ProWomanProLife

You are here: Home / Archives for All Posts

A callous sort of Canada

by Leave a Comment

Amidst all the talk of a victory for women’s rights, some writers get it right:

I get the feeling Dr. Morgentaler has a selective respect for the rights of others. The rights of women who agree with his views are paramount. The rights of unborn children are non-existent. The beliefs of women who disagree with him are to be dismissed; any religion which advocates against his views is to be disregarded; the qualms of those Canadians appalled at the carnage that has flowed from his work are to be ignored. I suspect -— and I’m just guessing -— that what’s important to Dr. Morgentaler is his beliefs alone. Others’ beliefs are inconsequential. Maybe this callousness is what lets him so easily take life away from so many.

This is my point: It is a callous sort of Canada that offers abortion first. It is callous to make that choice easy. It de facto denies the rest of us the ability to help. It is unfair to tell a woman in her early twenties (stats tell us this is when most of these abortions occur) that she’ll be a better mom later on “when she’s ready” only to find there is no later on. Women’s rights do not involve the forfeiture of that which makes us women.

Show me an abortionist and I’ll show you a misogynist.

Apes to gain human rights

by Leave a Comment

Here in Canada, the elitist opinion is loud and clear. Fetuses are nowhere close to being human.

Meanwhile, in Spain, apes are being ascribed “some statutory rights currently applicable only to humans.”

The resolutions, which passed with cross-party support and are expected to be approved as laws by the full parliament within a year, are based on the Great Ape Project, a framework designed by scientists and philosophers who believe that humans’ closest biological relatives deserve the right to life, liberty and protection from torture.

What a world… what a world.

Almost back to normal

by Leave a Comment

Yesterday I did four media interviews. From my perspective, two were good, one neutral, one terrible. The terrible one I have yet to see (CTV Newsnet)–I can’t find it, plus there’s the fact that I don’t want to. I was too easily annoyed (on air with an abortionist’s wife). I spoke over her. I don’t think (can’t recall) I made any meaningful points. And the moderator was happy to let my opponent blab on, euphemism after euphemism rolling off her tongue. I tried to make myself feel better last night by buying food I like for dinner: sushi and Fudgesicles. But then you try sleeping on a stomach of sushi and Fudgesicles. Not good.

I failed to realize in that discussion that six minutes shared on air with a woman who works in an abortion clinic cannot change world views. She said that women cannot always control their reproductive systems (true enough) so they will always need abortions, or something to that effect. This in essence is “abortion as birth control”–not an argument even pro-choicers tend to support, preferring instead the “safe, legal and rare” thing. Instead of pointing that out–I spoke of personal experience. Again, not good.

Then again, so did she. She told everyone she is an immigrant to this country as if that were a meaningful point. (It’s not, and I’m allowed to say that, given my own family’s immigrant status.)  

Anyway, I’m told “anything worth doing is worth doing badly.” It is worth it to stand up and say life is not disposable. I am still sorry that I did it badly.

This article, incidentally, made me feel better, especially this part:

Future generations may well condemn our society’s countenance of abortion in the same way we look back in wonder and revulsion at those who defended slavery. Men such as William Wilberforce and Abraham Lincoln are rightly revered today for their opposition to that peculiar institution — but we must recall that they were outnumbered and reviled in their time. Indeed, both men were stretched to the limit of their political skills, and their lives, to obtain justice. The nobility of their cause, though clear to us, was nowhere near apparent to their contemporaries. Then, as now, the most dreadful things can become convention if enough folks go along.

Many men and women go to their graves outnumbered and reviled by their contemporaries for any number of causes. I’m just going to have to learn to enjoy revulsion a little bit more. (Hey–maybe that involves more sushi and Fudgesicles. See how I’ve brought this meandering post full circle now.)

__________________________

Brigitte really doesn’t get sushi and Fudgesicles (who needs fish when you’ve got chocolate?), and also why Andrea feels so bad about the interview. Remember, Andrea: There are no ways to make abortion sound like a good idea so you’re already way ahead even before you open your mouth.

____________________________

Andrea adds: A friendly reader found the link for me. And for those concerned about my dietary choices, it was vegetarian sushi. Just thought I’d add that. 

____________________________

Tanya’s analysis: I’m from Quebec, so my definition of speaking over someone is completely different. The demure interruptions you were offering one another were not an issue in my eyes.

 

This is what I did notice. Ms. Corsillo was speaking in pro-choice catch phrases of old, and they rambled out of her uncontrollably. You, Andrea, spoke in the now. 

 

But that was the underlying tone of the interview, wasn’t it? Did you notice her scoff when you said, “I remember when I was a young person.” (Check it out, 5:10 into the interview.) Her tone was generally condescending. To her, you still are a young person whose belly button hasn’t quite dried up yet.

