An Australian woman was almost 19 weeks pregnant when she learned at a routine scan that her pre-born child was missing a hand. Medical professionals gave the couple information about prosthetic options and offered pre- and post-natal support to raise their child. However, the parents chose to end the life of this young girl. In fact, her being a girl was a factor in the decision to abort, as the parents explained that they “felt the cosmetic impact [of missing a hand] would be far greater for a girl.” Put another way, the parents thought the appearance of missing a hand would be harder for a girl than for a boy.
Tragedy for more than one
Every abortion is a tragedy. No justification is sufficient to do away with the tragedy and the reasons given are irrelevant to the pre-born child. And yet, being aborted for both a disability and because of sex represents an even greater tragedy. Not for the pre-born child, maybe, but certainly for the culture surrounding that child.
We often view abortion as being about individuals –the individual woman and her circumstances and the individual pre-born child. But there is a whole culture surrounding and impacting these individuals. Catherine Mills, a Professor in the Monash Bioethics Centre, tries to capture this in her article saying, “Reproductive autonomy is not exercised in a social vacuum; it is exercised only within the parameters set not only by law but also by social norms.” I would add that those social norms and law are likewise influenced by individual’s choices.
Normalcy and disability
Professor Mills is pro-abortion, but she wrestles with the abortion chosen in this story not out of concern for that specific pre-born child, but the broader impact of that decision. To give a concise summary of her argument, she suggests that living with one a hand can be normal. Not standard. Not normal in the sense of it being common to be missing a hand. But in a redefining of the concept of normalcy. Is a normal life defined by a certain ability? Or is a normal life defined by the way in which it is lived? Basing the concept of normalcy on standard ability will always favor the able-bodied and bar those missing a hand. But by refocusing the manner in which we value life by on the way life is lived or the relationships one has, you can see that every life has the capacity to be valuable gift both to the individual living it as well as to those around her. Based on this refocusing, Professor Mill concludes that the missing hand “does not provide justification for termination.”
Disability and sex
She doesn’t stop at just the missing hand, but goes on to discuss the inherent sexism as not a wholly separate issue from the disability. Rather, she says, “the ethics of termination for disability and sex selection remain distinct but nevertheless always recalls the other.” She sees the two issues as intertwining, which is especially apparent in these parents’ concern for the “cosmetic impact” of the missing hand because she was a girl and the way that “reveals the extent to which this decision – and perhaps others like it – was predicated on social stereotypes and norms, both about sex and gender and about disability.”
The stereotype in this case is being female necessarily includes a cosmetic component, and missing a hand detracts from that cosmetic component. To put it bluntly – girls should be pretty, and missing a hand is not pretty.
What the pro-life movement can learn
Professor Mill decries sexism and ableism as factors in the decision to abort, but misses the fact that these are natural symptoms of denying the humanity of the pre-born child. Selective terminations, whether for ability or sex or any other reason, ignore the human right to life.
While the pro-life movement understands the tragedy of every abortion, we are able to concern ourselves also more specifically with the ethical issues surrounding selective terminations. I like to think about it in terms of a puzzle. If you’re doing a jigsaw puzzle, there are two approaches that you can take. You can either look at the picture you are trying to construct and see how the individual pieces fit into it, or you can look at the individual pieces and try to see how the shapes and colours fit together, ignoring the bigger picture until the end. The humanity of the pre-born child, and the associated right to life, is the bigger picture that we want everyone to see. But helping someone see the harms of sex selective abortions, or abortions based on ableism, is helping them put together smaller pieces that will ultimately help build the bigger picture.
Stories like this one offend everyone who doesn’t fit the standard definition of “normal,” and rightly so. They offend everyone who fights against gender stereotypes and pressures to conform. We share stories like this in hopes of helping build the puzzle for those who do not yet see the full picture: that every life has value and deserves protection.
Dr. Stella is one of four remaining doctors in the US who openly perform third trimester abortions. In the documentary After Tiller she is very clear that abortion results in the death of a pre-born child. Funeral arrangements are shown, how to tell your family is discussed, and Dr. Stella has no issue using the term “baby.”
