Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is hoping to improve relationships with China because, quite frankly, we want to do business with them. Unfortunately, China isn’t known for its glowing human rights record, and many Canadians consider this a problem. The fact that we consider this a problem is, I think, a beautiful reflection on a nation that is unwilling to compromise its values and priorities just to make a few bucks and end a recession here or there.

In an attempt to address these concerns without alienating the Chinese superpower, Trudeau brought up their human rights track record with a healthy helping of humility. He admitted, according to the CBC, that Canada cannot claim perfection on its own human rights track record. The scathing report on our missing and murdered Indigenous women was mentioned, a fair admission. What Trudeau failed to mention, however, to a nation whose one-child policy caused untold sorrow and death, was Canada’s similar shame in its despicable treatment of pre-born children.

Our government may not be forcibly aborting children, or openly threatening families with the loss of a job, a home, or future prospects if they choose to keep their child, but are our policies really any better? Unrestricted abortion is a subtle way for our government to give women the very same choice between socially stigmatized struggle and socially celebrated success.

Women are encouraged to have abortions when the timing is bad, or if their career could be impacted. They are told that they cannot have both a baby and a successful career, while simultaneously being told that career stability is more important, more valuable, and will get them more respect than choosing motherhood. Abortion is seen as a solution when your partner is abusive and you don’t want him to have a reason to make you stay in touch with him, and it is seen as a way out when a night of fun with a man you’ve only just met has unexpected consequences. Abortion is somehow seen as a solution to the violent crimes of rape and incest, and also as a way to eliminate disability and so to subtly discriminate against the born disabled among us. Teen pregnancy continues to be closely linked to single parenthood, and 21% of single women in Canada raise their children in poverty.

All of these examples show abortion being used as a bandage for much more significant issues, and a cover-up for damaging social norms and expectations. Rather than liberate a woman, abortion kills her child and tells her she is better off. In China, abortion kills her child and tells her the whole nation is better off. 

Abortion on demand is not solving problems any more than abortion by demand. Prime Minister Trudeau’s humility when talking to China about human rights is laudable. But when juxtaposed with his continued support of untold injustice here in Canada, it’s clear it is also absolutely necessary, as he really has no right to criticize anyone else on their treatment of human beings.

At issue was the full-page colour advertisement (pictured) in the Taber Times purchased by Taber Pro-Life. The ad displayed a simple bar graph comparing limitations on abortion from various European countries with those of North Korea, China and Canada. It certainly brings awareness to something many Canadians do not know – Canada, along with North Korea and China are the only countries in the world with no legal protections for pre-born children right up until birth.

A ‘woman’s right to choose’ has long been the rallying call of the pro-abortion movement and now we are increasingly see the term ‘anti-choice’ being used to describe Canadians in favour of limitations on abortion. Mr. Schnarr also uses them throughout his diatribe against Canadians in favour of (even some) abortion restrictions. The problem is these terms should have been rejected long ago. Why? Because they are incomplete sentences. The verb “to choose” is a transitive verb, meaning it requires a direct object. To say, “I have a right to choose” leaves the listener wondering about what exactly it is that the speaker plans on choosing. As a journalist and author, Mr. Schnarr should know this.

Think about a different example. If you walked up to someone on the street and said, “Do you support a woman’s right to take?” or “Are you anti-take?” I can almost guarantee you the first question they would ask is “Take what?”

Mr. Schnarr indicated that in 2010 there were 537 abortions performed after 21 weeks gestation. What he fails to inform the reader is that this number is derived from only 25% of the total number of abortions. Approximately 75% of abortions are reported without the gestational age. The truth is in 2010 there were closer to 2,000 abortions performed after 21 weeks.

As the advertisement in the Taber Times accurately shows, almost all European nations protect fetal rights after 13 weeks gestation. In 2010 Canada’s lack of any abortion laws resulted in nearly 10,000 reported abortions when the foetus was between 13 and 20 weeks gestation.

Abortions after the woman is 13 weeks pregnant are performed by a dilation and evacuation procedure. Because the fetus has grown larger and his or her bones have become harder, the baby becomes difficult to extract. The cervix must be opened wider, and the head of the baby must be crushed before it can be removed. Bone fragments are sharp and must be carefully removed to avoid damage to the uterus and cervix. The parts of the baby must be identified upon removal to make sure the abortion is complete. Suction is used for a final clean out of fetal or placental tissue that may remain behind.

When Mr. Schnarr says the lack of a law limiting abortion is a good thing and something “we should be proud of” he is in favour of Canada standing with only North Korea and China in condoning this barbaric practice. Modern technology allows us a clear window into the womb. The majority of Canadians now understand that this particular choice is a violation of human rights – no human being should have the power to impose that kind of choice upon another human being.