Gender Selection Hypocrisy in Canada

Reposted from Blue Like You - April 29, 2012:


Canada's Minister for Status of Women Rona Ambrose was outraged about a Canadian cultural publication carrying an ad for gender selection in the U.S. (Globe):

Rona Ambrose called on the Indo-Canadian Voice and other publishers to reject such ads, noting that the practice of pre-conception gender selection is illegal in Canada and perpetuates discrimination against girls that is prevalent in some cultural communities. “At the end of the day, we are fighting sexism here,” Ms. Ambrose said in an interview Monday. “We’re fighting this perception that girls are not equal to boys.”

Canada prohibits sex selection of an in-vitro embryo, except in rare cases, via the 2004 Assisted Human Reproduction Act. And yet gender selection post-conception [aka abortion] is perfectly legal; albeit not necessarily socially acceptable. But of course that would involve a moral judgement, and who has the right to inflict their moral values on others? But how can we logically ignore the obvious? It still sexism when females are deliberately eliminated due to a preference for males. And so in Canada we have a situation where the mere thought of pre-conception gender selection is abhorrent, but post-conception termination of a female fetus is a woman's right! How does anyone square that circle? And please don't tell me we need a law to ban the medical community from revealing the gender of a fetus. The Courts would challenge that in a heartbeat [see end of article], and the U.S. Medical Tourism industry would be only too happy to fill in the gaps.

*   *   *   *

Related Forced into abortion 6 times, woman turns whistleblower - Times of India.  Ah I know what you're thinking - that could never happen here. Just like Honour Killing. Is a Fertility Clinic’s ‘Gender Selection’ Ad Really So Bad if the Result is Fewer Abortions? - Babble

*   *    *    *

Tuesday Update A Debate Worth Having - SNN (Ezra & Stephen Woodworth)

If not at a University, then where?

Kelly Holloway, President of York's Graduate Students Association and vice-chairwoman of the student centre declares:

"This debate, over whether or not women should be able to have an abortion, is not acceptable in the student centre..."

Funny, but when I went to university, debate was welcomed and new ideas were encouraged.

...I think we should accept that the debate is over..."

Right then.

Because in Ontariostan, independent thought and debate are no longer allowed. We must protect the masses from disturbing pictures. In any case, the latest slash & trash film is much more interesting.

* * * *

Wednesday Update - York responds (Post letters):

A debate on the subject of abortion was cancelled at York University by the student executive of the Student Centre, without the knowledge or participation of the university. York encourages civic participation and open debate on issues of local, national and international importance. The fact that both sides of the debate wanted to proceed and were prevented from doing so makes the incident all the more regrettable. Consequently, York's administration is working on a request from one of the student groups involved, to arrange a suitable venue on university property where this debate can take place.

Robert J. Tiffin, vice-president students, York University, Toronto.

The irony here of course, is that Ms. Holloway's refusal to have the debate has focussed more attention on the issue than would have happened if she and her cohorts had simply allowed free speech to occur in the first place.

* * * *

Thursday Update - Jonathan Kay: The new rule on campus: Free speech for Israel-bashers — but censorship for pro-lifers.

Why don't we just canonize him?

Henry Morgentaler for Order of Canada - via Dust my Broom:

“It's blasphemy that this hasn't happened, a national embarrassment,” said Cathie Colombo, the long-time assistant to Dr. Morgentaler who is leading the charge. Ms. Colombo said a new nomination will be sent to the Chancellery of Honours within days. “Even if you don't agree with his views, you can't deny the impact he's had on Canadian society.”

You sure can't.

That's a lot of little lives snuffed out.

More at Christian Conservative.

* * * *

Sidenote:

I'm sure that Preacher Suzuki would be in favour of Henry Morgentaler receiving the Order of Canada. Why not? He's got one too, for his "unwavering dedication to sustainable development and for his criticism of human activities that threaten our planet."

How many of those tiny souls might have grown up to be carbon-emitting, earth-fouling defilers of Mother-Earth, or even worse - 'Denier' politicians who would have required imprisonment for their lack of faith in his side of 'the science'?


