ProWomanProLife

You are here: Home / Archives for abortion

Challenging the debate

by Leave a Comment

An interesting opinion in today’s Ottawa Citizen. The author is admittedly pro-choice, believing that abortion must remain a question of individual conscience, but comes swinging against Morgentaler’s Order of Canada nonetheless. I would love to hear more discussions like this one, where the outcome of the debate — should Morgentaler have been nominated? — does not hinge on one’s moral position on abortion. Morgentaler’s nomination is wrong for many more reasons than his morals (or lack thereof).

That being said, I must still register my disagreement with the author’s statement that a fetus’ moral status can be circumscribed by its inability to value its own life. I recently had to take my dog to the veterinarian to be euthanised, a decision I don’t wish on anybody. My oldest daughter was tearfully telling me, a couple of days later, how heart-breaking it was to see the dog go in the car like it was just another car ride, and had he known, etc. Warnings about the uselessness of anthropomorphizing the dog went into deaf ears. The dog didn’t understand where he went — or why — and while to Liesl this was heart-breaking, I found it somewhat comforting. Some years ago I read Sister Helen Prejean’s Dead Man Walking and I cannot yet wrap my head around the expectancy of death, particularly when it comes at the hands of another. Assuredly, the ability to value one’s own life makes looking forward to one’s own death with more poignancy or fear. Similarly, we could say that people who take their own lives do so at the end of a tragic road of self-devaluation. However, I do not think that we can so easily equate moral status with self-valuation. Because, if you will allow me a moment of very bad taste, I’m not sure my 2-year-old son is yet able to value his own life. In fact, according to the decibel register at my house lately, he would convince anybody that his life is very miserable. Still, if I took his life, I would not only be a criminal in the eyes of the law but a very sick or rotten individual in the eyes of everybody else. In a nutshell, the ability to value one’s own life may be enough to abortion supporters but it doesn’t explain why it no longer matters after the child is born.

__________________________________

Rebecca adds: To take Véronique’s point further: at the moment, we (as a society) do not believe that the elderly infirm can be killed because they may not be aware of their own existence and consciousness, nor do we believe this about people of any age suffering brain damage that impairs their consciousness. There are alarming signs that this may be changing, though, thanks to the valiant efforts of Peter Singer and his fellow travellers.

Reflect and ponder

by Leave a Comment

Read in this morning’s Ottawa Citizen in the letters section (sorry, I couldn’t find the web version of the full letter):

Under no circumstances should sex lead to a life sentence.

I daresay, this letter-writer has learned her pro-choice lesson well. Sex? Leading to pregnancy? No way! But on a lighter note, her statement reminded me of a joke, you know, the one about life being a sexually transmitted condition leading to death?

Among other letters, we also read the testimony of a woman who found herself in the leftover 1% for whom the pill is not “efficient” and who had an abortion as a result. She writes: “But birth control does fail some women who are then faced with unplanned pregnancies that, for various reasons, they cannot continue.” So much for birth control making abortion rare. Sex shouldn’t lead to babies and we need abortion because we have relatively effective birth control, not in spite of it.

Interesting.

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.

So this is helping?

by Leave a Comment

After my post yesterday about Carolyn Bennett’s comments at the Status of Women committee, a reader sent me this link with Bennett’s views on the Morgentaler decision, back in January: 

I remember my first abortion, as a med student in Barbados. She had red hair and braces, she was in grade nine, age 14 — the daughter of the local prostitute, who had been renting her out. I realized it was so important to get her back to grade nine. So many people had their educations interrupted.

So Bennett does the abortion on a 14-year old, who, in her own words has been “rented out” by her own mother–so she can get her right back to grade nine.

I’m sure Bennett dropped everything to remove the little girl from the abusive home, to ensure she would not be “rented out” again by her own mother. I’m sure also that Bennett ensured the mother was given enough money to stop being a prostitute, to care for her little girl adequately. 

Remind me again how abortion helped this little girl? At least had she been pregnant the abuse would have been evident–Bennett, in a position of power, authority and responsibility, took a big problem and multiplied it one hundred fold. Congrats. 