 

Is this how Ms. Corsillo views any woman in her 20’s or 30’s? What does that say about the tone and tactic she likely employs when counseling individual women about abortion? “You poor thing, you have your whole life ahead of you, and you have no idea what a responsibility this is. It would be a shame for you to become a mother now. When you’re older, and you’re ready, that’s when you should have a child.” That’s gentle manipulation, is what that is.

 

______________________________

Véronique wonders what the point of vegetarian sushi is? Andrea, you might not have reached your high standards but you did very well. Keep up the good work: one in four is not bad at all, especially on such a busy day.

______________________________

Andrea again: Folks, there’s been a most egregious error in this exchange. “Fudgsicle” is the proper spelling. Not “Fudgesicle.” I say this as a woman who is truly “in the know” and the “now” as it were. (I’m, er, looking at the box as I type this.)

 
 
 

 

When truth bites the dust, nobody wins

by Leave a Comment

Writing something brilliant about Morgentaler’s nomination to the Order of Canada is difficult at this point, not only because the deed is done and trying to talk anybody out of it is futile, but also because the urge to scream injustice at the top of my lungs while setting my hair on fire hasn’t quite subsided. But my posting record has been rather lackluster since the end of the school year and if anything is worth dealing with the consequences of having five unattended children roaming about the house while I write, this must be it.

What I find so unjust about Morgentaler’s nomination is, once again, the absence of intelligent debate — as opposed to rhetoric, slogans and name-calling — surrounding matters of abortion. While pro-life advocates are not blameless in that matter, I believe that the failure to engage in intelligent debate rests more heavily on the shoulders of pro-abortion advocates, as the underhanded manner in which the Morgentaler nomination was managed shows. I am offended by the nomination, but I am more deeply offended that the process was planned to avoid any meaningful contribution from pro-life advocates. “We know what they think, we’ve made our decision, what’s the point in involving them?” Abortion is controversial but what is truly divisive is the lumping of all opposing opinions as “those we don’t want to hear.” Still, it takes two to be divided and I can’t say with certitude that, had the cultural momentum been in our favour, we wouldn’t have been guilty of the same offense. Now, here’s some food for thought.

Nowhere has the failure to engage in meaningful debate been more aptly illustrated than by Morgentaler himself in the wake of his nomination. This article reads like an assignment in “spot the falsehoods, rhetoric and name-calling.” Come on! Calling people anti-choice or anti-life doesn’t help anything. We are no more anti-choice than pro-choice are anti-life. We just believe that the choice to end a pregnancy is not a legitimate one, just like the choice to kill someone in revenge or the choice to kidnap a child or the choice to use another person for sexual gratification. Similarly, all pro-choice advocates have not had an abortion nor do they think that everybody should have one (unless they are population control zealots but that’s another story). The Catholic Church is not opposed to women’s rights. It just happens to think that women’s rights are not advanced by abortion because abortion fundamentally undermines women’s dignity. You might disagree but at least admit that there is something to talk about here. In the same vein, all pro-lifers are not Catholics nor will changing the Pope end opposition to abortion. I think that what disappointed me (almost) as much as seeing Morgentaler nominated was the pettiness and small-mindedness of the man himself. I can’t even look up to him as an intelligent contributor to the debate. He really debases the institution of the Order of Canada, not so much because of his expected position on abortion but because of his unwillingness (or inability) to engage meaningfully in a debate about what matters so much to him.

Good question

by Leave a Comment

Do we have the right to do what is wrong?

The real problem is ripping their bodies apart in what should be a safe place — their mothers’ wombs. Morgentaler’s award is simply a symptom of a more deeply rooted crisis. …

Across a period of four decades, more than 2.8 million human beings have been killed because of an assumption — that they were not human.

Case in point: Morgentaler claims abortion is safer, but to be accurate he must assume that the unborn aren’t human (because killing them certainly isn’t safe for them!). Morgentaler also claims abortion has decreased the crime rate — which may carry some weight if one doesn’t consider killing defenceless human beings a crime.

And so, because of one major assumption, abortion becomes legal and an abortionist gets an award. And as it turns out, the assumption is wrong.

Hey, I thought ‘controversial’ wasn’t an obstacle…

by Leave a Comment

From today’s Ottawa Citizen:

[Margaret] Somerville is not a member of the Order of Canada. A nomination submitted a few years ago by Anglican minister and preaching professor Carol Finlay was unsuccessful. Ms. Finlay was told it was because Ms. Somerville was too controversial.