Let us all give thanks that Henry Morgentaler's mother chose not to have an abortion.

Post - David de Torquemada: Lorne Gunter.

The other side of the story

Since I'm such a glutton for punishment, I'll continue with the abortion theme. Today's Post featured a Counterpoint to Garson Romalis' speech.

Dr. Paul Ranalli explains Why I am not an Abortion Doctor:

...I also condemn the personal threats and attacks on them by a radical few whose actions are the antithesis of promoting life and have left a blot on the mainstream pro-life movement. This is a blot that abortion advocates -- and their supporters in much of the media -- have exploited repeatedly to try to silence the reasonable moral arguments against abortion and its unrestrained practise in Canada today....

This is so true. You see this same argument used over and over. Just because some lunatic has tried to kill an abortion doctor does not mean therefore that all pro-lifers are crazy, and that their concerns are invalid.


Dr. Ranalli discusses the possible reasons why so few doctors wish to pursue abortions as a specialty and comes to this conclusion:

...No, the pro-choice movement refuses to confront the main reason doctors do not gravitate to performing abortions: They don't like to kill. Even putting aside "pro-life" doctors, many of those physicians who would nominally sign off as "pro-choice" would prefer that someone else per-form abortions...

...And the procedure is used as a weapon of genocide against female fetuses in a number of ethnic communities in Canada, an especially bitter truth for feminists to swallow...

Nobody responded to my challenge to deal with that one in the previous post on abortion.


Ranalli closes with this haunting paragraph which I also thought of when reading Romalis' speech:

...Dr. Romalis closes by recounting the story of a female medical student who came up to him to thank him for performing an abortion on her some years earlier. She said, "If it weren't for you I wouldn't be here now." For balance, I would ask about the many future women doctors who were aborted in the womb. To quote Robert Kennedy: "I dream of things that never were, and ask why not."

This debate will never be settled to everyone's satisfaction. It isn't possible.

But let's at least grant each other the courtesy to be heard, without this constant explosion of hostility and anger.

The truth about abortion - from someone who's been there

Today's National Post features a letter by Denise Mountenay, who is founder of Canada Silent No More, a website dedicated to helping women who have experienced emotional trauma resulting from abortions:

I had abortions when I was younger. I was lied to about fetal development and told it was just a clump of tissue. As a young vibrant woman, independent and aloof, it was made to be a quick, easy out. I had no idea my babies had a beating heart by three weeks, arms, legs, fingers and toes by eight weeks. My so-called "safe and legal" abortion landed me with an infection, damaged cervix and badly scarred uterus. Doctors never told me about the 28 studies linking breast cancer to induced abortion. They never told me about the years of guilt, remorse and deep sorrow for having my own children killed...

This letter was written in response to Dr. Garson Romalis' op-ed about how heroic and altruistic he considers himself to be - Why I am an abortion doctor:

...I can take an anxious woman, who is in the biggest trouble she has ever experiences in her life, and by performing a five-minute operation, in comfort and dignity, I can give her back her life...

If you believe Denise Mountenay's account of her own experience, that woman's problems are just beginning.

* * * *

Great story here if you're looking for something upbeat - Daily Mail.

Happy Unbirthday

Today is the 20th Anniversary of the Supreme Court decision to strike down abortion law in Canada, thereby ensuring that roughly 100,000 Canadians annually won't have a birthday to celebrate.

As I predicted, last week's National Post series on abortion has triggered an emotional debate on both sides.

Several comments were featured on "Best of the Blog" - The Silencing of David Frum (which is a strange headline because not all the comments were anti-Frum). The original column can be read here, along with all the reactions.

There were several excellent letters as well. The most notable in my opinion was by WLU's Dr. David Haskell who challenges Judy Rebick's statistics - Judy Rebick's Abortion Spin:

...Knowing Ms. Rebick's motivation and agenda, it is not surprising that she downplays the occurrence of late-term abortions in Canada stating, "a mere .04% [of abortions] take place after 20 weeks and only when the health or life of the woman is at stake." Actually, the most current data from Statistics Canada (accessible online) states that .7% of abortions take place after 20 weeks.

