Then I began to realize that the other major theme I wanted to discuss, environmentalism, is closely related.
Melissa Leong of the Post reports that the National Abortion Federation has been applying pressure to the Canadian Medical Association "to change its so-called conscientious objector policy, which allows physicians to refuse to refer patients for abortions. It is the first time the federation has tried to lobby the CMA on this issue."
Apparently a recent study found that "only 15.9% of Canadian hospitals provide abortion services, a reduction from 17.8% that occurred without any change in official regulations or policies."
Vicki Saporta, president and CEO of the National Abortion Federation, feels that physicians should put their patients' interests ahead of their "own religious and moral convictions.
Dr. Williard Johnston of the Canadian Physicians for Life strongly disagrees:
"Now is the time to be strengthening conscience protections so that people who find themselves uncomfortable with procedures should have their rights protected."
Well, what do you think? This situation is somewhat reminiscent of the gay marriage debate with marriage commissioners being forced to perform marriage ceremonies contrary to their religious beliefs. The argument in favour of not allowing them to abstain is that the commissioners are public servants.
Yet are doctors public servants? With the medical profession being so closely tied to National Health Care, I suppose you could make an argument in support of Ms. Saporta's point of view.
So now we have to weigh the "rights" of the pregnant woman against the "rights" of the doctor. Does the pre-born child have any rights?
In a world where children are increasingly undervalued, the answer is likely no.
Indeed, the sanctity of human life itself is losing status against other concerns such as environmentalism. Lorrie Goldstein points out in today's Sun that a common theme exists among environmental advocates that there are too many people in the world, to the detriment of Mother Earth:
In his bestseller The Weather Makers, scientist/conservationist Tim Flannery discusses in a chapter titled "2084: The Carbon Dictatorship?" the possibility of an Earth Commission for Thermostatic Control (ECTC) one day zeroing in on the major cause of man-made global warming -- "the total number of people on the planet."
With that, he writes, the ECTC "will have transformed itself into an Orwellian-style world government with its own currency, army and control over every person and every inch of our planet." To be clear, Flannery is not advocating such a body, merely speculating on what could happen if we don't take action against man-made global warming in time.
It would seem that human life is very expendable when weighed against the demands of our planet, which appears to have been deified in a strangely pagan manner - demanding human sacrifice as appeasement for perceived transgressions.
Then we have the real extremist view where the decision to limit the size of your family is measured in terms of "per capita carbon dioxide emissions". (More at Lifesite)
Given the current preoccupation with placating the Earth Goddess, I really don't think that the concerns of Dr. Johnston and the Canadian Physicians for Life stand a chance.
Heck, having an abortion may even one day be viewed as a virtuous, environmentally-friendly act.
* * * *
Wow!! I've somehow woven a thread about abortion, same-sex marriage and environmentalists! That should be worth a comment or two.
Update: Proud to Be Canadian - CBC Newsworld's Susan Bonner calls pro-lifers "anti-abortionists". But what did you expect from CBC?
On the other hand, Don Newman's show was quite balanced tonight. Kudos to him for discussing the rally, which numbered in the 6000+ range of participants.
Sandy has a great post on the debate. Please take the time to check it out.