The call for increased education on abortion is led by a minority of medical students, and abortion activists behind them, who believe that access to abortion is a necessity when it comes to medical care. In fact, abortion as a necessity is a social construct, not a fact of medicine.
And it seems it’s not as hard to destroy life as it is to save life – these apparently untrained family doctors perform the majority of therapeutic abortions in Canada. Presumably it would be of utmost concern if it was discovered, for instance, that most brain surgeons had received zero training in brain surgery. As with most discussions on abortion, however, the media gets stuck on easy access and forgets about protections for women, children, and basic human rights.
To be clear, if doctors are performing abortions, we certainly hope they are well-trained in the procedure, as there is no need for TWO people to die as a result of this “choice.” But the fact remains that well-trained abortion providers are well-trained in the art of killing new life.
It makes good sense that, despite high rates of abortion in Canada, medical schools are not focusing on it in their curriculum. In medical school, with its historical focus on healing and saving lives, the majority of students do not want to study, or specialize in, abortion. Hopefully medical schools will continue to focus on top quality training in life-saving procedures, not bow to political pressure to incorporate life-ending techniques into their definition of medical care.
Schuyler’s comments come as Degrassi is set to air its third season. In it they will confront abortion, refugees, and “scary right-wing thinking.” In an episode called #IRegretNothing Lola Pacini, a 16-year old character on the show, will be featured having an abortion. Victoria Ahearn of the Canadian Press interviewed Schuyler who is quoted as saying, “We’re very much influenced by what’s going on in the world, there’s no question.” This would lead the reader to believe that the only reason they include such a “divisive topic” on their show is because of what’s going on in the world – as though 16-year old girls are publicly celebrating their abortions all the time – and they are only catching up. Except that’s not really what’s going on. Amanda Arcuri who plays Lolo Pacini in the show told Ms. Ahearn that, “I’m happy that the writers gave me this opportunity to portray it [abortion] and help young girls.” Degrassi’s producers are clearly trying to destigmatize abortion and normalize it for teens.
In spite of Degrassi and the efforts of other abortion advocates to portray abortion as something to celebrate we can be sure that it will always remain divisive. This is not because of “right-wing, scary thinking” but rather, because of the scientific reality that abortion takes the life of a human being, and that abortion is contrary to the created order in which a mother’s natural instinct is to care for her young.
The pro-life response to Degrassi’s ploy is not to demonize the show or its characters but to continue displaying the humanity of the pre-born child and doing everything we can to build support for laws that protect them.
]]>
Dr. Morin. Photo credit: Albert Olive/EPA
Obviously, we believe there should be a law against late-term abortions first and foremost to protect pre-born children. There is no doubt that these are feeling human beings, and even the pro-abortion advocates do not deny their humanity at this point. They simply believe that these pre-born babies are less valuable humans because of their location and dependent state. But alongside protecting pre-born children, a late-term abortion law also criminalizes doctors and clinics who capitalize on desperation in such a proud, callous way.
There is a persistent fear that any law criminalizing abortion targets women who are low income, abused, or otherwise desperate not to have a baby. The goal of such laws, however, is to protect such desperate women from those who would take advantage of them, and to create a society where we must have supports and safeguards in place for these vulnerable women.
Continuing to allow abortion in no way protects vulnerable women, or future generations of vulnerable women. Rather, it allows us to stay trapped in a vicious cycle where our most desperate and most vulnerable stay exactly that.
Criminalizing abortion cannot be done in a vacuum. It must be done out of true respect for life, the lives of both mother and child. We cannot respect the lives of pre-born children, yet tell women they will lose their jobs, their homes, or their social support if they choose to keep their baby. To be pro-life is to fight for pre-born children and for women, to value both equally and to insist on care that allows both not only to live, but also to thrive.
The legal action by Abortion Access Now, and the frenzied support of Ms. Dwivedi, shows that some Canadians are completely out of touch with the majority who understand and accept that, even with a top-notch health care system, not every single medical procedure will be available in every single area of the country.
Here is why I was quite properly annoyed by this outlandish demand. Three days into our annual winter vacation, my husband and I were sitting in an emergency room of a remote hospital in northern British Columbia waiting for a nurse to call a doctor out of bed to come look at our son. He was lying on a gurney, writhing in pain, while we waited anxiously for medical help.
After a series of tests, it was determined that he had a ruptured appendix and the infectious contents had abscessed in his lower abdomen. The doctor informed us that he required immediate surgery and, because there was no surgical team nearby, they had to fly him 684 kilometers to BC Children’s Hospital in Vancouver.
As we waited to be flown to Vancouver for life-saving treatment, the air ambulance was delayed because a patient with a head injury from Kamloops also required emergency evacuation, as they didn’t have a neurosurgeon available in that city. In two small British Columbia cities, holidays were cut short by medical emergencies requiring significant travel for necessary treatment. We waited our turn.
When I eventually arrived home from the hospital and found out that this group of PEI activists felt they were entitled to expanded access to abortion I was rightfully upset. In fact, I am tired of abortion advocates demanding all Canadians support their fabricated right to an abortion. The Morgentaler decision, which Ms. Dwivedi refers to throughout her diatribe, did not give women a right to abortion. The reality is that the Supreme Court judges recommended that Parliament take steps to protect the rights of pre-born children at some stage of pregnancy. That was twenty-eight years ago. It’s about time we did something about it.
