Tag Archives: abortion politics

A Wrong Step in the Right Direction

by Kate Larson

According to an article I came across recently, the state of Arizona has just banned abortions performed because of a baby’s race or gender. While I rejoice at anything that could save lives, I fear this will not do so. In fact, I feel it will be ineffective on two fronts: that of doing what it is meant to and that of leading to a more comprehensive ban.

According to the article, the legislation will lead to criminal charges for doctors who are found to have performed abortions because of a baby’s race or gender. However, it will not explicitly require women seeking abortions to give their reasons. Therefore, how could it be proven that an abortion was performed on such grounds? Even if women were required to disclose their reasons, what would stop them from stating reasons other than the ones they know to be against the law? No reasons, other then medical ones, can really be verified. What’s more, a doctor’s intentions would be difficult to prove.

As for this legislation leading to a more comprehensive ban, it is unclear whether that is the intention. The article quotes a spokesperson for the governor saying that the legislation is “consistent with her pro-life track record” but also claims that the ban’s supporters feel it has more to do with racial bias than with abortion. I would hope that it would preface further anti-abortion legislation, but I cannot see how it could as it misses the main thrust of the pro-life position, which is that the pre-born child is a living human and, as such, should not be killed for any reason. It has inherent value, and, as with any other human being outside of the womb, its size, age, ability, or, indeed, gender or race do not decrease or increase its value. Banning only abortions performed because of gender or race implies that, while these reasons for aborting are not acceptable, other reasons are. Basing legislation on this false premise does not bode well for further legislation.

Despite this ban being, in my opinion, completely ineffective, it seems to be well-meaning. Both its good intentions and its wrong-headedness emphasize to me the need for pro-life groups, like uOSFL, to continue to engage future leaders with their information and events. The more people are given complete information and inspired to stand up for their convictions, the more good intentions may translate into appropriate and effective policy.

Advertisements

How to Support Roxanne’s Law

A vote on Roxanne’s Law will be held on Wednesday, December 15, in the House of Commons. The goal of Bill C-510 is to provide legal protection for women who are being coerced into having an unwanted abortion. There are a few things we can do to show our support for this worthy initiative. First, write to your MP to let him or her know that you support the bill. You can use sample letters or print off and mail in a postcard. Next, sign the online petition. And then make a video! Click here for straightforward guidelines and see the sample above for inspiration. (The project is led by a religious group but all are invited to participate.) Don’t delay in showing your support!

Views on Abortion

by Marissa Poisson

I don’t watch The View, but I stumbled across a clip from Monday’s show. It raises interesting questions about technology’s role in the pro-life movement and how women’s feelings about their abortions may change after some years have passed.

Unsafe, Legal and Wrong

by Marissa Poisson

An Ontario judge ruled on Tuesday that Criminal Code laws against keeping a common bawdy house, living on the avails of prostitution and communicating for the purpose of prostitution violated women’s Charter rights to freedom of expression and security of the person. (Prostitution is not illegal in Canada, but many of the activities associated with it are. Both the federal and provincial governments announced they will appeal the decision.)

What does this have to do with abortion? Firstly, I would say that proponents of prostitution and abortion have in common the idea that legalizing something dangerous makes it safe. Prostitution may become less hidden if the decision survives the appeals, but exploitation does not become safe by virtue of being legal. Similarly, legalized abortion does not change the nature of the procedure. It may be done in government-funded clinics now, but it is still chemically toxic or physically invasive for the woman undergoing it and deadly for her child.

Secondly, I’ve never met a little girl who says she wants to be a prostitute or have an abortion when she grows up. Women are driven to these things by desperation. A few vocal women may claim to be thriving as prostitutes, but most are addicted to drugs, undereducated and abused, and some are victims of human trafficking. Abortion, for its part, is sometimes used to cover up sexual abuse of minors and illicit relationships, and many women feel pressured to abort by outside expectations.

Thirdly, legal is not synonymous with moral. We don’t have to look far in history to find examples of this. Rulings on abortion and prostitution have been based on security of the person, but the safest thing would be for people to stay far away from both. We need to work to eliminate the conditions that lead women to these supposed choices because no legal ruling can make right what is inherently wrong.

What’s the Difference?

by Reita S.

We live in a mixed up world. We always have. There has always been evil in this world. There always will be. But it seems to me that a large part of this evil comes from losing track of the important things in this life.

When people begin to think that their own socio-economic betterment comes above justice for their fellows, then oppression follows. When people forget that religion is meant to bring a message of peace and love, they force it on others with threats and violence. When people forget they were not destined to be kings of all the rest of the earth, then colonialism and slavery result.

Today, we think we have learned those lessons. Today, we don’t believe that anymore. (Or so we tell ourselves.) In Utah, a man faces years in prison over the (accidental) death of a kitten. Animal activist leagues are pushing for a jail term. One activist said, “I think people tend to not think of them [cats] as beings that have a soul and a nervous system. They can still feel.”

So, tell me what kind of society we are that wants to send a man to jail for the accidental death of a cat, but will applaud at the ‘woman’s right to choose’? Don’t people realise that the woman has the right to choose whether or not to kill her child?

How is it that the demonstrated living nature, genetic uniqueness, and ability to feel pain of the unborn child is brushed aside, yet the cat’s ‘soul and nervous system’ should be a compelling argument?

I don’t know why there are thousands of children languishing in inadequate foster homes and orphanages, but people will leave billions of dollars to dog shelters.

I believe strongly in responsible pet ownership. I believe in caring for animals. But at the end of the day, why is it okay to kill a human child at any point of pregnancy for any reason whatsoever, but a criminal act to harm a cat or dog? Why is the human child of such little significance? Can someone tell me the difference?

The 10 lies we tell (supposedly)

by Elizabeth Tanguay

As I was trying to find the uOSFL group on Parliament Hill while at the March for Life, pro-choicers were handing out pamphlets entitled, “10 Lies that Anti-Choice groups are telling you about abortion.” I kept it because I figured it needs to be refuted. Eventually I plan to write a rebuttal and send it back to them (studies and all), but for now here it is as some “food for thought”.

Here is the pamphlet from the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada (ARCC).

To contact them about their pamphlet:

info@arcc-cdac.ca

ARCC-CDAC
P.O. Box 2663
Station Main, Vancouver, BC
V6B 3W3

On a completely different note, sign up to support this excellent documentary that is having its premiere in New York this week: Blood Money Film.