Abortion: The Untouchable Discrimination Enabler

It's incredible to me that in a supposedly civilized Western country, we turn a blind eye to the blatant gender and handicap discrimination of selective abortion.

Some people see handicap discrimination less morally reprehensible than gender discrimination - even if we're talking about a mere cosmetic deformity such as a cleft palate or a club foot.

Gender discrimination seems a bit less palatable, but the practice is facilitated thanks to the ease of sex-testing via test kits and 3-D ultrasounds, and the availability of unconditional publicly-funded abortion in Canada.

William Saletan's editorial in today's Post shows how the once taboo issue of gender selection by abortion is now in the process of becoming legitimized as one of consumer rights - How did abortion become a consumer-protection issue?

Which means that children are a commodity.

But as abhorrent as that concept is, we can't compromise the sacred right to abortion on demand.


So in the future Darwinian world of perfect males, the feminists who stubbornly refused to budge an inch on abortion rights should theoretically see their gender's numbers thin out by natural selection.

And it will be harder than ever for the Liberal and NDP parties to meet their minimum female candidate targets.

Circling the wagons on abortion

I almost missed this one - Jonathan Kay's How late is too late? It's part of the ongoing series of debates about abortion in the National Post.

Kay alludes to a powerful 'tribalism' on both sides of the issue, which no doubt contributes to the lack of compromise and serious debate.

He suggests that the mere fact that the pro-choicers are hasty to point out the fact that very few abortions "take place in Canada 'for social reasons' beyond 20 weeks, and none beyond 24 weeks", exposes their discomfort about the procedure at some point, even if they are reluctant to admit it:

...If the "dominant ideology of the unborn child" is a spurious construct invented by patriarchal moralists, why does it matter if that so-called unborn child weighs one pound or five? Why strike such defensive postures against an issue that no one in the room saw fit to discuss?

The answer to this last question, I think, is that these women are not so doctrinaire as they pretend. Within their own minds, they do wrestle with these important moral questions -- as any intelligent person must. But when in public, they censor themselves. Locked in what they feel to be a tribal culture war against pro-lifers, the pro-choice camp allows itself no nuance. This is essentially the reason Canada has no abortion law: Any stirring of legislative action arouses such tribal war fury among pro-choicers as to send politicians scurrying...

For a real insight into how the pro-choice mind works, read Heather Mallick's, Privacy and Pregnancy courtesy of our beloved Mothercorps.

* * * *

Abortion statistics available here.

Friday Update - John Williamson on subsidizing abortion: No birth, no benefits.

Monday Update - A Canadian controversy - Joanne Byfield.

Garson Romalis: Why I am an abortion doctor - Post.

'Celebrating' abortion

Suzanne and Matthew have both done excellent jobs fisking Judy Rebick's contribution to the ongoing abortion debate in the National Post - Celebrating a victory for women.

This column bothers me on so many levels, but I suppose what I object to the most is her opening paragraph:

The majority of Canadians support a women's right to control her own body and have no moral problems with abortion. For me and thousands of other women who fought hard for reproductive freedom, this 20th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision striking down the abortion law is a day to celebrate...

As Suzanne notes, there are many polls that show that the majority of Canadians actually would favour some sort of restriction on abortion. That figure likely goes even higher when talking about some kind of legal protection against violence perpetrated on the mother and her unborn child. However, many times the results of the poll depend on who commissioned it in the first place, and what kind of agenda they were pushing. And in any case, few if any politicians want to take on this explosive issue.

But what's this about the majority having "no moral problems" with abortion? Now where did you get that information, Judy? No moral problems? Not the tiniest qualm of regret or a minuscule prick of conscience? And the majority feel this way?

Frankly, I'm surprised the National Post even included this op-ed in their series. If these are the the most compelling arguments that the pro-choice side has to offer, I think the only thing Ms. Rebick should be celebrating is Canadian complacency and apathy.

* * * *

Here is a startling statistic, but who knows if it's any more accurate than Judy Rebick's? - "In Canada, there are roughly 500,000 pregnancies a year, with one abortion for every three live births."

Related: The Catholic Register - Jan. 28, 1988: A notorious date.

Liberals for Life Write Dion - CLC

David Frum - The Day Humanity Became Cheap.

Matthew says he'll be discussing this one early next week - Long live Morgentaler! by Colby Cosh.

Dr. Roy - Defeat for children and life.

Statistics - Abortions by Gestational Age