January 27, 2008
Corey, on Yes!! Thank you!:
I feel I should comment here because it is often said that the debate itself is being stifled on university campuses and I am not convinced that this is the case. My university (Carleton) is often criticized because our student union passed a motion making us officially pro-choice and would deny funding to any “anti-choice” groups. Now before the motion passed one pro-life group on campus went around telling every religious and other pro-life group that they would loose their funding if the motion passed and since the motion passed they have been whining to everyone with a by-line that they and all the religious groups are being persecuted and the debate is being silenced. However, the term “anti-choice” was used for a reason, and that was to distinguish between groups that tried to engage in constructive debate (pro-life) and groups that used graphic photos instead of debate, tried to shame women by calling them “murderers” instead of thoughtfully and respectfully looking at the moral implication of their (often excruciatingly difficult) choice, argued that woman’s purpose is to have babies and so on. In short, we banned tactics, not ideas and from what I am seeing of the other universities, they are doing the same. We still have pro-life groups on campus, in fact none have failed to receive funding and none were ever in danger of loosing funding. They still hold debates. They still have activities using money from the student unions. The debate still rages on as it always has, it is just that now it must be in a respectful manner worthy of student funds and befitting a university. That our student union is often accused of shutting down debate by the same folks who spend their days handing out leaflets that were paid for with money given to them by the student union, is something I find annoying to say the least.
________________________________
Anon, on Yes!! Thank you!:
I must humbly disagree with you:One of the most effective efforts we ever undertook on campus (University of Toronto) was the Genocide Awareness Project - the use of large graphic pictures of abortion victims. These pictures cut through the rhetoric and set an accurate grounding for the discussion. I only wish I had these visuals in my undergrad ethics classes - maybe then the class could have been moved beyond the “choice” slogans.Nothing else we did (and we’ve done everything) was nearly as effective at generating debate and stirring people’s consciences. More effective than traditional debates, pro-woman poster campaigns, speakers, pamphlet and literature distribution. Hence why the National Campus Life Network supports the GAP strategy.I’ll listen to Lorne’s opinion after he’s spent 7 years in pro-life work on a university campus (undergrad and graduate).
________________________________
Corey, on When is Hollywood pro-life:
Yeah…this topic is a tangled web of chaos and confusion within the pro-choice debate, but I think it can ultimately be sorted out.
The pro-choice person will always say that women should legally be able to abort for any reason. However, even pro-choice folks think that some reasons are bad reasons. For me, it is not the abortion itself that can be wrong, but the reasoning and mentality that is sometimes behind it. In the case of the ‘Gay gene’, it is not the abortion that is wrong, it is the thinking that homosexuals are somehow defective and not worth raising that is wrong. So, it is not the action, but the reason for the action that is so awful for the pro-choicer in such scenarios.
The point can be further explored with the case where the child would have had Down’s. It is generally accepted that this is an ok reason to abort because it may have to do with the parent’s ability to raise a special needs child, and not with any harsh feelings they may have towards people with Downs. I think that such reasons are legitimate (though other pro-choice folks may not agree) since children with special needs will require more care for a longer period of time and some parents are just are not up for it. However, some people think that a child with Down’s won’t have a life worth living and that is why they abort. I think this is a bad reason for aborting since it is clear to anyone who has had the opportunity to work with kids with Down’s, that these folks lead happy, wonderful lives so long as there are people around who love them, just like any other kids.
So there is my opinion at least. There are good reasons for aborting and bad reasons. Some reasons are so morally reprehensible you want to kick the people involved. However, if one believes that the ACT of abortion is morally neutral (as most pro-choicers do) than it does not make sense to pass laws against it based on the REASONS for having it. Doing so would be like passing laws against buying SUVs if your reason for doing so was to help speed up global warming. Of course I realize that if you do not feel that abortion is morally neutral, then reasons start to matter (it would then become less like the SUV scenario and more like trying to determine if a killing was self-defense or murder). However, for the pro-choice person abortion is morally neutral and thus a woman should not require ANY reason to have an abortion. Therefore, even if the reasons she does have are bad, we ought not to legislate against them.
________________________________
Tanya Zaleski, on When is Hollywood pro-life:
The thing is, the availability and social-correctness of abortion is a platform for people to say what they are really thinking.People are really thinking a child with Down Syndrome is a drain on society…without having to come out and say that. If they did, OH! The chastening! …“Gay holocaust?” (Egad!) And yet they fail to mention “Down Syndrome holocaust” or the “spina bifida holocaust” (we could go on) … because that is the reality we are facing in the here and the now.
________________________________
Tanya Zaleski, on 20 years of silence:It’s perpetually nonsensical to me that we, who fund healthcare through taxes — all of us who pay even a cent — have not insisted on at least some sort of limitations on abortion. I sit here in awe of myself and my own complacency, even though I usually consider myself actively pro-life.As a Quebecer, I fund more abortions than any citizen living in any other province. I, due to my silence (or at least lack of “loudness”), fund what i hate.
________________________________
Suzanne, on The abortion coverage continues:
The problem with embryo adoption is that it wouldn’t diminish the desire for abortion.
Abortion is ultimately the right to kill the fetus in order to escape parental responsibility. When you transpose an embryo, you’re still the biological mother. Women can choose to deliver and place babies for adoption, but they don’t because they don’t want to have to live with that decision. It would be the same for embryo adoption.
________________________________
Ruby, on What’s EFRAT all about?:There are pregnancy help centres in Canada. They are funded by donations and are very happy to support moms-to-be.
________________________________
Samantha, on “Changing abortion’s pronoun”:While I can understand the grief a man might experience following an abortion (after all, many would-be mothers also experience it, and I imagine it would be similar to the pain experienced by a couple following a miscarriage), I disagree that a man’s input should factor in to the choice to abort at all. It is not a man’s body that is affected by a pregnancy; the woman carries that burden. And, should he like, he can virtually walk away at any time. If he wants a child so badly, he will have to wait to have one with a woman who is willing to carry it for him. Ideally a couple would communicate about what they both want and they would have a loving relationship and be able to make that decision together. But for too many couples, this is not the case, and so I don’t believe a man should get any legal input into the decision.
________________________________
Chantal Trudelle, on You’re offended, I’m offended… so what?:I absolutely agree.I’m sure there are many vegans who find fast food ads offensive, but everywhere you turn there is a Big Mac or a Whopper staring you in the face.I’ve been involved with pro-life organisations for years now, and this ad is probably the best I’ve seen so far. Upon seeing it for the first time, I was struck by how UN-offensive this one was compared to many others I have seen.I’d love to contact Councillor Brian McHattie, or Mr. Don Hull about this issue, and let them know how wrong they are. Please feel free to provide me with their email addresses or office phone numbers.
I wish Windsor would get this ad on our transit, billboards, or park benches… I’d put in on my lawn and wear it as a t-shirt. Kudos to the designer for making such a beautiful ad that displays such a striking message.
If looking at the ad is too offensive… imagine the procedure itself.
________________________________
Nancy, on Why I don’t like feminists:I can’t believe a woman would vote for another woman based on gender alone. What if she doesn’t stand for anything you believe in? What if you believe she will bring harm to the nation? In good conscience would you still vote for the women? Such silliness; voting from your gender and not your head.