I must also question Ms. Rebick's second claim. To my knowledge, just one study has ever explored why women seek late-term abortions. Though conducted in the U.S., the results are probably reflective of the situation in Canada. Surveying 1,900 women who had late-term abortions, researchers at the Alan Guttmacher Institute found none had undergone the procedure because of maternal health problems. Furthermore, only 2% were due to "a fetal problem diagnosed late in pregnancy." Simply put, the vast majority of late-term abortions involve healthy women and, up to the time of the procedure, healthy babies...

I'm looking forward to Rebick's Counterpoint on that one.


Meanwhile, please read an abortion survivor's story (you may need your reading glasses). At least Gianna Jessen is able to celebrate her birthday every April 6.

How many others have been silenced before their stories could be told?

* * * *

Related: An anniversary of death - Michael Coren.

...In those two decades almost two million babies have been killed in what is supposed to be humanity's safest place, the womb. It has also cost more than $1-billion of public money, in that the taxpayer is obliged to finance this elective surgery. In that same period numerous necessary medical procedures have been de-funded by governments that would not dream of removing a penny from state-funded abortion, no matter how wealthy the woman who demanded the procedure...

Christian Conservative - A Dark Anniversary for Canada.

Dr. Roy - A sad day of remembrance.

Spinks - 101 people who are screwing up Canada - This guy is #1.

* * * *

Tuesday Update: Couple of great letters in today's Post.

From Kathryn J. Smith, Victoria:

Judy Rebick states: "The majority of Canadians support a women's right to control her own body." I think we all know that at no time is a fetus part of the mother's body, but is genetically unique in every cell from the time of conception. A woman has not only the right but the responsibility to control her own body, and if she doesn't want to become a mother, her choice needs to be made at the beginning of the process -- i.e., before she becomes pregnant.

And from Phil Cortens, Carstairs, Alta.:

Re: Abortion Is A Personal Matter, letter to the editor, Jan. 26.

Abortion is no personal matter as long as taxpayers are forced to subsidize it.

Margaret Somerville - New Life Matters.

Canada's 'Abortion Law' - There isn't one

This week, the National Post will be featuring a series of articles discussing the effects of the 20th anniversary of R. vs. Morgentaler. David Frum kicks things off with The day humanity became cheap.

Frum points out Canada's lone stance in the Western world regarding a lack of abortion law of any kind:

The result of the two decisions was to give Canada the Western world's most radical abortion regime. The mother's ownership of the pregnancy is absolute and final, and she may end it at any moment, for any reason. Neither the father of the child-to-be, nor the government, nor the child itself has any rights in the matter at all.

Almost every other advanced country on Earth grants the fetus in the womb some measure of protection.

Frum is concerned that this lack of acknowledgment of the embryo or fetus as having any kind of rights will eventually compromise the ethical concerns and guidelines presently controlling scientific experimentation on human embryos:

...The federal guidelines on stem cell research urge "respect for community notions of human dignity." But the supreme arbiters of human rights in Canada have ruled that the fetus-in-the-womb has no humanity to respect.

Cures, no -- but late-term abortions, yes? How does that make any sense? It makes no sense and cannot endure...

This series is sure to provoke some letters to the editor and bring the whole question back to the forefront. Canadians need to be reminded again and again that we have no laws at all in Canada regarding abortion.

* * * *

More from Dr. Roy - Regina vs. Morgentaler: a tragedy.

Wednesday Update: Barbara Kay - 20 years of silence:

...in 1988, 16% of pregnancies in Quebec, Canada's most abortion-friendly province, resulted in abortion. Today, 30% do. Girls are using abortion -- tax-funded and easily available -- as an alternative form of birth control. No morally aspirational society should feel complacent abetting this trend...

Canada needs an Unborn Victims of Crime law

Excellent essay in today's National Post by Dr. Margaret Somerville - New Life Matters.

The topic of pregnant women and their unborn babies being murdered is not going to go away. In Canada, however, we only recognize the murder of the mother in a legal sense. Dr. Somerville is challenging this concept along moral and ethical lines.

