February 3, 2008
Stephanie Grey, on Yes!! Thank you!:
Kudos to Mr. Gunter for supporting free speech for pro-life clubs. I don’t, however, hold the same admiration for his statement against abortion imagery when he says, “Get new tactics.”
That same kind of claim was made against Martin Luther King. He was told his tactics were “extreme” and “unwise,” to which he responded, “Perhaps it is easy for those who have never felt the stinging darts of segregation to say, ‘Wait.’”
Likewise, perhaps it’s easy for those who have never been aborted to say graphic images shouldn’t be shown. It’s easy when you aren’t the one dismissed as a “blob of tissue” and disdainfully viewed as a “clump of cells”; it’s easy when you aren’t subjected to dismemberment, disembowelment, and decapitation; it’s easy when potassium chloride isn’t injected into your heart to induce cardiac arrest. But when you imagine a defenseless baby being attacked but unable to escape; when you catch a glimpse of her body parts ripped off piece by piece; when you realize that what you know about this baby’s plight, most people do not—then you will understand why we use pictures.
Today there’s no debate about using graphic imagery to convey injustices from the past. People pore through history textbooks, flock to museums, and watch movies that contain graphic images of yesterday’s injustices.
Why, then, is there resistance to our use of abortion imagery? For the reason that such imagery shows a present atrocity, not a past one. The guilt of historical crimes lies with our ancestors, not us. The guilt of present-day crimes lies with no one but ourselves. It’s easy to say, “Shame on them.” It’s difficult to admit, “Shame on us.”
________________________________
Frost, on Yes!! Thank you!:
Yes, these pictures are “deeply offensive and disturbing.” Almost as offensive and disturbing as the killing (abortion) itself. They need to be thrust in everybody’s face just as abortion is being thrust in our faces at the rate of 300 per day, every day, year after year! Any attempt to require a prior warning would result in an immediate censoring and shutdown of these displays. Those who are pro-abortion would like nothing better.
Lorne Gunter is mistaken if he thinks that “graphic photos of mutilated fetuses and claims of ‘genocide’ aren’t winning … any mainstream supporters.” To the contrary, in at least one country (Slovakia) so far, the graphic displays forced the government, through public pressure, to abandon plans to make abortion available by law in all hospitals in the country. Polite talk and eloquent blogs will not shatter our collective complacency.As for children, what a perfect opportunity to raise the next generation of prolifers!
________________________________
Elaine Arnsby, on Give me an “M”:
The University of Western Ontario lost MILLIONS in donations over the honourary- degree-to-Morgentaler fiasco, 10,000 people signed an on-line petition against giving the degree, and 700 people (including a few professors) were at UWO and on the streets protesting the day of… I think not so small an outcry; certainly not inflated by the main media who if anything diminished the numbers in their reporting - the same way they and the pro-”choice” supporters constantly try to diminish, to the point of total denial, the pain experienced by post-abortive women. SHAME on them.
Canada has become a time bomb of hurting women due to the “good” that Morgentaler brought to our country. Rather than the Order of Canada, Henry Morgentaler at best deserves pity as anyone would who has been walking in darkness for most of his natural life. I hope the light goes on soon! Lots of people are praying for you, Henry…
________________________________
Tanya Zaleski, on Give me an “M”:
André Picard still seems to be getting his facts all wrong. Even though the point was clarified on The Agenda, Mr. Picard still insisted, in this article, to call abortion a “medically necessary procedure.”
We should accord him some freedom, I suppose, since the article was an editorial. If I’d written the article, Morgentaler being overlooked for the Order of Canada certainly wouldn’t be described as a glaring omission.
________________________________
Lea Singh, on Having your cake and eating it too:
I’m glad Andrea expressed herself so well on The Agenda last night, especially as a counterweight to Margaret Somerville, who was rather disappointing, especially in her final admission that she supports keeping early-term abortions legal.
Margaret’s admission was provoked by the poignant - and admittedly important - “coat-hanger” question: If we outlaw abortion then what about women who decide to do it anyway, in disregard for their personal health, safety and life?
In response to that question, Somerville admitted that indeed, for the sake of saving such women from harm, she believes that early abortion should be legal.
Which, in my opinion, felled the edifice that she had built against later-term abortion as well. Because if women must be protected from back-street early abortions, then must not they also be protected from back-street late abortions? Their lives are at risk in either case; in fact, arguably more so in later-term abortions.
Somerville’s admission made me realize once again how important it is for us to have a very, very good answer to the “coat-hanger” question. This question has much in common with the “it happens anyway” arguments for the legalization of prostitution, drugs, euthanasia and assisted suicide, etc. It is nonetheless a serious question that demands a good answer.
Online, there is a whole book entitled “No Choice: Canadian Women Tell their Stories of Illegal Abortion”, written by the former editor of Chatelaine. (http://www.cbctrust.com/nochoice/). Inevitably, as we advocate against abortion, we will be asked: what is our answer to these stories?
One answer could be: we need to provide better resources for pregnant women, so they do not need to seek abortion as a way out of their seemingly hopeless situations. But this is not always the answer – some women may have the resources, but may still seek an abortion for other reasons (not just rape or incest, but for instance, to hide marital infidelity).
Another answer would be: abortion hurts women more than it helps them, as research on post-abortive women has shown us – and so, women need to be educated not to choose abortion. But even if women are well-educated about the negative effects of abortion, we as human beings often choose short term gain that risks long term pain (how many people still smoke?). Even well-advised women may play their dice and risk adverse effects in return for the short-term relief of ending a problematic pregnancy.
