For the past few days my colleague Colin Postma and I have been in Winnipeg, Manitoba attending the ‘Understanding and Answering Summit on Human Rights’ hosted by Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (RZIM). The best part is that I’m in Winnipeg, in the summer, and I’ve only seen one mosquito.

Among other presenters and Christian apologists, RZIM also invited an atheist to the summit. Dr. Christopher DiCarlo, a professor in the Faculty of Human Biology and Philosophy at the University of Toronto, agreed to a dialogue with Dr. Andy Bannister, the Director of the Solas Center for Public Christianity at the Canadian Museum for Human Rights. The theme for the dialogue was “Human Rights, by Design or Default” and it was attended by approximately 450 people, many of them Christian, but also many who were simply interested in hearing both perspectives.

The following day we were treated to a more intimate conversation on the same topic. The conversation meandered through various topics before the subject of artificial selection in utero came up. Dr. DiCarlo, who, incidentally, was a friend of Dr. Henry Morgentaler and even gave a eulogy at his funeral, acknowledged that this has occurred in the past and pointed out that it still occurs today. He referred to it as “systemic selection” and explained how fetuses are terminated based on sex and ability. When pressed as to whether this was right or wrong Dr. DiCarlo expertly made the case for how, at the point of fertilization, a new life has begun, and that to allow the life to develop was his preference. In fact, his words were, “Just leave it alone”. I thought I was listening to a pro-life apologist! He was speaking truth about pre-born children! That is, until he said, “But it is still a woman’s choice.” When the inconsistency of his position was pointed out, DiCarlo again emphasized a woman’s choice, and then the discussion had to move on.

I really appreciated DiCarlo’s response that as much as possible we should “just leave [the embryo] alone.” It was a response that revealed his heart. But, in spite of the emotional connection to the developing human being, he still came to the conclusion that abortion was solely a woman’s choice. I couldn’t help but think back to the dialogue at the Canadian Museum for Human Rights the previous night. In putting forward the “human rights by default” position, Dr. DiCarlo proposed a “Value Theory” whereby right and wrong are determined by neurochemical reactions within our brains which can then be transformed into community values. The logical extension of this is that because society has agreed that abortion is a woman’s choice then it must be that way.

DiCarlo and Bannister have had previous dialogues, and the respect they have for one another is admirable. Witnessing their conversations this week was to observe a striking contrast in worldviews; one based on ever-shifting sand, the other on the rock of Jesus Christ. I came away with a sense of sorrow for Dr. DiCarlo, indeed all Canadians whose worldview does not acknowledge Truth, even in the midst of speaking truth.

The assertion is made that unsafe abortion practices result in the deaths of approximately 50,000 women worldwide each year. UN experts recommend removing barriers, discrimination and any criminalization of abortion to remedy this problem.  “We cannot tolerate the severe violation of women’s human rights on the basis of their sex and biological differences,” said the experts.

But wait. I don’t mean to demean the 50,000 preventable deaths from unsafe abortions – preventable deaths are always sad and worth examining. In Canada alone, however, abortion numbers are estimated at 100,000 per year, as our flag display so vividly illustrated in Manitoba recently. In the United States, that number jumps to at least 700,000, if not closer to a million. 

That’s only two countries in this big wide world! If we assume half of those aborted babies are girls (and it’s likely actually more than half), we very quickly get to at least half a million women who are never given a chance at life.

Further, to claim that we cannot tolerate differences for women on the basis of their sex is to say we cannot tolerate the difference that defines them as women. Women are made with a biological gift, not a curse, and as long as we continue to treat abortion access as a necessity, we continue to further the illusion that pregnancy and childbearing are a curse of which the effects must be minimized.

To suggest that repealing anti-abortion laws will actually save the lives of women is misleading, inaccurate, or downright delusional.  Abortion never saves lives: abortion is, by definition, the taking of a life. The United Nations continues to push on a global scale the Western view of abortion as integral to success for women and, as such, they do nothing to improve any women’s lives in a meaningful way.