Yet she defends what she does in cases of fetal abnormality, explaining “I recognize what I do. And at times I struggle and at times I don’t. But I always come back to the woman and what she’s going through. And often what life will this baby have? What will it mean to be alive with horrific fetal abnormalities?”
Dr. Stella’s concern for what the woman is going through and what kind of life the child will have are both weighty considerations.
What is the woman going through?
I can only imagine the emotional turmoil caused by those dreaded words: “I am so sorry. There is something wrong with the baby.” Sarah Williams describes in Perfectly Human her experience when her third daughter, Cerian, was diagnosed with thanatophoric dysplasia – a lethal skeletal deformity. Cerian’s chest was too small to sustain the proper development of the lungs, meaning she likely would be unable to breathe after birth.
Within an hour of delivering this devastating news at an ultrasound appointment, the consultant was suggesting dates for termination seemingly as an obvious next step. In the United Kingdom, where Sarah lived, there is a gestational limit on abortion of 24 weeks, but she learned there was no such limit for Cerian because she had a fetal abnormality.
Fetal abnormalities can be serious, like in Cerian’s case, but the exception in the UK law has also been used for treatable conditions like cleft palate. The exception also includes those with Down syndrome. Abortion because of Down syndrome gained international notoriety after Iceland claimed in 2017 that they had eradicated Down syndrome – not by eliminating the condition, but by eliminating the people with the condition. One woman in Canada was even told that abortion was the only cure for Down syndrome.
Fetal abnormalities generally, and Down syndrome specifically, have gone from an exception in abortion laws to an expectation of abortion.
In the state of shock and grief resulting from an unexpected diagnosis, parents talk of the struggle to see their child as a person rather than a condition. The pressure from trusted medical professionals only adds to their burden. When Dr. Stella talks about being concerned about the women, is she concerned about what information was given along with the diagnosis or whether she was pressured to terminate? Does Dr. Stella ever tell a woman that she could continue her pregnancy and find the strength and support to raise a child with a disability?
What life will this baby have?
It is not just the parents that Dr. Stella is concerned about, but also “what will it mean to be alive with horrific fetal abnormalities?” Disabilities or genetic conditions unquestionably come with challenges. While many with Down syndrome live healthy, well-rounded lives, others face significant health and developmental challenges. Do challenges, pain, or suffering justify Dr. Stella’s position?
The reality is Dr. Stella does not know what life will be like for any given child. Sarah’s husband, Paul, was told that the statistical chances that his daughter would live with thanatophoric dysplasia was 1%. After questioning further, Paul discovered that statistic was based on a study of only 35 cases. Furthermore, of those 35 cases, 22 of them were terminated. We do not know what the lives of those 22 aborted children would be like.
This lack of information is an issue with many fetal abnormalities used to justify late term abortions. Brandon Bosma’s parents were told that his condition of Trisomy 18 meant he was “incompatible with life” and many with the condition are given a DNR – “do not resuscitate” – order and denied medical care. And yet, defying these labels, Brandon lives a full life as an international speaker and advocate for those living while being “incompatible with life.”
What is the quality and importance of these lives?
All this is not to minimize the very real hardships that Cerian faced and that Brandon still faces today. The question is, how do we value those who face these challenges?
The Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada draws this conclusion: “Being disabled, in and of itself, is not necessarily related to the quality and importance of life. Once born, the disabled have rights like everyone else, and very often lead full, productive lives. On the other hand,…especially the severely disabled, depend upon the care of others. Such care consumes substantial time and resources on the part of the caregiver.”
This pro-abortion organization holds up an ideal of an independent, productive, healthy person. In their view, someone with a disability might be able to mimic that ideal, giving their life quality and importance. But for the weak, the dependent, the suffering – their lives do not have the same quality or importance. By attempting to devalue pre-born children with disabilities, the pro-abortion narrative devalues all born people with disabilities. They grant that you are unable to end the life of a born child with a disability, but support doing so before she is born to avoid the sacrifice of “time and resources on the part of the caregiver.” What a tragic, ableist, and consumerist approach to humanity.