_____________________________________

Brigitte wonders: Why do we so often forget that abortions also “erase” evidence of abuse? And yet, and yet. There are cases where this is undoubtedly true. Obviously I don’t know the particulars of that one, but from the sound of it, I wonder whether keeping the baby would have helped that girl. I’m guessing not really. I’m also not sure the baby would have fared well – what if it was a girl? She might have ended up in the same situation as her mother. I know pro-lifers are meant to prefer life over abortion in all cases, and because we can never tell for sure what will happen I’m of the view that allowing that baby to live would have given him or her more of a chance than abortion ever did, but I do sometimes find it hard.

_____________________________________

Tanya is reminded of: This story.  

 

The writer’s concluding thoughts:

Abortion defenders need to realize that while abortion may keep one of the results of incest and sexual abuse from seeing the light of day, it does absolutely nothing to protect a young girl from continued abuse, and in fact aids the abuser in his crime. Furthermore, birth control counseling and abortion often indirectly contribute to the victim’s sense of shame, guilt, and blame for what is happening, since she is told to “take control” and “be responsible” for her “sexual activity,” implying that this situation is, indeed, within her power to control. On the other hand, pro-lifers need to realize that incest, rape, and child abuse do happen, and often with devastating results. In the assembly-line process of abortion on demand, incest-related abortions are seriously underreported.

_______________________________

Andrea adds: Brigitte, I agree with you in some ways–certainly a pregnant 14-year-old who keeps the baby is no grand success, especially if she is left in the same horrific situation. My main point is that neither is aborting. We can’t pretend we are heroes in either situation.

_______________________________

Rebecca adds: So this was in Barbados – I’ve no idea what the laws are there. If a Canadian doctor failed to report to the authorities that a 14-year-old was being “rented out” by her mother, she would herself be committing a crime. But surely one’s conscience would dictate that one not passively let such abuse continue, regardless of the local laws, right? Someone needs to ask the honourable member what she did to ensure that the girl would be “rented out” no longer.

American politics and abortion

by Leave a Comment

Now that Hillary has conceded defeat, sort of, we can examine Obama’s platform.

On abortion, it’s not good. Not good at all.

Oftentimes pro-lifers will declare there’s no middle ground on abortion–voting against amendments that would outlaw some abortions but not all, because they don’t go far enough.

But there is some middle ground to be found. Most everyone–even those who are pro-choice–find late-term abortion abhorrent. Most every civilized person shies away from eugenics, though eugenic abortions are common in Canada today. (Note the Canadian Down Syndrome Society’s new TV campaign: Different Genes, Same Value.)

Barack Obama’s position on abortion has been relentlessly extreme–against life.  This link, from the Atlantic Monthly, discusses just how extreme he has been. He has not done anything conciliatory on this front. Late term abortions? Fine by him.

As a side note, I stumbled on this link, for different reasons yesterday–you can choose your topic and get the candidate’s summary position on it. On abortion, I like Ron Paul’s the best. The man don’t mince words:

Paul said he views the fetus as a “human being [with] legal rights … from the day of conception.” He reconciles his anti-abortion outlook with his libertarian views, saying, “I do not say that because our homes are our castles that we have the right to murder our children.”

If I were American, I might vote for him, just for that clear-as-a-bell statement. I guess if you are the long shot, (ie. Ron Paul’s not going to be President) you can afford to say things like that.  

_____________________________

Tanya sticks up for Ron Paul:

Even when he was full-swing campaigning, he didn’t mince words at all. And not just on the issue of abortion. The man would have been quite a president. Sigh.

Cherry picking–not a right

by Leave a Comment

When it comes to pro-abortion arguments, a recently published opinion piece in the Medical Post — “INSIDERS: Is the end of abortion near?” (a restricted access piece) — has got it all. There’s the well-funded religious groups, fear mongering of Bill C-484 backdoorism and a return to coat-hanger abortions, abortion as standard of care for unplanned pregnancy, abortion as human right, abortion as incontestable under law, the obligation to refer, the obligation to facilitate access, and finally, freedom of conscience, sure, but my conscience, not yours.

Then there’s this brain twister:

The Federation of Medical Women of Canada (FMWC) is very concerned because we owe our deepest gratitude to our federation founders those heroes who fought so hard for the right of women to be able to choose their reproductive rights.” (emphasis mine)

 

Huh? So it’s no longer about having reproductive rights but about being able to choose our reproductive rights? This is moral relativism at its best – or at its worst–depending on how you look at it.