Or, as Andrew Coyne pointed out a few days ago about the idea that controversial or divisive figures should not necessarily be banned from receiving civilian honours:

I would have more sympathy with the argument if it ever applied in the opposite direction. But it never – ever – does. A figure as controversial as Morgentaler, but of the opposite convictions would, if he were not behind bars, be shunned by all of the organs of polite society.
This is not confined only to the abortion issue. It applies across the board. The arbiters of orthodoxy are not content with perpetually skewing every debate to one side. It is necessary also to pretend, wherever possible, that only one side exists.
Thus, for example, a Rosalie Abella of the right, should one exist, would have no hope of ever being appointed to the Supreme Court. The chorus that would rise up against such a “divisive” debate would be made up of exactly the same people who burbled contentedly at her appointment, and quite unaware of the irony.
I say this as someone who subscribes to many parts of the orthodoxy. But the smugness of it, the heedless insensitivity to other points of view, can be a little hard to take.

A fence-sitter writes…

by Leave a Comment

Gazette columnist Henry Aubin should not be counted among the tiny minority of Canadians who want to make all abortions illegal. Yet he is offended by the Morgentaler award.

Columnists are supposed to have strong opinions, but on the abortion issue I’ve been on the fence. The arguments on both sides of the question have left me torn.

As I see it, it’s impossible not to feel sympathy for women, many of them in trying personal situations, who seek abortions. As well, it’s impossible to wish to outlaw abortions when that would mean returning to their back-alley substitute, with all its inherent health risks.

Still, it’s impossible to ignore that the fetus is an incipient human being. And it’s impossible to shrug off the time-honoured view that human life is sacred.

So call me confused.

On the Morgentaler’s membership in the Order of Canada. however, I feel no ambivalence whatever.

The membership of the abortion-rights crusader, announced Tuesday, is not only an affront to his pro-life adversaries, it’s also offensive to a middle-ground type like myself.

How many more like him, I wonder?

For the record…

by Leave a Comment

Listening to CFRA, where Andrea is about to be interviewed again (that’s twice this morning), and Judy Rebick is on saying that the people speaking out against the appointment of Dr. Morgentaler to the Order of Canada are the small minority who want abortion illegal in all cases. Well, just so we all know, there are some people who do NOT wish to make abortion illegal in all cases who STILL object to honouring Dr. Morgentaler. I am one of them, and so is Andrea. Anybody else?

__________________________

Tanya adds: Brigitte, I’d have to answer that 70 to 80 per cent of Canadians may feel that way, too.

If Morgentaler cared so deeply about the legality of abortion, should he not have stuck around long enough to see an actual law be enacted in our country? Here we are, the only civilized country in the world to have no law regulation abortion, and he’s being honoured for it. For Pete’s sake, a woman may legally get an abortion later on in pregnancy than he is morally willing to perform one.

70 to 80 per cent of Canadians feel we need some sort of law (in the very least, to prevent very late term abortions). I’ve never seen him lobby for a law…and he’s had 20 years to do it. Unless Canada likes to honour people who do things halfway…

_________________________

Patricia adds: I’m trying hard to fight off complete despair for my country as a result of yesterday’s news. But it’s hard work.

The best spin I can put on it is as follows: why the push to honour this man now and why bestow the “honour” in such an underhanded manner?

Now, it may be that our elites are so used to dealing with a complacent and supine population that they figure they can do pretty much anything they want, particularly on a long weekend in July. From human rights tribunals to the Advisory Board of the Order of Canada, Canada’s elites are still counting on the fact that they can tell Canadians what to think and what to say; the fact that 300,000 people voted against conferring such an “honour” on Morgentaler as recently as February, with a laughable 26,000 in favour, matters not a whit to their view. Thanks for your input, Canada, but we’ll decide who was on the side of the angels on this issue and who isn’t, who is a hero and who isn’t.

Think about that: 300,000 people participating in an online poll. I wonder what other online poll on this country has attracted such numbers and such a disproportionate response.

I’m sure that some of the cloak and dagger theatrics of this weekend will be attributed to the security issues posed by all those “radical pro-life terrorist assassins” out there.

But (and here is the meagre shred of hope that I mentioned above), I don’t really think that anyone will buys that ruse. So the questions remain: why now, why the deviation from the usual process and why the secrecy. Did they realize that this was the only way they could pull it off, even in complacent old Canada? Is it just possible that they’re feeling that their moment is over; their movement is as old as “Dr” Morgentaler himself.

And for the record, I am against abortion in all circumstances. The usual “humane” exceptions don’t make sense to me. Abortions for reasons of “serious genetic conditions” (i.e., of the disabled because they’re disabled) horrify me. And if we argue that abortion is an assault on women as well as the unborn, then how do we justify offering it to the victim of rape and incest? Is it supposed to be part of their “recovery”?

Meta