Bill C-510 is the new private member’s bill about punishing coerced abortion. Here’s some good information about it from the top-notch legal minds at the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada.
Meanwhile, over at the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada, a call to ban coerced childbirth from Joyce Arthur. Two thoughts on this: One–it’s good she can identify there’s a child there, it’s “childbirth” not “fetusbirth” or “gosh darn it what IS that thing birth.” Secondly–the thought occured to me that perhaps she doesn’t know what causes childbirth. Someone get this woman a briefing on the birds and the bees! (Over 100,000 abortions annually in Canada, most to all abortions are not the result of coerced sex.)








“All too common practice”? Wow… I personally, do not know anyone coerced into ‘getting pregnant’ and surely don’t know anyone coerced into having a baby. Coerced into having sex perhaps, but not the latter. As you said Andrea, do they know what causes this?
I read the US study Arthur linked in her article, which contains quotes from a key interviewee; (Respondent 1) A 19 year old claiming her boyfriend would often comment that he should ‘get her pregnant to keep her in his life forever’, but there was no evidence that he forced her into having the sex that would lead to such a pregnancy. I have to just point out she had TWO abortions while in this relationship (which they note he refused to pay for). Does anyone else see the problem with this example???
Respondent 5, also 19, was 16 when she became pregnant by a ‘much older man’. Is Arthur arguing that the best thing is for this girl is to have an abortion? The problem is that an older man was having sex with a 16 year old. Let’s start there shall we? It’s like saying Elizabeth Fritzl would’ve been better off if there was an abortionist with her.
I really didn’t think anyone could be against a bill banning coerced abortions. She showed me.
In effect, that’s what this private member’s bill is going to do whether or not it succeeds: bring out the real pro-abortion types (as opposed to pro-choice) and show their true colours.
Joyce Arthur’s reasons (especially her third point) for ‘why Bill 510 is not needed or is suspect’ go a long way towards proving that she is indeed ‘pro-abortion’ and not merely ‘pro-choice’.
“The bill patronizes women by implying they are frequently coerced into abortion, but the vast majority of women make their own decision to have an abortion and take responsibility for it. ”
Firstly – Apparently Ms. Arthur has unilaterally decided that only women who decide to have abortions are capable of making their own decisions and taking responsibility for them?? She begins her article by stating that coercing women into giving birth is a “much more common practice”. So exactly who is patronizing women?? By her logic, if you decide to have an abortion you are a woman who thinks clearly and is capable of making responsible, autonomous decisions. If you decide to give birth you must be one of the countless spineless women who are easily coerced and are incapable of making decisions for yourself or take responsibility for them.
Secondly – even Ms. Arthur uses language stating “the vast majority of women make their own decision to have an abortion…”. Bill 510 is aimed at protecting precisely the OTHER ones, the minority. The vulnerable few who, although perhaps not great in number, are certainly still worthy of protection. At least, some of us feel this minority of women are worthy of protection, even if Ms. Arthur does not.
Yes – Joyce Arthur revealed her true colours indeed. Pro-abortion. Not pro-choice.
I think that she means by ‘coerced birth’ would be ‘coerced non-abortion.’
It makes a sort of tidy symmetrical sense. If you’re going to criminalise trying to coerce someone into getting an abortion, why not also criminalise trying to coerce someone into *not* getting an abortion? Neutrality demands it.
Of course, either way, ‘coerce’ could easily be defined widely enough to cover just about anything, and in implimentation may be so narrow as to only cover actions already illegal… and yet still be so vague as to allow for prosecutors or a jury to enforce it only against the side they disagree with.
Very interesting commentary! I do know of girls (especially teens) who have been coerced into having abortions. In one case, the girl was forced by her parents. In the other case, the girl was told by a school counsellor that she could die in child-birth.