There is no consensus among physicians’ groups that abortion is medically necessary. Yet, every Canadian province funds it, including PEI (the service is just not available on the island itself). In the face of truly necessary medical services, feminists have nothing to complain about. To quote Sarah MacDonald, provincial pro-life coordinator in PEI, “There is a great need in our province for medically necessary services, such as trauma care, cancer treatment, surgical care and more. Why aren’t these activists suing the government to increase access to these services?”
Our family’s vacation was cut short by a medical emergency requiring an unscheduled flight in an air ambulance to a distant hospital for immediate medical attention. We are not bitter, and we certainly aren’t demanding that surgical teams be established throughout northern B.C. for our convenience. Universal health care is a pillar of Canadian society and we are thankful to live in a country that takes the health of its citizens seriously.
The majority of Canadians understand and accept that, for our top-notch health system to work for everyone, not every single medical procedure can be available in every single area of the country.
By Jennifer Schouten, a proud mom and Canadian who doesn’t need the government to provide everything for her.
]]>The reality is abortion is already legal. Even if there is no abortion law, abortion remains legal. Adding restrictions doesn’t make it legal, nor does it make abortion more legal. Some of what was legal is now made illegal (e.g., abortion after 12 or 18 weeks’ gestation), thereby saving some lives and limiting evil. That is exactly what the Bible calls the State to do – to limit evil.
Some might object, “Wouldn’t a law prohibiting abortions after a certain number of weeks arbitrarily divide humans into ‘protected’ and ‘unprotected’ classes?” The continuum of human life begins at fertilization and ends at natural death. Currently under Canadian law only “born” humans have protection, so our law today already divides humans into “protected” and “unprotected” classes.
Therefore, if the law was changed to reflect increased protection by extending it to “pre-born” humans from 12 or 18 weeks to birth, then fewer babies would fall under the unprotected class, thus limiting the injustice of abortion.
]]>Here is a quote from Renate Klein’s book found in this post from Ms. Maloney. It sheds light on the question as to why RU-486 is so blindly promoted by abortion advocates.
Another myth is that RU-486 will make it easier for women to end their pregnancies in remote areas where access to a hospital is scarce. But, as Ms. Maloney explains here the side effects can be so severe that an emergency room is mandatory.
Confused? So are many Canadians. That is why we encourage you to check out Ms. Maloney’s blog. Starting here.
]]>
Proponents of taxpayer funded abortion on demand are selfish and it’s about time they were called on it.
Ms. Mrozek says,
“If I had gotten pregnant when I was in my 20s, I would have felt that my career was more important. Today, I realize how problematic that philosophy can be. It’s a philosophy that allows women to trample on others — including their own children — to pursue other goals. It’s a philosophy that tells women and men that they have the right to put themselves at the centre of the universe.
In short, it’s selfish. We are told that such selfishness is a virtue. Finishing university offers the virtue of making a real contribution to the world, which, we are implicitly told, having children is not.”
You can read the rest of her piece here.
]]>
Faye Sonier, in a recent blog post on our website asks,
If abortion is truly a personal choice, how on earth can it also be medically necessary?
It’s a good question for abortion rights activists to grapple with. Well today I came across this piece where a university professor attempts to define “medically necessary” by saying,
We should recognize and respect that when a woman wants an abortion, it is a medically necessary procedure.
Seriously? This is the kind of dribble we get from academia?
What’s next? Maybe if a two-year old is causing a woman undue psychological trauma she should be allowed to have him or her dispensed as well – because it’s medically necessary.
The trouble with this argument from abortion proponents is that it completely ignores science and logic. Using this understanding of what you can or can’t do would justify almost any behaviour. In fact, history shows that many things were justified by calling them necessary. Consider William Wilberforce. His campaign to abolish slavery was constantly opposed by those who argued that slaves were necessary for the economic wellbeing of Britain.
No matter what side of the abortion conversation you are on, it is fundamental that you remain intellectually honest. In an abortion procedure there are two human beings involved. There is no way a truthful understanding of human rights would allow for the termination of the more vulnerable of the two simply because the stronger one deemed it “medically necessary.”
]]>The Maritimes have certainly become ground zero. If you want to help pro-lifers stand their ground in New Brunswick please send this email to government officials.
Maternal health is at stake in New Brunswick. Regulation 84-20 which stipulates that an abortion can only be publicly funded if it is performed in a hospital after two doctors have certified in writing that it is medically necessary is, as I said to Ms. Boesveld,
Better care for women than we see in other provinces where there are no such requirements in place.
As I wrote here, the requirements in New Brunswick that a women seeking to have her abortion paid for with public money are a step in the right direction.
Take a moment to have your say by clicking here.
]]>The British Columbia Health Ministry has admitted that the remains of babies destroyed by abortion in B.C. facilities are ending up in a waste-to-power facility in the United States, providing electricity for residents of Oregon.
Please contact Premier Christy Clark and Minister of Health Terry Lake
Contact:
Hon. Christy Clark
Premier
250-387-1715
premier@gov.bc.ca
Hon. Terry Lake
Minister of Health
250 953-3547
hlth.minister@gov.bc.ca