Two papers published this week again drew attention to the ongoing practice of sex-selective abortion in Canada. With a focus on Indian communities, the researchers found a skewed ratio of boys to girls that cannot be explained by chance. While this study singles out a particular cultural group in Canada, sex-selective abortion is legal for anyone, at any point, as is all other abortion in Canada.

The researchers behind this study, reported on in the Globe and Mail and CTV news, call for the development of public-health policies to put an end to sex-selective abortion. A majority of Canadians, the Canadian Medical Association, the Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia, and the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario have all publicly condemned sex-selective abortion, and it’s time our government did the same.

This would require a discussion Canada has so far been unwilling to have, as our government seems intent on clinging to an extreme pro-abortion philosophy which allows for human rights injustices against the pre-born to continue unhindered. For a feminist Prime Minister to allow such an injustice against women to continue would be the ultimate irony.

We call on Prime Minister Trudeau and the entire government to condemn sex-selective abortion and lead a discussion on restrictions that would end this practice and bring us in line with every other Western nation in this regard.

In Canada, women have it pretty good compared to many other places around the world. Women’s choices are generally protected and their active participation in society is encouraged and welcomed.  While not discounting ongoing issues such as trafficking, wage disparity and sexism in the workplace (this social experiment by Coquitlam, BC’s mayor does bear mentioning), in some cases women actually have more options than men. For example, women are able to become pregnant and bring new life into the world, and while a man may need to be involved, he can never be the one at the finish line.

Instead of recognizing the beauty and miracle of this biological reality, however, women and men alike have focused on another choice: abortion. International Women’s Day reminds us that women in Canada have come so far that they have the right to kill their dependent, pre-born children for any reason imaginable. This, some insist, is necessary to equality.

Read the full article to find out the irony of this claim on LifeNews.com.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present three petitions. With respect to the first petition, the petitioners reference a CBC documentary revealing that ultrasounds are being used in Canada to tell the sex of an unborn child so that parents can then choose to terminate the pregnancy if that unborn child is a girl. In view of this gendercide and violence against women and the human trafficking of girls, I think it is a sad and shameful thing that the three deadliest words in the world are “it’s a girl”. Females are full-image bearers and therefore should be treated with full respect and dignity.

Thank you Mr. Vellacott!

Please continue sending your petitions in! Gendercide is a global problem of which Canada is not immune. We all need to help make a difference. You can find the petitions here. Simply print them off, get twenty-five signatures and bring them to you MP.

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.

Samira (not her real name) agreed to tell her story to The Independent after they had run a series of articles on the skewed gender ratio and gender specific abortions.

From the article,

“Since falling pregnant, I think about it all the time. What’s going to happen? I’m really, really scared. I’m stressed out and I’m having nightmares about bleeding and being beaten up,” Samira said. “I think about running away with her and having the baby somewhere, but the thing is I can’t leave my children with him… I have my duty to my other children. I can’t leave them for someone who is not born. I don’t want it to happen.”

Samira is a courageous woman who decided to tell her story. Unfortunately, there are many more women faced with similar choices. This is not a problem isolated to the United Kingdom or any one country. Gendercide is a global problem and it’s time for governments to recognize their responsibility in restraining this immoral activity in the countries they lead.

Take action by clicking here.

Action Item: Send this email to your Member of Parliament asking for something to be done to end this practice from occuring in Canada.

When I was a kid I hated my birthday. No point in having an Arthur birthday when everyone was off vacationing in tropical lands with their families for March Break. As a teen, the soothing thought of sharing my special day with one Freddie Prinze Jr made the occasion much more bearable.  Today, as a young woman in her twenties, March 8th is more meaningful to me than ever before. Not only is it the magical day that the laws of my country finally chose to recognize my humanity, it is the day that women across the world celebrate their humanity and achievements as well. I never understood the significance of my birth on International Women’s Day until I started to become a woman myself.

