We should always take notice, and even celebrate, a declining number of pre-born children losing their lives to abortion. But in addition to this being a positive news story we should also acknowledge that it really is both contraception and laws that contribute to a declining abortion rate.
In the past number of years there have been plenty of laws passed, including the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, Parental Consent and Notification Laws, Mandatory Ultrasound Laws, Mandatory Waiting and Counselling Period Laws, and the list goes on. In each instance, another advance is made against the pro-abortion mainstream by protecting pre-born children and making it more difficult for them to be aborted.
The laws that have been passed in the U.S. not only protect lives, they also have a profound pedagogical effect by sending a message to the population that there is something immoral about abortion. It goes without saying that these laws have an incredible cultural impact. The effect on culture is that people are becoming far more careful in how, when, and for what reason(s) they engage in sexual activity. Whether within or outside of the marriage relationship men and women will undoubtedly exercise greater responsibility to ensure that, when taking part in the act of sex they are giving thought to whether or not said activity will result in procreation. The reasons for this are obvious – if their actions result in pregnancy it will be difficult, if not impossible, to simply destroy the evidence by way of abortion. It is easy to conclude that the reason the rate of abortion is declining is because it’s a lot more challenging to actually get one!
What does this mean for us in Canada? And what encouragement can we take from a declining abortion rate in the country south of us?
It should convince us that by working incrementally we can make a difference. Let’s not kid ourselves; these are real lives saved! Advancing pre-born human rights is a slow process that requires transformational change – change that can only happen when we move forward one step at a time. Our pro-life counterparts in the U.S. have been incredibly successful at changing the culture and saving lives.
Abortion laws both save lives and produce behavioural change among the population. As the Guttmacher study proves, it is for these reasons we need to continue pursuing legislative initiatives in Canada that protect pre-born children.
]]>
This intense case raises major questions about the humanity of the pre-born child. In Canada, a child becomes legally recognized as such when it emerges from its mother’s womb. Section 223 (1) of the Criminal Code reads as follows:
- A child becomes a human being within the meaning of this Act when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother, whether or not
(a) it has breathed;
(b) it has an independent circulation; or
(c) the navel string is severed.
Lynlee’s head was carefully maintained inside the uterus during the operation in order to prevent the uterus from thinking the pregnancy was over, so under Canadian law she did not “completely proceed” from the womb. However, it is clear that Lynlee Boemer was a person during her surgery. Otherwise what on earth were the surgeons operating on and striving to save? A clump of disposable cells? Certainly not. And when she was replaced in her mother’s womb, then, did that right to personhood disappear along with the physical sight of her? Could her mother have chosen an abortion after that point? And if not, if her legal right to personhood and life remained, what makes her different than any other baby at 23-weeks gestation?
These are questions abortion supporters don’t want to ask, and don’t want to answer. Even the staunchest defender of a “woman’s right to choose” gets squeamish in the face of a living baby operated on outside its mother’s body and then placed back in. And so they should – there is no clearer evidence of the humanity of the pre-born child apart from its mother’s body. “Her body, her choice” distracts from the truth that the child may be in the mother’s body, but it is not her body. A separate, growing body, with unique human DNA was in this case being killed by a tumor leaching her vital blood supply – a tumor that was not affecting the mother’s health.
How long can abortion defenders use the “her body, her choice” rhetoric in the face of this unrelenting scientific evidence? We may be thankful that doctors such as the fetal specialists in this case recognize the value of pre-born children and are willing to use their talents and knowledge to save them. When abortion is not an option, extraordinary, beautiful things can happen.
One of the more disputed claims of the pro-life movement is that abortion increases a woman’s risk of breast cancer, and more abortions increase that cancer risk exponentially. This claim is controversial because many see it as a scare tactic or threat that will “make” a woman keep her child out of fear for herself. But is that really why pro-life advocates would mention the link between abortion and breast cancer?
This is a misunderstanding of the purpose and tone of the vast majority of pro-life advocates. In fact, the pro-life movement includes not only heartfelt care for the right to life of pre-born children, but also genuine care for the women who carry these children. We already know a woman who has an abortion is at greater risk of depression, suicide, and substance abuse, and now we’re also going to suggest a greater risk of breast cancer? Well yes, as it turns out, abortion isn’t good for anyone, anytime, regardless of what anyone may say to the contrary.
Evidence exposed in the documentary film Hush discusses this link in detail, as does work done by The deVeber Institute for Bioethics and Social Research. Dr. Angela Lanfranchi is one of the prominent voices in this discussion, as she has studied the possible connection in her practice for years. Since abortion has been legal and widely practiced for almost 30 years in Canada, and a bit longer in the United States, we are now starting to see the true long-term effects of abortion on women.
Abortion cuts out a pre-born life while a woman’s body is in the midst of major hormonal shifts in anticipation of caring for that life. Some of those hormonal changes directly impact her breasts, as they get ready to produce milk. Ending a pregnancy while that tissue is changing, but not giving it time to complete that change, leaves it particularly susceptible and vulnerable to cancer. Conversely, carrying a pregnancy to term decreases a woman’s risk of breast cancer, as the hormonal changes that are allowed to complete their course leave the breast tissue more resilient against cancer than they were prior to pregnancy.