 

Allow me to think about it in the big scheme of things, that is, a scheme bigger than justifying individual wants and desires. Why women? Why the “right to choose”? Why “reproductive rights”? Why do women have a right to choose their rights? Men can reproduce too.

Just imagine men parading around with this slogan: “What I do with my semen is my business.”

But men are not allowed to choose their reproductive rights–and rightfully so. Society at large recognizes that some rights should be limited and others denied entirely. In civil society, rights are not chosen individually even when their scope is essentially individual. Rights are enshrined and efforts to protect them deployed because of a general understanding that they are just, good and necessary. There is a general understanding in society that men shouldn’t be allowed to do whatever they choose with their sperm; that pedophiles shouldn’t be allowed a full range of reproductive rights and that under age children shouldn’t be allowed to choose at all, to name but a few…

Pro-choice advocates please stop waving the flag of “reproductive rights.” Please stop making a case for the special status of your eggs. Or at least make a coherent argument. I’m still waiting for that.

_________________________

Andrea adds: Aaaah, Véronique, clearly you didn’t get the “it’s none of your business” memo. It’s probably my very favourite pro-choice argument, that variation on a grade four theme–none of your beeswax–said with jaw tightly clenched. Are homeless people my business? What about all the charitable groups we have to help with that? Very strictly speaking, nothing is ever our business–if that’s the kind of world you want to live in. One where you step over the bodies lying on grates on the way to work, and turn your head the other way, while you zip in to Starbucks for a latté. “Mankind was my business…” It’s always a good time to quote one of my all time favourite movies. Here–watch the YouTube clip again. (Yes, I’m aware that it is June.)

Thoughts on equality or lack thereof

by Leave a Comment

I heard about this latest bit of pro-abortion news yesterday afternoon. Normally, I would have been seized by the urge to blog. But I have been flying solo this week, taking the full brunt of running the household while my husband is out of town. Not to mention finishing my [expletive deleted] LL.M. thesis and looking for gainful employment. I am tired. And suddenly, I was overcome by a feeling that the battle had been lost, that everything had been written, every argument laid out, and still, people didn’t care.

 

But when I heard that the said award had been granted for “outstanding service to humanity and for his contribution to the cause of equality for women” the feeling of hopelessness was quickly replaced by an overwhelming urge to yell at someone. I tried writing, I did. But I couldn’t write anything that wasn’t seasoned with a generous dose of profanities. Out of respect for our beloved readers, I chose to run 5 km during my daughters’ gym class before heading home at 9 pm to make lunches, clean the kitchen, run a load of laundry, sign permissions, take out the trash, read bedtime stories, and watch three consecutive episodes of Jon & Kate +8 while checking my emails. In the end, I went to bed way too late to be angry and am therefore in a much better disposition to write a well-balanced thoughtful post. Well, we’ll see.

 

Equality for women. The cause of equality for women. And what would be abortion’s contribution to equality for women? We hear it so much we no longer pause to wonder “oh yeah? and why is that?” This is not a rhetorical question. We need to reflect on the underlying assumptions of making abortion an “equality” issue. Because if equality between men and women really hinges on access to abortion, we are a lot farther behind achieving meaningful equality than we flatter ourselves to be. Women need abortion to be equal in order not to be weighted down by children.

 

This premise contains, at first glance, two important inequalities. The first one being that men are not (or shouldn’t be) weighted down by children. The second one being that children are social dead weight. I believe that thoughtful abortion advocates would see clearly through the inequality of equality through abortion but would counter-argue that in the present circumstances, it is unfair to make women bear the brunt of our social inertia. But what pro-woman pro-life advocates see is that equality has been achieved at the cost of fairness and that access to abortion has only promoted the inferiority of women as bearers of children. The vicious circle has to stop an we need to make women equal as they are — with a uterus and all — not as society wishes them to be.

 

Equally problematic is the notion that equality in society is somehow “granted.” Think about it: we have “achieved” equality with access to abortion. Shouldn’t we just “be” equal? Doesn’t the very idea of having to achieve equality fundamentally unequal and unfair? It would be equivalent to saying that immigrants achieve equality once they become white, anglo-saxon and Protestant. What kind of equality is that?