She cites statistics showing that a majority of Canadians support some kind of legal protection for the unborn:

In short, many Canadians' moral intuition is that "there ought to be a law" -- or laws -- protecting fetuses from some harms, although we don't all agree on what those laws should be, especially in the context of abortion. Presently in Canada, there is no express abortion law.

So given that the majority of Canadians feel that there should be some type of protection, but there is also the fear that abortion 'rights' may compromised.

Somerville delineates the ethical dilemma here:

But willful blindness is not an ethical approach to dealing with abortion.

Seeing the fetus as an unborn victim of crime strips away the medical cloak that abortion places on the taking of its life, a cloak that dulls our moral intuition as to what is involved. It causes us to see the fetus as what it is, an early human life. Those who support abortion must be able to square that fact with their belief that abortion is ethical in certain circumstances.

Regarding abortion, she suggests that at the very least we need to ensure that women who choose to have an abortion do so with eyes wide open as to the pain that could be inflicted upon the unborn:

A "Fetal Pain Awareness Act," similar to those some American states have enacted, could require a physician to inform the woman, before performing an abortion, that scientific evidence suggests that after 20 weeks gestation the fetus can feel pain. Furthermore, she would have to be offered anaesthesia for the fetus, which it would be her choice to take or decline. This type of law would not prohibit abortion; rather, its goal is to try to prevent the fetus from dying in excruciating pain. After all, even jurisdictions that allow capital punishment prohibit certain forms of it on the grounds that they are cruel. Likewise, we have criminal laws that protect animals from brutal treatment.

Does this seem reasonable? Why wouldn't we want to offer a woman the opportunity to terminate her child in a somewhat more humane manner?


Oh, I know. If we can't see it, then it can't feel pain, right?

* * * *

Wednesday Update: Two differing points of view in Post letters today, but they still seem to both agree that we need some kind of law.

Claudia Batista, assistant professor at Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil argues that human life starts at conception.


Andrea Skorenki, OB/GYN resident, University of Alberta, Edmonton states that "...As a society we need to find a way to protect unborn fetuses after viability, but also to maintain a woman's right to decide what happens to her own body."


Suzanne has a blogburst going relating to a petition for the Holy Father to come to Quebec City in 2008. Perhaps we need some divine inspiration about how to handle this problem.

Warning - Graphic image of choice ahead

Does a truck truck plastered with images of aborted fetuses transgress the boundaries of free speech?

Calgary's Stephanie Gray, director of the Canadian Centre for Bio-ethical Reform (CCBR) drives a 'mobile anti-abortion billboard' around during rush hour to ensure that folks get the harsh picture of abortion devoid of euphemisms.

Celia Posyniak, executive director of Calgary's Kensington Clinic, an abortion provider, has heard from several people outraged over the truck:

"I just think in Canadian society, it's really a rude, crude display. It shows a lack of manners," Ms. Posyniak says. Such "scare tactics," she insists, don't work, since women seeking an abortion have "very compelling reasons" for doing so and will only be upset, not influenced, by the billboards.

Yes indeed. Very compelling reasons such as this.

As Michael Coren says so eloquently, "It's no longer a woman's right to choose but a woman's right to live."

Success or Failure?

I suppose whether or not you consider results of the Great Canadian Wish List to be a success or failure would depend on how much support your particular cause received.

There were complaints about how the experiment was handled, but one thing is certain - The Abortion Debate is not a 'dead issue' in Canada. What will it take for politicians to realize this?

I was very grateful to Ruth for posting a couple of videos, because there seemed to be a noticeable lack of coverage in MSM.

Or did I miss something?

* * * *

Stephen Taylor - An experiment with unintended results.

Wednesday Update - Some final words on the subject from Ruth, with a link to a fairly recent poll on abortion.

Jonas on abortion

Great column here by George Jonas (H/T Lifesite), where he picks apart some of tired old arguments used by the Pro-choice crowd.