A full term pregnancy, especially for young women, can result in breast tissue changes that make up to 85% of the tissue essentially immune to cancer. The note that this is especially true for young women is important, as abortion frequently has the effect of delaying child-bearing to a later age, adding to the increased risk.
This does not apply only to women who have abortions, of course. The same science applies to those who never have children, as evidenced in breast cancer rates among nuns, as well as in those who experience miscarriages or premature births before 32 weeks’ gestation. But the fact remains: abortion is one of the causal factors in increasing your risk of breast cancer. Isn’t that something someone who is genuinely pro-life would tell you, out of care and concern for both your pre-born baby and you? Shouldn’t someone who is pro-choice also be willing to tell you that? As a woman, isn’t that something you would want to know as you made your “choice”?
]]>
Today, Another Day
Today I began, just a wee little thing
You don’t know I’m around, your little offspring
I’m really so small, but all of me is here
My genetic makeup already so clear
I’m a part of him and a part of you
My biggest wish, that you carry me through
Today, another day, I am four weeks old
Maybe you haven’t even yet been told
That I’m growing inside of you; but I’m still me
Its already determined if I’m a he or a she
The colour of my eyes, or if I’ll be tall
All of it established even though I’m so small
Today, another day, I am eight weeks old
Hopefully to you, I’m a sight to behold
My tiny little body has tripled in size
My miniature heart beating out its reprise
My fingers and toes have started to form
As I lay here inside you, so cozy and warm
Today, another day, I am twelve weeks old
My vital organs are functioning so bold
I can kick and stretch, but you won’t feel me yet
Although I might make your stomach upset
I can close my fingers and curl my toes
I hope, for me, its life that you chose
Today, another day, I am sixteen weeks old
I’m living inside you, you’re my stronghold
I’m safe in here, you’ll protect me right?
‘Cause I’m too little to defend myself in a fight
It’s you I need, as I continue to grow
And daddy too, to be my hero
Today, another day, I am twenty weeks old
You may have felt me as I find my foothold
My delicate chest now rises and falls
I’m practicing to breathe for outside these walls
My little mouth is swallowing more
And my senses are blooming, in case you’re unsure
Today, another day, I am twenty-four weeks old
My body fat is growing to protect me from cold
My lips and eyes are clear to see
My brain is growing, so rapidly
My lungs are developing and now I can hear
So talk to me please, so I know that you’re near
Today, another day, I am twenty-eight weeks old
I can hear your voice, have you been told?
I can open my eyes and turn my head
I’m getting fatter, or so they said
I sleep and wake in regular spaces
As long as I find the most comfortable places
Today, another day, I am thirty-two weeks old
A round little basketball is what I’ve been called
I can tell the difference between dark and light
My legs are growing to give me some height
My hair is growing and I’m gaining weight
As you count down the weeks until my due date
Today, another day, I am thirty-six weeks old
Your energy is probably starting to fold
I’m gaining about twenty-eight grams a day
Filling out your tummy where I don’t plan to stay
No doubt that I poke you with my elbows and feet
I’m getting so excited as we prepare to meet
Today, another day, I am forty weeks old
My impatience to see you cannot be controlled
I’m fully developed, past ready to come
Although I might spend some more time in here, mum
My head is down and I’ll be on my way soon
Apparently its time to leave this cocoon
Today, another day, today I am
I’ve grown so much since I weighed less than a gram
I think that it’s clear, I’m part of a plan
That my life has mattered from the day I began
The doctor was right when he made the great call
That a person’s a person, no matter how small.
Professor Teresa Woodruff, who worked closely on this groundbreaking study, said, “We discovered the zinc spark just five years ago in the mouse, and to see the zinc radiate out in a burst from each human egg was breathtaking.”
Sadly, the first response is not to marvel at the intricacy of conception and the fireworks that start off a new life. Instead, the focus is on which eggs burn most brightly; that is, which are the most likely to result in the strongest, healthiest baby? The implications for in vitro fertilization are discussed. Failure rates may go down as we can better know exactly which eggs, which babies, to throw away.
To have a study author refer to a human egg undergoing a moment of distinctive change when it meets human sperm, yet in the next sentence give absolutely no thought to the newly-created humanity, is heartbreaking. We can see exactly where a human being begins development, and we know exactly what it is going to develop into. So we know that his is a developing human, one of our own, but we simply don’t care. Rather, it furthers the eugenics of abortion, another way to control who may be born and who will never get that opportunity.
]]>
A recent article by Sherry Colb and Michael Dorf questions the divide between animal rights activists and pro-life activists. They pose these two questions: “Do animal-rights activists care more about the well-being of nonhuman animals than about the survival of tiny humans?” and “Do pro-life activists care more about a human cell than about the suffering of fully sentient animals whose evolutionary history, brain chemistry, and emotional repertoire closely resemble our own?”