Maybe the best answer steers away from the woman and turns to the new life within her. A civilized society simply cannot legally permit the killing of innocent human beings. “Coat-hanger” abortions may elicit within us a deep compassion for the desperate women who resort to them. However, we must still see them for what they are – the attempted takings of another human life. Under the criminal law, desperation is not an excuse to murder - and we would never think of making it so. We would never think of letting Aunt Sally kill Uncle Bill because he has made her desperate to be rid of him. We would never legalize homicide in order to protect her life and health in the act. The fundamental right to life of the fetal human person cannot but trump the psychological state of the mother.
We need to do the best we can to help pregnant women make the choice of life. However, the fetus needs to be independently protected as a human being, regardless of the choice that another human being (even its own mother) may make about its fate.
________________________________
Tanya Zaleski, on The Agenda:
Margaret Somerville spoke with a noble authority, dispelling the tiny falsehoods that attempted to infiltrate the conversation.
Ms. LaRue was the perfect representation of the pro-choice side…
In my opinion, André Picard represented the uninformed side of the issue… or should I say misinformed. For a reporter, he certainly was confused when stating that abortion rates have not gone up at all since before the Morgentaler case.
Andrea Mrozek just simply stayed true to her mission. Women are uninformed and feel the repercussions of their “choice” after the fact. Andrea displayed a sincere compassion for women everywhere… and I am certain that any woman watching, living the horror of post-abortion effects, was touched and, for a moment at least, felt understood.
If this was a debate, I don’t know that anyone won… but I do think any woman watching who is hurting from a past abortion may have felt the warmth from a ray of compassion…perhaps feeling that she is not alone in her pain.
________________________________
Tanya Zaleski, on Having your cake and eating it too:
Perhaps Ms. LaRue, from the pro-choice side, believes it must be considered a tough decision. What even she has not managed to figure out, though, is exactly how to impress this on a society that still needs to remain in the dark about the crux of the issue. Why? Because if Canadians get more educated on the issue of abortion, it is undeniable that they will demand we implement a law.
Ms. LaRue and her pro-choice side are likely between a rock and a hard place: “I want a woman to have instant, easy access to abortion, and yet still have the presence of mind to think the decision through thoroughly on her own time.” Like when? On the bus-ride to the clinic?
________________________________
Wes, on Canada AM:
I watched the Canada AM show with Andrea. Her comments enticed me to look up this website. In my view she offered choice, dialogue and hope, as opposed to the abortionist who offered one solution. I may be a man but I still understand that abortion can be very destructive to women even years after.
________________________________
Tanya Zaleski, on Feel their pain?:
The political world really does deny realities as long as it can when they are inconvenient! Science can tell us — and has been for years — that a fetus is sensitive to touch as of 8 weeks…all areas of the body are sensitive to touch as of 10 weeks. Ultrasound data collected during an abortion of a fetus at 11 weeks from conception shows a small life clearly in pain.
If a fetus indeed feels pain as of 8 weeks in the womb, in one year, in the US alone, approximately 1 million fetuses feel their own abortion.
________________________________
Anon, on The pitfalls–and promise?–of socialized medicine:
oh. my. g-d.
Talk about going to extremes to make a point.
Pro-choicers have no interest in having “a clinic beside every 7-11″. I do, however, reckon we are interested in having clinic or hospitals that perform the procedure within a drive-able radius.
You make no sense. Telling women what to think about abortions isn’t giving them a choice at all, now is it?
________________________________
Maureen, on I’d hate to see what a real taboo looks like:
Oh for goodness sakes. Here you go. My name is Maureen Stephens. I’ve had an abortion. It was the right decision for me and my family. There. You have it. A name.
________________________________
Ron E. Baer, on A fish on a bicycle walks into a bar…:
On feminism and things getting old:
What is really getting old are the rising divorce rates in the world, no doubt brought on by feminism. Maniacal children who weren’t raised properly because mom chose to work instead are getting old. Obese children who should be receiving healthy home cooked meals but get fast-food instead because mom is too tired from her day job to cook is getting pretty old too. Teenage daughters who get pregnant and then get abortions (by right) because mom doesn’t have time to talk to her daughter is getting extremely old. The role of a female human, genetically and historically, has been to support the family that this site advises she should have at any cost.
On equal rights:
A woman is a human being and should have every right as any other human being.
On choice and the environment:
You cannot overlook the environmental crisis happening right now. There will be overpopulation problems on earth. As a result the environment will be degraded even more so. It’s quite ironic that you’ve posted a picture of a woman in a natural outdoor setting, the same setting that can be destroyed by this notion of having a baby no matter what the cost. It’s this kind narrow sightedness that will destroy humankind. Everyone has the responsibility of preserving life on earth: whether it be human life, animal life or plant life. The promotion of human overpopulation is a deathblow to all three.
________________________________
Suzanne, on So cool:
Interesting you should make that comment, especially in light of our shrinking birthrate.
It wouldn’t take a lot to raise it: a small, but dedicated minority of families willing to raise a lot of children, and the bulk of women wanting to have 2-3 children. It’s very do-able. It would make for a stronger country.
________________________________
Terry, on “Changing abortion’s pronoun”:
Even though I couldn’t make out all of the words, I got most of it - especially Happy Birthday - make a wish. It really brought home the emptiness and loneliness that a man can experience after abortion. It’s true - men are affected and experience the loss. It’s not necessarily immediate. But at some point when they are seriously dealing with life issues, this one will require attention.
________________________________
Jeremy Swanson, on Poll results worth repeating: Not many men and especially fathers caught up in the family law system are pro-abortion. I would say that as far as the men I work with they are almost exclusively anti-abortion. Maybe it’s got something to do with the fact that they lost their children after they were born and when they were already little persons. I am not quite sure, but it does have something to do with the sense of loss. I know when I was forced to walk away from my three children to me the experience was akin to being told they had died. I do know that I became even more pro-life after that disaster. And my position on that is growing stronger by the day.