by Paul T
by Paul T
Doctors can often be the most influential figures for women who are confused and nervous about their unplanned pregnancy. Women see doctors as healers, role models, even important figures when they have no one else to turn to. These doctors, however, even under the Hippocratic oath, are often keen to suggest abortion as the first and only option for the woman seeking help. I seem to remember and quote one of the most important lines in the Hippocratic oath:
Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.
It seems to me this part of the oath remains as true to the doctor’s role now as it ever did. Isn’t the doctor the one who heals? The one who cures? The one who cares for patients? Let’s remember that pregnancy is not a disease, it is the natural reproductive cycle of the human species. Thus, terminating it is not curing anything. It’s not healing anything either, nor is it caring for the patients, the woman and child.
The doctor plays an essential role in the lives of men, women, and children, and his Hippocratic oath is explicit in its defence of life in all instances. The doctor’s role of curing, and healing, and protecting life can be no more evident in the role of delivery at childbirth. The doctor’s role of delivering the unborn child and handing it to the mother is a much different picture than that of the “doctor” who aspirates the unborn child into a machine, or dismembers it within the mother’s womb. It is up to us, as a just and responsible society, to stand up for the giving of life in all circumstances, and not to be turning a blind eye to “doctors” who recommend and perform the spilling of innocent blood.
by Paul T
There is a striking distinction to be made in recent political developments. The opposition parties are standing in full contrast against the government in regards to the funding of abortion in the G8 Maternal Health Package. The government, much to the relief of pro-lifers, is not backing down from its announced stance on rejecting funds for abortion in developing countries. These opposition parties are calling on the government to remain true to the “consensus” that has remained in Canada for 25 years. This “consensus” is supposedly pro-abortion, according to Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff.
I don’t think I could be any clearer; never, in the last 25 years of politics in Canada, has there been a “consensus” on abortion, for or against. Never has there been legal ground to promote or demote abortion services in Canada. The House of Commons had passed a bill intending to offer some legal framing in regards to abortion services shortly after the R. V. Morgentaler decision, but this legislation died in a Senate tie vote, effectively promoting a free roam on abortion services, for anyone who wanted them, at any time. What does this mean for pro-lifers and pro-choicers alike? More importantly, what does it mean for women, and their unborn children? It means a woman can receive an abortion at ANY stage in her pregnancy, even the moment before birth. The unborn child has no recognized status in the eyes of the government until it has FULLY exited the woman’s body.
Even more striking, there is no legal framing to protect women who may be coerced into having an abortion by their family, their boyfriend, or significant other, their doctor, or any person of influence in their lives. The result has been effectively a battleground over the woman’s body for anyone who wants to take part. We as a society have been so keen to give women this right to abortion, that we have completely looked past any commitment to protect women from the implications that this brings on to them by people of influence in their lives. Pro-choice activists are vehemently against any attempt to protect women in these vulnerable situations. This can be great ground to build off of as pro-lifers in an attempt to care for the woman and her unborn child at the same time.
by Paul T
This past Friday, Ottawa Students for Life hosted Andrea Mrozek from the popular blog “Pro-Woman, Pro-Life” to come and speak to students on how the pro-life position and a pro-woman stance converge on many different levels. Andrea started by simply stating the fact that having an abortion is in no way more associated with a woman’s femininity than in her choice to carry a child to term. The importance Mrozek associated between a woman’s biological identities against the common feminist current clearly illustrated a contrast between what women are told to believe, and what they want to believe. Mrozek noted 5 key points to why being pro-woman is perfectly in sync with the pro-life stance.
This brings a sharp new reality when trying to interpret Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff’s statements on the “availability of a full range of reproductive products to women” incorporated into Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s announcement on development of maternal health initiatives for the world’s poorest and most under-developed countries. Mr. Ignatieff seems to state, without any regard or respect towards the culture of life in many of these countries, that Canada has the right to take advantage of the frailty of some countries by imposing ideologically divisive ideals that aren’t even supported by a majority of people here at home, instead of supporting uniting collaborative action for the benefit of the entire society. This radical and extreme stance against life must be taken for what it’s worth, a shameless attempt to score political points off the lives of unborn children.
If you want to find out 5 reasons why being pro-life is being pro-woman, I encourage you to stay tuned for the video footage from Andrea’s talk that will appear on the blog soon.