Are people really so taken up with the jargon that they don’t realize the impact these policies will have on real live people?
Apparently according to this article:
The abortion debate is slated to return to the House of Commons, with one New Democrat seeking to reaffirm the chamber’s commitment to a woman’s right to choose.
A motion put forward by NDP MP Niki Ashton seeks to have members of Parliament vote on whether access to abortion is a “fundamental question of equality and human rights, both in Canada and around the world.”
The Motion reads thus:
M-510 — May 8, 2014 — Ms. Ashton (Churchill) — That, in the opinion of the House: (a) a women’s right to choose abortion is a fundamental question of equality and human rights, both in Canada and around the world; (b) the key priorities of the government during the upcoming international summit on child and maternal health on May 28-30, 2014 should include empowering women globally, promoting gender equality and supporting reproductive health care including the full range of family planning, sexual and reproductive health options; and (c) the government should lift its policy of refusing to fund international programs that support a full range of family planning and reproductive health care options including abortion.
There is just so much wrong with that, I don’t know where to begin.
I thought that I would post these insightful observations from Isabelle O’Connor in Quebec:
- This motion is null and void as it is a direct infringement on the right to freedom of conscience of every citizen, MPs included;
- It is not access to abortion that will improve maternal health; it is access to maternal health services;
- Deaths caused by legally-induced abortion are never attributed, statistically, to the cause of death labelled « Legally induced-abortion ». Coroners have explained to us that deaths due to legally-induced abortion are coded under « Pregnancy», or under « External cause – medical misadventure ». So, mortality caused by legally-induced abortion is actually attributed to pregnancy, which allows abortion promoters to propagate the urban legend that « childbirth is much more dangerous than abortion » (our findings have been published worldwide, in numerous languages);
- Obviously, abortion does nothing positive for child health. To be tortured and exterminated has no pleasant or positive side whatsoever for a child;
- Abortion is an act of violence, against both women and children. As long as society will perform acts of violence, it cannot expect to reap peace and health as a result, as a fundamental law of nature is that one reaps what one sows;
- Population is the most important resource f a country. If we want to stimulate prosperity, we must do everything possible to allow a population to live and flourish.
by 
You mean other than the spelling mistake?
Le sigh.
Well, the pro-aborts are no longer acting under cover, are they? Calling Justin Trudeau’s bluff in a bid to split the Liberal party in half is a rather clever ploy, but one that might go either way. The big fight that Parliament has wanted to avoid since the Supreme Court decision is here at last. I hope that we are ready for it.
Human rights, eh? Which humans are we talking about?
And I don’t quite understand how abortion can be construed as a matter of gender equality, either. Men don’t get the choice whether or not to become fathers–their choice ends when they choose to sleep with a woman. What she does with the resulting pregnancy is all up to her.
Abortion neither promotes equality, nor is it empowering. It is a sad, sad choice, made by a woman who is in a position where she only has bad choices available to her.
And I know I make this point over, and over again, but we need to consider the rights of doctors, too. Doctors overwhelmingly don’t want to perform abortions. If abortion becomes a right, then, logically, abortion will need to be more widely available, which will mean that doctors who don’t want to perform abortions will be required to perform them. That is a direct violation of a doctor’s right of conscience.
By the way, what organization is Isabelle O’Connor with?
That’s a good point re: doctors Melissa. It’s one that’s not raised often enough.
Isabelle has her own ministry in Quebec: http://www.adoptionviverecanada.com/
For some reason I decided to read the comments on the original article, which mostly consist of one person spewing ridiculousness. When this debate does get reopened, it seems it is going to be very, very ugly.
Mary D, you aren’t kidding. I got called a child abuser today via email for being pro-life. I managed to ignore that part and inquire about something else she said. Then I got her own abortion story, which appeared to include being addicted to drugs. If we don’t remember how these people are actually defending what they themselves have done, we get to drawn in by the insults. It is not easy to face up to killing your own child. Much easier to make claims to it being compassionate, and also, not a child. Which is pretty much the combo you see in the comments on this piece.
Keep in mind that what Nicki is proposing is about more than abortion, it is also about reproductive technologies and the right to manufactured babies for same-sex couples. She has opened the entire basket of crabs and spilled them all out, hollus-bollus.
The poor wording of clause “A” of the motion is actually quite agreeable to pro-lifers. It _is_ a fundamental question of equality and human rights – of the unborn. For the unborn are treated as sub-human under the law due to age and circumstance and their human right to not be arbitrarily killed is denied.
“(a) a women’s right to choose abortion is a fundamental question of equality and human rights, both in Canada and around the world; “