It is a somewhat irreverent and almost humourous perspective, if that were possible with such a contentious issue:

...Some put the question in terms of a woman's right to control her own body. That would be valid enough in the realm of smoking, diet, liposuction, or sex -- but abortion? Abortion means controlling someone else's body. (As a man, I have no authority to speak on the matter, I know, but I'm not speaking as a man. I'm speaking as an ex-fetus.)...

He also addresses the reality of our declining birthrate:

...We're all set to march to our extinction in style. We've become the only species that diminishes with success: the first in natural history to experience population decline whenever we do well. The wealthier and more secure our post-Darwinian societies become, the more we fail to reproduce...

Enjoy the read. Also please check out SDA's discussion on "Populating a Baby-Starved Canada".

Macleans has an interesting article concerning our Baby Deficit as well - Making Moms: Can We Feed the Need To Breed?

God Works in Mysterious Ways.

Originally I wanted to make this a longer post, but the weather is just too awesome today. So here is the abbreviated version.

This morning Dante referred to a recent article by Ted Byfield (Docs Speak out about Abortion), discussing how so few doctors are comfortable about performing abortions these days:

Some doctors reject abortion on purely professional grounds. Medicine is about healing sick people and pregnancy isn't a sickness. Others regard as morally repugnant the forcible extinction of a human life.

Byfield laments the fact that the topic of abortion is squelched by MSM, but it is still very much an issue with many Canadians:

Polls have consistently shown public opinion almost evenly divided three ways -- a third of the people in favour of abortion on demand, a third favouring a total ban on abortion except where the mother's physical life (as distinct from her lifestyle) is clearly threatened, and a third favouring a ban on abortion beyond some definable point in the pregnancy. The idea of a national consensus on the issue was, in other words, a falsehood preserved by the mainstream news media. The fact is two thirds of Canadians opposed abortion-on-demand as provided in Canadian law. But with representation in the media cut off and politicians terrified of any mention of the issue, the majority view was successfully squelched.

But never fear! M.P. Garth Turner came to the rescue when he outed March for Life for using the official Canadian logo.

This prompted a virtual brouhaha of activity amongst left-leaning media who covered the story with glee.

As Byfield commented, "Any public attention focused on this dispute has the effect, however, of weakening the pro-abortion position. Canadian feminists had assumed that resistance to abortion would gradually decline and be replaced by a general public acquiescence."



Garth Turner - working on the side of the angels. Who knew?

Behold St. Dalton - Model of Devout Catholic Secularism

Dalton McGuinty's parents were obviously not very environmentally-friendly. According to the Sun's Christina Blizzard, Dalton is one of ten children in his large Catholic family, and "jokes that while other kids got a new puppy for Christmas, he got a new brother or sister."

That's a lot of carbon-producing earth polluters!

However, Ms. Blizzard hails Premier McGuinty as some kind of political demi-god in today's column, Premier Pops off on Pope. Mmmm... Interesting headline, but let's move on.

Blizzard has canonized Dalton for telling off Pope Benedict following the papal comment agreeing with "Mexican bishops who said Catholic politicians had excommunicated themselves by legalizing abortion in that nation's capital. A papal spokesman later clarified that statement to mean that the bishops had not actually excommunicated them."

The way I interpret that statement is that by the very act of enabling a pro-choice policy, a Catholic politician has ex-communicated himself. I have yet to hear of any politician being officially ex-communicated by the Pope. Please enlighten me if I'm wrong here.

It is a nuanced, but highly important difference. As an example, if I say I am a concerned environmentalist, but I go around littering and driving a big pollution-belching car to the corner store all the time, I'm not really an environmentalist, am I? My actions define me.

Should all Catholics who are true to the doctrine therefore recuse themselves of politics? That is a very interesting question. I really don't have the answer, but I think at some point your moral convictions are inseparable from the way you conduct yourself and how you see the world.

"The Pope, his purview is the church. My purview is Ontario and there is one particular aspect of myself that is in common with the Pope -- I happen to be Catholic, but I have other responsibilities as well," McGuinty told a scrum before a caucus meeting yesterday.

Perhaps Dalton is more of a Catholic relativist.