In 1929, after a long and drawn out battle of the sexes, women were finally recognized as persons in Canada under the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.  Who knew that almost one hundred years later, Canadians would still be fighting the same battle.  Who knew that almost one hundred years later, the Canadian Medical Association Journal would release an editorial entitled, “It’s a girl!”- could be a death sentence. Who knew that some females would still be defined out of existence.

When my mother was just nineteen years old, she had an unexpected pregnancy. A first-year student at the University of Trent, she never expected to go from choosing her major to choosing baby clothes. When the doctor confirmed my mother’s shocking news, the first words out of her mouth were, “I’m pro-baby and everything, but I can schedule you an abortion if you like”.  With a simple “yes” my life could have legally been taken in a blink of an eye. My value and worth as a female could have been literally sucked from me- no questions asked.

Today on International Women’s Day, I invite you to celebrate all the successes that women have achieved throughout the years. I also invite you to be reminded of the inequalities that exist in our country that desperately need to be addressed. Today, many females are refused the most fundamental rights under the guise of  “equality”. One hundred million women have lost their lives to abortion across the world- including in Canada- which means as a society we have failed women. We have failed to meet the needs of women- no matter what stages they are in life- by presenting abortion as a faulty solution to difficult circumstances. Instead of providing women with resources- such as affordable housing and financial aid- Canadians are funding women to be herded by the hundreds everyday to abortion clinics across the country to have their children slaughtered. We are putting women at risk for endless physical and psychological damage and devaluing the dignity and worth of females by signing their death sentence under Criminal Law. Having a clean place for women to kill their children is not the cornerstone of women’s equality. Empowering women by providing them with accessible life-giving options is.

This wasn’t a difficult concept for the early feminists to understand. Alice Paul, Susan B. Anthony and Mattie Brinkerhoff saw that abortion was paternalistic and oppressive.  Anthony herself said that women’s rights could never be built upon the broken rights of unborn children. Anyone who has spoken to a woman after undergoing this procedure would agree with these women’s right activists that abortion is not about empowering women. The sadness, desperation and fear of a post-abortive woman explaining that she felt she had “no other choice” flies in the face of reason and compassion.

Therefore, on this International Women’s Day, let us be thankful for our mothers, our grandmothers and all the women in our lives. Let us build on the basic tenets of feminism of nonviolence, non-discrimination and justice for all and commit ourselves to making Canada a better place for women.

Alissa Golob is the Youth Coordinator for Campaign Life Coalition and this article has been republished here with her permission.

The article talks about a joint statement issued yesterday by the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada and the Canadian Association of Radiologists calling out the unethical use of ultrasounds. It seems as though they (ultrasounds) are increasingly being used to create keepsake videos for expectant parents, and – wait for it – to detect the sex of the fetus to have it aborted if it is a girl.

These two organizations are rightfully calling on the authorities to do something about this barbarous behaviour that has no place in society.

The likelihood of something being done about ultrasound use is very high. Things are changing in regards to Canadians’ views on abortion and our country’s lack of laws.

The article goes on to say,

“The doctors aren’t directly throwing in their lot with Warawa, who views sex-selection as gendercide, and who can safely be assumed to dislike abortion in general. The doctors frame their position in terms of standards of safety and expertise. But the underlying assumptions are the same: that abortion takes a life, and taking a life solely on the issue of sex is wrong. The doctors’ view is narrower: Warawa might argue that taking an innocent life is always wrong, whether it’s due to gender, convenience or other reasons. The doctors stay clear of that.

Which all underlines this reality: the vilification of Warawa was simply a means of avoiding a debate that threatens pro-abortionists and frightens politicians. Easier to attack the person than confront the reasoning. Self-proclaimed “progressives” frequently accuse the Harper government of employing this technique to silence its critics, but are happy to deploy it to defend their own vulnerabilities. Debating abortion scares both groups, probably because so many of them realize support for abortion is not as secure as they pretend it is.”