________________________________

Tanya adds:

Tanya points out from the link above:”The court’s ruling in 1988 declared the law that prohibited abortion to be unconstitutional, thus confirming women’s reproductive rights.”

Let’s not wonder why there’s misunderstanding over the fabric of the abortion issue in this country.

To correct the above phrasing, the court’s ruling in 1988 declared the law that regulated access to abortion to be unconstitutional. Over 20 years later, and no new law regulating access to abortion has been passed, contrary to the wishes of the Supreme Court. “thus confirming” nothing…nothing at all. On se permet des choses, en tout cas!

 

Woman, if you want to get pregnant, why are you on birth control?

by Leave a Comment

A recent study explains that a considerable portion of the female population is both using birth control and desiring to get pregnant.

The researchers also found that many women who are lax about birth control are simply ambivalent about preventing a pregnancy and confessed that they would be very pleased if they found out they were pregnant.

Of course, this article doesn’t claim these women want to get pregnant. It refers to them instead as “women who are the least motivated to avoid pregnancy.”

So why are these women on birth control? Is it trendy? Is it fun? Am I missing something?

Perhaps it has to do with a social imposition. Generally, men expect “their” women to be on birth control within an unmarried sexual relationship. However, a woman generally has an innate desire to have a child. Try as we might, biologically, we can’t successfully separate sex from procreation. Thanks to modern feminism, our gender-image has been so warped that a sexually active woman wanting to get pregnant (out of that perfect context) is unreasonable, flighty, and even creepy.

So here we have loads women happily getting pregnant from intentionally inconsistent birth control use. Now they need to tell the new, clueless father-to-be. The result of this mix? Perhaps it’s this:

…up to 64 percent of abortions every year are a result of violence and coercion – a practice… that brings unbearable and life lasting trauma to thousands of women.

Way to go, modern feminism! Just look how well the sexual liberation of women is working out.

The wrong side of history

by Leave a Comment

If fighting abortion is not a social justice issue, then what possibly could be? The victims have no voice. The perpetrators have entrenched interests, deny others information and make money by it. Perpetuating abortion results in harmful physical and mental effects that are concealed from the vast majority. (Through a combination of sheer disinterest, deliberate coverups and a lack of freedom of speech.) Overturning it would result in greater freedom and the defence of the ultimate of all rights, the right without which all others are void.

Where we accept abortion we are apathetic, dispassionate and relentlessly cruel.

Being pro-choice means standing on the wrong side of history: A side that says it is just fine to use people, to have sex and leave, to deny a natural and normal result (pregnancy) of a natural and normal action (sex). To live in an empty shell, devoid of all logic and reason, where charity, love and compassion themselves become nothing more than choices.

This culture will be embarrassed in not too long for offering the barbarity of abortion. We will wonder how we excused it, ignored it, concealed it, sanitized it, normalized it. 

If fighting abortion does not constitute social justice, then I don’t know what does.

Here ends the rant. Read about this “new trend,” here.

_________________________

Andrea adds, yes, to her own post: This from William Wilberforce’s great grandson:

There are great similarities between the status of the foetus and the status of African slaves two centuries ago. Slaves were considered a commodity to do with whatever the vested interests of the day decided. Today, in our desire to play God in our embryology experimentation, with all its’ unfulfilled promises of miracle cures, and our decision to abort unwanted children, we are no better that those slave traders who put their interests and world view higher than they placed the sanctity and value of human life.

We’re supposed to get used to this?

by Leave a Comment

From the UK, 12 to 15-year-olds are having abortions.

Ann Furedi, chief executive of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, which runs a chain of abortion clinics, said: “This is a tiny number of girls. Children grow up very quickly in our society. They are maturing faster physically, psychologically and socially, and society just has to come to terms with that.”

It is a small number of girls–10 to 15 each year–but we ought to be shocked, maintain that shock, increase the shock. True compassion isn’t shown by saying hey, that’s normal, get used to it! And it is entirely alarming and painful to read that someone would advocate that view. Would Furedi say that if it were her 12-year-old daughter?

This is where “women’s rights” becomes an obvious fraud. Who will start the “girl’s rights” movement–a 12-year-old is not a woman, after all.

Meta