* * * *

Update: BTW, Dalton. Where's your Catholic outrage here?

Thursday Update: Lifesite - "Mr. McGuinty needs to show some respect to the Church to which he claims to belong," said Suresh Dominic, spokesman for the Catholic pro-life group Campaign Life Catholic. "It is the job of the Church, and not Mr. McGuinty, to decide who may and who may not receive Holy Communion."

Amen.

Pro-Life Talk still in the closet

Kudos to the National Post for covering yesterday's March for Life, even though reporter Julie Smyth uses the typical MSM rhetoric of negativity ("anti-abortion" rather than Pro-Life). I think Sandy's idea is a good one - Let's frame the issue as Abortion vs. Adoption.

CBC Newsworld's Don Newman also did a credible job showcasing the issue. Other than that, I haven't come across any other reports.

It would appear that this debate continues to be regarded as some kind of political leprosy:

As Cabinet members arrived on the Hill, most avoided the rally. Some Liberal and Conservative MPs were seen going out of their way to walk away from the protest as they headed toward Centre Block. Abortion did not get a mention during Question Period and was overshadowed by other news.

Given the current climate of taboo surrounding the mere discussion of the topic, I feel it is worth applauding the handful of Conservative and Liberal MPs who actually did attend the rally. They are the kind of politicians that I admire. It takes great courage to stand up for what you believe in despite the fact that doing so may be a career-limiting choice.

Therefore, let's give some recognition to the following:

Conservatives - Jeff Watson, Myron Thompson, Dave Anderson, Mark Warawa, Dean Del Mastro, James Lunney, Kevin Sorenson, Cheryl Gallant, Harold Albrecht, Maurice Vellacott and Bev Shipley.

Liberals - Paul Steckle and Paul Szabo.

If these good people are representing you in Ottawa, please take the time to thank them for showing their support, and for putting their principles ahead of ambition.

Integrity seems to be a rare commodity in politics these days.

* * * *

Meanwhile, the Pope uses the dreaded e-word.

Saturday Update: Beautiful eye-witness account of the March for Life here. Why don't we see this kind of thing in MSM???

The Right to Choose - Women vs. Doctors

It was difficult for me to select a topic today, because there really are a lot of issues that I would like to pursue. However, when I came across this article in today's Post, I decided to continue the abortion debate; especially with today being the day for the March for Life on Parliament Hill.

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."

For shame!

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.

Your Tax Dollars Funding Bad Medicine (with update)

Today's National Post contains a flurry of letters to the editor in response to Anne Marie Owen's May 5 article, The "A" Word. Abortion is a subject that typically polarizes Canadians into two emotional camps of morality vs. 'rights'.

What is interesting is that the letters were all in favour of reopening the debate. The Post usually tries to be balanced in their Letters section, so I can only assume that there were few if any letters asking that this not be discussed (although I suppose the very act of writing in would be a form of debate).

Owens' point of view seems to be skewed towards the question of accessibility rather than morality, so I am guessing that she is on the 'Right to Choose' side. The language that she uses gives her away:

If the organizers of the 10th March for Life are right, more than 5,000 anti-abortion activists are likely to descend on Parliament Hill next week for their annual campaign lobbying for dramatic legislative change.

Yet there will likely be no televised images of the demonstration and only sparse coverage from the mainstream media of an event that those on the other side of the debate typically characterize as a gathering of a couple hundred radicals from the fringe.

The campaign's media liaison, Wanda Hartlin, is accustomed to hearing the complaints of members frustrated each year by the resounding silence of media coverage of their key public awareness exercise.

"I don't think the media is that interested in religious topics and the media sees this as a religious topic," she says. "I don't think the media is ignoring us. I think you take us from a different direction ?

"We call ourselves pro-life. The media calls us anti-abortion. The pro-choice people call us anti-choice."

Perhaps one of the best reasons for reopening this debate (in spite of the fact that it is political poison) is the compelling insight found in the following letter by Dr. Philip Ney of Victoria:

...Since abortion is a medical procedure, performed by medical staff in medical facilities and paid for by medical funding, the debate should be: is abortion good medicine? There is rapidly growing evidence that abortion does considerably more harm than good. Abortion is bad medicine. This is the reason that more women are successfully suing doctors for their abortion related harms. It is the reason that it is increasingly difficult to recruit physicians and nurses to perform abortions.