A life tragically cut short
The Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada’s last reason to allow abortion for fetal abnormalities is to avoid “much heartache and trauma, especially where a child’s life may be cut tragically short because of the illness or disability.” They point to short lives like Cerian’s who, despite evading an appointment with an abortionist, passed away shortly before her birth. They ignore that abortion would have only tragically cut her life shorter.
Not only does abortion cut that life shorter, it ends that life in a brutal fashion. Watching After Tiller you will notice that Dr. Stella explains why she does third trimester abortions, but never shows what she does. A third trimester abortion is a painful, brutal process for both the woman and the child. Dr. Stella’s concern for “what life this baby will have” needs to be juxtaposed by what death this baby will have.
Principle versus the person
Sarah was pro-life before she got the news of Cerian’s condition, but she describes the turmoil she went through deciding whether to terminate or not. The principles she held seemed insufficient when she faced the real situation. As the pregnancy progressed, however, Sarah gained strength in her faith and the call she felt to love Cerian no matter how long she had to do so. And it was that call and that perspective that carried her through.
A doctor asked Sarah, “Did you decide not to have a termination on strong religious grounds?” Sarah instinctively responded, “Cerian is not a strong religious principle or a rule that compels me to make hard and fast ethical decisions. She is a beautiful person who is teaching me to love the vulnerable, treasure the unlovely, and face fear with dignity and hope.”
Sarah saw the person Cerian was. Although Cerian did not live past her birth, never spoke to her parents, never went to school, and never had a job, Cerian was loved and valued. Sarah and her family recognized Cerian for the unique human being that she was and strove to love her every day they had with her.
What a difference it would make if we adopted Sarah’s approach as a culture. Rather than immediately offering abortion, what if doctors immediately offered to do everything to help both woman and baby. Rather than focusing on a condition, what if we affirmed the humanity and dignity of every pre-born child. What if we strove to love children like Cerian no matter how few their days, rather than tragically cutting that life short by abortion.
In all but one of the opinion polls publicly available since 2010, a majority of Canadians support at least some law regulating abortion.
Are Canadians pro-choice?
If you look at the polls that ask whether abortion is permissible (i.e. whether you always support a woman’s choice) the numbers are much closer, with an average of 48% supporting a choice at any point, 46% only supporting sometimes, and 5% unsure.
How can we interpret these results? With opinion polls it is always important to look at the methodology, what questions are being asked and who is being asked. For example, if you ask the average Canadian their opinions on abortion you must remember that (according to one poll) 77% of Canadians are unaware that Canada has no abortion law. Saying you support a women’s right to choose may mean something very different if you are assuming a woman can’t legally have a third trimester abortion.
The 2020 Dart poll is an excellent example of this. In that poll 71% believe a woman should be able to get an abortion for whatever reason, but at the same time 70% of Canadians think abortion should be illegal in the last trimester and 84% supported a law against sex selective abortion.
This illustrates the difference of being asked “Do you support women?” versus “Do you support the termination of a 24-week old fetus who is viable and can feel pain?” or “Do you support abortion targeting a pre-born child because of her sex?” It may feel good to affirm the first question, but uncomfortable when faced with what this means to the pre-born in the second questions.
Prominent pro-abortion activist Joyce Arthur acknowledges this saying, “Virtually everyone supports “freedom” and “privacy” so a large majority of people will agree that women should have both. But if specific questions are asked about exactly when fetal life should be protected, women’s so-called “complete freedom” to have abortions appears to take a sudden nosedive.” Abortion becomes far less palatable when you are faced with the reality of what it does to a pre-born human.
If you really want to know your opinion on abortion, consider the following:
- Do you know that Canada is the only democratic country with no law on abortion?
- Since Canada has no abortion law, do you think it is okay that abortions occur in the last trimester with no legal restrictions?
- Given questions 1 & 2, do you really think any choice a woman makes regarding her pre-born child should be legal?
If you’re not comfortable answering these questions in the affirmative, look at our International Standards Law as a solution. This proposed law would bring Canada in line with all other democratic countries in protecting pre-born children after 13-weeks gestation. It would also allow a waiting period for women seeking an abortion, along with independent counselling to ensure proper informed consent and to screen for coercion or abuse. It’s time we acknowledge that abortion is not only about women, but also about pre-born human beings. It’s time for a law that protects them, while supporting the women who carry them.
