of feminism is undeniably deceptive, elitist, and hypocritical. And that seems “clearly reprehensible” to me.

Meta