Some activists certainly are on the side of life in both these debates, but the two sides do not interact or agree as much as one might think. The authors of the article conclude, “There is so little overlap between the movements because each asserts what the other denies. Opposition to ending a pregnancy, even in its earliest stages, rests on the view that the humanity of a zygote, embryo, or fetus makes all the difference. Rejection of the slaughter and use of animals for food, fiber, and entertainment rests on the view that an animal’s nonhuman status makes no difference.”
While attempting to take a balanced approach, the article clearly finds it easier to support animal rights than pre-born human rights. This decision is based in sentience, or the subjective awareness of suffering that animals have over newly conceived human babies.
Certainly, no animal should be made to suffer, but is it awareness of suffering that makes that suffering immoral or unjustified? Can we inflict deliberate pain on those in a coma, or with paralysis, since they won’t feel it? Can we berate and verbally abuse those with dementia or the severely mentally disabled? And, if it is sentience that is the deciding factor, and we know that babies can feel pain in the womb, why is there resistance to late-term abortion laws that ban abortion on children who will suffer horribly in the process?
Our treatment of animals and humans should not be affected by whether or not they are aware of how they are being treated. Whether or not a pre-born child is aware of an attack upon them does not make the act any more justifiable, and ending someone’s life does not become ok simply because they do not know the end is coming.
The pro-life movement loves ultrasounds, for good reason. Those beautiful pictures show waving arms, kicking legs, tiny noses, and beating hearts. A picture is worth a thousand words, and a grainy black and white ultrasound picture is no different. Anyone who believes the pre-born child is a simple clump of non-descript cells cannot walk away from a ultrasound and still believe that.
There are many cases of individuals who claim ultrasounds made them realize that abortion was wrong. This article from Live Action News mentions a few of those cases and discusses a recent study proving what we already knew – ultrasound images have the power to save the lives of pre-born children. Recent exposure seems to be key, “so next time you’re on Facebook and you have the opportunity to share an ultrasound picture, please do, because this study shows that people who see such photos on Facebook are more likely to oppose abortion.”
Have you seen your ultrasound,
With your own two eyes?
Was it not incredible?
After you heard their lies?
They told you it was nothing
“A little thing, don’t fear.
It’s something we do all the time,
And you’ll be in the clear.
Just come, don’t think about it,
And soon you will forget…”
But something told you deep inside
It would cause such regret.
It’s hard, I know, but somehow
It’s easier to smile,
Knowing this life inside of you
Will make your world worthwhile.
You know, all life is precious,
So let nobody take,
Your joy out of life’s laughter,
Life’s gift, for baby’s sake.
A. Blokhuis
Feb. 10/16
]]>
The virus is spreading quickly in parts of the world, and the World Health Organization estimates as many as 4 million people may become infected before they are able to get it under control.
However, to use this sad circumstance as an excuse to push abortion shows exactly what is wrong with abortion. Abortion treats symptoms, not causes. It solves nothing, and allows real problems to continue unhindered. Abortion does not slow or stop the spread of a vicious disease, it adds to the carnage.
By fighting for abortion at a time such as this, the abortion movement reveals it’s true nature. One article goes so far as to call increased abortions the potential “silver lining” of the Zika virus, the side effect they all wanted to happen before the virus even took hold. To continue to suggest they fight for women, while capitalizing on a massive viral outbreak threatening maternal and infant health, is unconscionable.
]]>
Lily’s parents were devastated. Nothing had prepared them for this traumatic experience, and they will not leave the hospital without this terrible memory following them.
This week, researchers at the University of Montreal released the results of a study showing that, between the years 2000 and 2012, similar traumatic events had been experienced by 218 families who decided their child’s life was not worth living. The only difference? Lily’s parents wanted her life ended two years after she had been born while the 218 children reported on in the University of Montreal study were still some weeks from being born before being delivered prematurely and then left to die.
The National Post covered the results of the study with an article that began with, “Better testing for birth defects has given rise to an unusual phenomenon: growing rates of abortion ending in ‘accidental live birth’”. It also suggests that this raises “difficult ethical issues.”
No one would accept that the manner in which (the fictional) Lily’s life was ended ought to be legal. Yet we live in a country where no child has protection prior to his or her birth, even if they are old enough to live outside the womb, as the 218 children in Québec were. How is it that an eight-inch journey down the birth canal magically transforms us into human beings worthy of protection? Why is Canada the only democracy in the world that affords no protection to the smallest members of the human family?
Dr. Natalie Auger, lead author of the University of Montreal study, recommends that new clinical guidelines be developed to ensure that parents are counselled before bringing their pre-born children to the clinic. She is concerned that parents are not fully prepared for the possibility that their baby might be born alive and would like them to be better prepared for these traumatic experiences. Her response is incredibly callous, and illogical. It has been said that asociety will be judged on how it treats its weakest members. In Canada, it is perfectly legal to kill a fully developed child, provided he or she is on the other side of the birth canal. This injustice will only be corrected when our elected lawmakers stop treating pre-born children as a political liability and ensure they receive the same legal protections as born Canadians.
]]>