Links to opinion polls referenced in tables:
2010 Ipsos Reid
2011 AbacusData
2011 Environics
2012 Forum Research
2012 Postmedia
2012 Angus Reid
2013 Environics
2013 Angus Reid
2017 Ipsos Reid
2018 Angus Reid
2020 DART
In 2018, when we ran our “Canada has no abortion laws” billboard campaign, the result was surprise and incredulity. Surely, people say, there must be a law. It’s a fact most Canadians (up to 80%) don’t know, and something they really need to know when considering where they stand on abortion. When polls indicate that the majority of Canadians are satisfied with our current abortion policies, what does this mean, if the vast majority don’t even know what our current policies are (or, in our case, aren’t)?
Many Canadians believe abortion is only done in the early stages of pregnancy, and they’re okay with that. We aren’t okay with that, but we can generally agree that once a fetus is viable, around 23 weeks or so, they should not be aborted for the same circumstantial reasons used to justify earlier abortions.
Late-term abortion forces people to face the humanity of a pre-born child, and the brutal methods by which abortion is accomplished at this stage. With a pre-born child too large to abort easily, late-term abortions involve multi-day dilation, fetal dismemberment, lethal injections, and inspecting a pile of recognizable body parts to make sure everything came out.
It’s no wonder most doctors want no part in this, one of the main challenges to increasing access.
When we look for common ground with those who support abortion, late-term abortion regularly tops the list. Let’s have this discussion, and talk about exactly when life deserves protection.
]]>
Many in Canada were surprised by the acceptance of the law in New York, but, in a video from the Christian Association of Pregnancy Support Services (CAPPS), Dr. Laura Lewis points out that it makes New York no different from Canada. With no abortion law in Canada’s criminal code, viable babies can be aborted at any point if a doctor is found willing to do it.
It is important to note, in the context of late-term abortion, that there is no medical reason to abort a baby in the third trimester to save the life of the mother. If health concerns arose, the baby could be delivered prematurely and cared for in the best way possible, a much different approach than deliberately killing the baby in the womb.
Dr. Lewis also stresses the caution needed in assuming the value of a human life based on a prenatal diagnosis. These diagnoses, which generally come to light later in pregnancy, are often the reason cited for choosing late-term abortion. This vastly underestimates the contributions and lives of those with disabilities, as well as ignoring the high rate of inaccurate diagnoses.
Canadians should never look at New York and feel superior. We set the example they chose to follow, of complete disregard for human life in the womb. There is no good reason for this disregard there, and no good reason for it here. That is why we continue working to change hearts and minds on the value of human life in its earliest stages, and to impress on our elected leaders their responsibility to defend children in the womb.
Read our position paper on why abortion is never medically necessary, and should never be considered health care.
]]>Bernier is the latest high-profile politician in the past few weeks to outline their perspectives on the legality of abortion.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who has never missed an opportunity to reiterate his pro-abortion stance, initiated much of the current national conversation with a fundraising letter appealing with Liberal donations as a response to the participation of a dozen Conservative MPs in the National March for Life in Ottawa.
Speaking of those Conservative MPs, they should be applauded for publicly taking a stand in support of pre-born human rights. Their courage is not without opposition – both from within and outside of their political party.
And let’s not forget the three MPPs who spoke at the March for Life in Toronto. They incurred the wrath of abortion fanatics, with two having their offices targeted by protestors. We encourage you to send Christina Mitas, Willem Bouma, and Sam Oosterhoff a note of encouragement to stand strong for the pro-life cause.
The abortion debate continues, further than ever from being a closed issue.
Note: We Need a Law is non-partisan, meaning we do not support or oppose any political party or candidate. We exist to mobilize Canadians and politicians for the purpose of passing laws protecting pre-born children. Whenever the legal status of pre-born children and abortion regulations reaches the headlines in the mainstream media, we take notice and encourage those politicians who positively advance the conversation.
]]>______________________________________________________________
Working in the part of the pro-life movement that supports women facing a crisis pregnancy, I often receive comments like, “This is what the pro-life movement needs – people actually helping women instead of trying to make policies or laws about abortion.”
