ProWomanProLife

You are here: Home / Archives for Carolyn Egan

We’re all pro-choice now: discuss

by Leave a Comment

That’s what they seem to claim here:

An overwhelming majority of Canadians continue to support women’s right to abort pregnancies, but a recent national survey found the country is split when asked who should foot the bill.

The online Angus-Reid poll — conducted June 4 and 5 of 1,000 adult Canadians — found 91% of respondents supported abortions under certain circumstances, and only 5% would outlaw it altogether.

There are more details on the way poll results are distributed if you follow the link. You decide whether support for abortion is somewhat inflated in the story. (Hello? I’m anti-abortion but would not count myself in the 5% who “would outlaw it altogether”, am I to be tabulated as “pro-choice” regardless of what I believe simply because I wouldn’t outlaw abortion altogether?) What I find particularly interesting is the comment by Carolyn Egan, of the Ontario Coalition for Abortion Clinics:

Canada is very solidly a pro-choice country. There is no doubt about that,” she told the Sun yesterday. “I think there is a minority in this country who feel abortion is wrong … but I think we’re moving beyond (the debate).”

If that were as true as she claims, why would so many pro-choice activists be so shrill so much of the time?

___________________________

Tanya adds:

Also, denying those women publicly funded abortions would force them to either go through a pregnancy they aren’t prepared for, or look for illegal abortion sources, she said.”

 

The US has a similar per-capita abortion rate as Canada does, and last time I checked, they don’t have publicly funded abortions. They do, however, have privately funded abortions, which would likely happen here through collective insurance.

 

All that aside, I’m amazed at how often pro-choice advocates like Egan bring up the issue of illegal abortions. They’re all about keeping visions of coat hangers dancing in everyone’s head. I dare say this is a ridiculous argument, and I’m calling it out as a scare tactic. There, I said it.

 

__________________________

Andrea adds: Well then. That does it. This here debate is clearly closed. Over. An Old Question, one not worth discussing. We’ve moved on. Everyone thinks abortion is OK. (Sometimes when people have to repeat themselves over and over, and strenuously, one wonders if they are protesting too much.)

The question nobody’s asking

by Leave a Comment

If I weren’t afraid of stale metaphors, I’d say this is where the rubber meets the road.

Some MPs are rallying support for a proposed law that would make it a crime to kill or injure an unborn child after a Winnipeg woman, who was eight months pregnant, was shot to death.

Conservative MP Ken Epp, who recently tabled private member’s bill C-484 called the “Unborn Victims of Crime Act,” said the legislation would create a new offence in the Criminal Code. The bill addresses a “huge gap” in law when a violent act is perpetrated against a woman who has chosen to carry the fetus to term, he said.

“This is a case when the woman has decided to have that child, and that choice has to be protected in law,” Epp said. “I’ve made no secret of the fact that I’m pro-life. But this bill goes very narrowly at one issue — where the woman has made the choice to have the child, and that choice is taken away unilaterally, without her consent and usually with violence.”

Seems like a no-brainer. Most people, I think, would agree attacking a pregnant woman is worse than attacking a man or a non-pregnant woman. It’s just one of these things everybody knows. Including, it would appear, the pro-abortion person the newspaper story had to quote.

Carolyn Egan, a spokeswoman for the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada, said the usual things about slippery slopes and women’s rights (as if the rights of women who actually want to keep their babies didn’t count), but then, in the words of the newspaper story, she “suggested a more appropriate way of dealing with such a serious crime is for the courts to impose a stiffer sentence for the perpetrator when the victim is pregnant.”

And nobody thought to ask her why. Why impose a stiffer sentence for the perpetrator when the victim is pregnant? Why should the justice system care about a clump of cells that, we insist, is NOT a person?

Meta