Here’s why I think that’s wrong.
Though I (obviously) agree that helping women is vital, we do still need a law. You can offer a woman all the help and support in the world and she can still turn around and abort her baby at any stage, because abortion is always an option. We need actual legal protection for our tiniest members because that’s what every human being deserves. A child’s right to life shouldn’t depend on the circumstances of his or her mother, or the amount of support and help she receives. A child’s right to life should be protected by the law because babies in the womb are human beings.
To be honest, I’m writing angry. I’m writing having just found out that a woman I’ve been in contact with for many weeks decided to go and abort her baby at 16 weeks. I’m angry because the abortion procedure of a second trimester fetus is gory and brutal and unfathomable and I’m just heartbroken that this little baby met such a gruesome death. I’m angry because this woman was offered all kinds of support to be able to parent her baby: housing needs, clothing, baby equipment, counselling…the list goes on. We had also discussed adoption as an option. But despite all the help and support she was given, she still turned around and had her baby killed.
This is why we need a law.
The ‘helping pregnant women’ segment of the pro-life movement isn’t going to close-up shop when Canada finally introduces an abortion law; we will be more necessary than ever. We will continue to help mothers and fathers and children during pregnancy, and for years after the baby is born. The only difference will be that killing babies won’t be an option anymore.
And so, as someone working on the front lines with women in crisis, I stand in full support of the work the political pro-life organizations are doing, because every life should be protected by law.
To ‘Baby E’, I’m sorry our legal system failed you.
As Maloney herself notes, there is much speculation about why and how these deaths happen. The sources listed on her blog give us numbers but they don’t tell us how or why these children died after a failed abortion, and why this is still considered an abortion rather than a stillbirth or murder.
But ignoring the issue because of the gray areas will never gain us more clarity. We have a pretty terrible reporting system around abortion. Hospitals report their abortion-related data, but they perform only about a quarter of the approximately 100,000 abortions that occur annually in Canada. Private clinics take care of the remaining 75%, but they are not required to report their data on anything from gestational age at the time of abortion to complications that followed.
To be clear, most late-term abortions are performed in hospitals, and so recorded. Clinics generally do not perform abortions after the first trimester. It is also likely that many of these children suffered from diseases or abnormalities that resulted in a quick death after birth, or their hearts were injected with something intended to kill them prior to birth which took effect shortly after. However, until we know for sure with proper records, these vague and horrifying numbers will have no context and there will be no criminal consequences for potentially real criminal acts.
Our Criminal Code is very clear that pre-born children are not considered persons under the law until they have proceeded, in a living state, from the body of the mother. At this point, after exiting the ‘magical birth canal’ as one viral video calls it, the child has full human rights. The death of a child that proceeded in a living state from its mother may be called a failed abortion, but the rights conferred on that child at birth should stand.
So should these deaths be called abortions? Is medically-induced delivery of a baby prior to its due date with the intention of letting it die abortion? We would argue it is not, in terms of statistics. Killing a child in the womb and removing the pieces is abortion. This forced delivery without intent to save falls more to the line of infanticide.
Most presume these late-term abortions happen because a fatal abnormality or disability has been detected by ultrasound. This may occasionally be the case, but it is just as likely that the disability is simply unwanted. This could be anything from Trisomy 18 to Down Syndrome to a cleft palate.
It seems we allow children born alive to die without intervention because they are not, for whatever reason, wanted anymore. Often these babies start off wanted, and it is devastating to their parents to discover their child will not be what they hoped and dreamed. We don’t want to minimize the grieving that can accompany a late-term prenatal diagnosis. But neither can we minimize the reality that the diagnosis changes a wanted child to an unwanted one on the whim of the parents. The humanity of the child doesn’t change, but the value placed on her does.
This has an impact on all Canadians who have, or live with, or know someone with, a disability or abnormality. This is a form of ableism that determines the value of a life by comparing it with a subjective ideal.
In Canada, we claim to be a leader in human rights, yet we allow pre-born humans to be aborted because they are girls, because they have a cleft palate, or because they have Down syndrome. Polls show that close to 80% of Canadians assume we have laws limiting abortion at some point in pregnancy. Those Canadians do not believe things like this could happen in Canada, and abortion activists and the media certainly aren’t doing anything to disillusion them.
Every other democracy in the world has some legal protections for children in the womb; Canada does not. Let’s have the discussion. Let’s insist on statistics that account properly for a child’s birth and death. Let’s say there are things which are simply not okay.
In discussing abortion Peterson is clear that it is morally wrong. He calls out politicians for their weak approach to the issue, leaving it in the hands of the courts rather than taking responsibility and action.
It is interesting to see Peterson call for a poll of Canadians to find common ground where abortion regulation can start. Most Canadians, he says, likely do not support abortion at 9 months gestation. It would be simple, he continues, for the government to roll out a variety of legislative propositions and see what people think.
We are already aware from past polls that there is little approval for sex-selective abortion, lack of recognition for pre-born victims of crime, and late-term abortions. This indicates a majority of Canadians do not support the status quo of open access to abortion for any reason.
The majority of democratic nations regulate abortion after the first trimester, and it is this standard which our International Standards Law is modeled after. These regulations include access to counseling and waiting periods, to ensure women are not coerced or pressured, and are giving fully informed consent. Comprehensive polling and legislative propositions from the government would be a bold move, an indication that they are willing to tackle this issue head-on and find common ground to build on.
Free speech is very much at stake in Canada, and the pro-life movement is a popular target. Bubble zones are being implemented around abortion clinics, preventing positive pro-life messages from reaching women seeking abortions. Advertisements are being judged inaccurate and demeaning despite conveying truth. It is more important than ever that we refuse to be silenced. Instead, we must continue to speak up, to seek common ground with our fellow Canadians, and to take steps that will protect the most vulnerable members of the human family.
The whole interview is very interesting, but you can start around 27 minutes to catch his thoughts on abortion.
]]>Of course, it is also true that many elected lawmakers view pre-born children as a political liability and this has most certainly contributed to a thirty-year void when it comes to regulating abortion in Canada. But we do need to acknowledge that the pro-life movement carries some of the responsibility for the political failures in the past three decades. Yet, in the six years our organization has been active, we see plenty of reason for hope!
Breakenridge asserts that
“[t]he pro-life movement seems to be holding out for an unattainable goal of classifying abortion as murder and ending it altogether, rather than focusing on a much more reasonable and attainable goal of reducing the number of abortions.
While polls show that most Canadians support a woman’s right to choose, it doesn’t mean that Canadians are enthusiastically pro-abortion. A goal of a lower abortion rate would have a fairly broad appeal and support. And it’s one the pro-life movement will never embrace.”
With these two short paragraphs Breakenridge shows he is dead wrong.
A growing part of the pro-life movement recognizes that the all-or-nothing approach has resulted in exactly that – nothing. New, young, politically-motivated pro-lifers are embracing opportunities to reduce the abortion rate. Our organization, We Need a Law, advocates for incremental laws that focus on the common ground the majority of Canadians stand on in this debate. We understand that it’s better to save some than none.
By working on bills that, at the very least, would bring Canada into line with nearly every other democracy in the world when it comes to regulating abortion, we are focusing on prudence, wisdom, and a heartfelt desire to protect as many pre-born children as we can. Even if these bills do not pass the first time around polls indicate that there is a broad base of support for some abortion regulations. For example, banning sex-selective abortion, which typically targets girls, would have support from more than 90% of Canadians. We also believe, with the majority of Canadians, that pre-born children who are killed in an act of violent crime, such as murder or assault of the mother, should be viewed as victims. Another area we focus is the gestational age at which abortion can no longer occur. Approximately 80% of Canadians mistakenly believe we have law that prohibits late-term abortion, and are shocked to discover abortion is legal through all 9 months of pregnancy.
We have studied abortion laws in other countries and are inspired by democratic nations similar to ours such as Germany, France and Spain. These, and many others, limit abortion to the first trimester, and offer counseling and time for a woman to make the challenging decision about abortion.
We hear over and over again how many women felt like abortion was their “only choice” – that’s not a choice at all, and something the pro-abortion movement should be equally concerned about. We all care about women. The difference is that pro-lifers also care about children.