Another letter from Denise Mountenay of Canada Silent No More affirms this viewpoint:

...Most of us were only teenagers when we found out we were pregnant, pressured to have abortions by our boyfriends and parents. We were told it was "just a clump of tissue" ? "just a fetus" ? so we believed that if doctors, those who cared about us and government thought it was OK, that it must be all right

As founder and president of Canada Silent No More, I've been reaching out to the thousands of women suffering in silence about their abortion pain. Most women live with deep remorse, regret, shame and guilt from the choice to abort their babies. We were not informed about all of the risk factors, or trauma it would cause...

So it appears that this publicly-funded, universally-available medical procedure is not only lethal to pre-born humans, but also carries a significant risk to the patient who may not be made aware of all the implications at the time of a very emotional crisis.

Where is the medical value here?

* * * *

Tuesday Update: Today's Post Letters section deals exclusively with the A-word. Who says Canadians don't want to talk about this? Some of the opinions have been reprinted from the Post's blog. I found this one particularly noteworthy:

SaintNobody said: The whole point of the abortion debate is that pro-lifers are arguing that unborn children deserve rights. We don't kill newborns because we can't afford to raise them. We don't kill old people because they're terminally ill. We should adopt the same standard for unborn children. Personal autonomy is great, but not at the cost of killing another human being.

In 1968, when Pierre Trudeau legalized abortion, he took away the rights of a whole class of human beings. Now that's scary.

Very good argument. It all comes back to the arbitrary legal decision to call a human being a "person" once he or she has fully emerged from the mother's body, never mind that preemies are able to survive months earlier if they are wanted.

What has happened is that we have given pregnant women the power to play God with regards to human life. Then some doctors practice bad medicine by enabling this circumvention of the human rights of those who will never be allowed to vote; which is why politicians side with the Pro-Choicers.

The Multicultural Face of Canada

Statistics Canada has just released the first wave of results from the 2006 Census - Population and dwelling counts.


A few items of interest:

1.) Total response rate 97%. (Globe)

So, we are either very good little Canadians who do as we are told, or else many of
us actually took that jail threat seriously.


2.) "Canada's population growth between 2001 and 2006 was higher than the previous intercensal period. " "Between 2001 and 2006, Canada's population growth was the highest among the G8 countries." (Statscan)

This is surprising considering our lack of laws concerning abortions. Obviously, our reliance on immigration is crucial and must continue, since we have no stomach to limit abortions in Canada.

Also interesting that the Globe noted that the population is "smaller than predicted", which would suggest that the other G8 nations must be doing really poorly.


3.) "Nearly 90% of Canada's population growth between 2001 and 2006 was concentrated in large metropolitan areas." (StatsCan)

Not surprising at all, but it means that politicians are going to have to increasingly pander to large cities in order to survive. This could possibly mean some kind of fallout for rural areas and farmers. In any case, those islands of red among the great sea of blue are of great importance to PMSH.


4.) Then there is the language issue - 64 of them according to the Census!


For better or for worse, the face of Canada is changing. There is no alternative. I wonder what our country will look like 20 years from now.

* * * *

Update: Mesopotamia West - The Face of Canada.

Kate has a detailed analysis - Stats Canada 2006 Census.

Joel at Proud to be Canadian has a great post - Like I said: 'Canada, Make Babies':

As approximately 18 people in Canada know (and this is by design of liberals and their media), there are no abortion laws in Canada, and women are free to get free taxpayer-paid abortions at any time at all in any pregnancy—(there’s no “you’re too far along” law in Canada—ANY time is a good time for an abortion in Canada), and can and do get an abortion—sometimes several—for any reason or no particular reason at all whatsoever. There’s simply no law. Canada’s liberals designed it and maintain it this way with the able help of their Supreme Court division. Go team.

The whole post is well worth the read.

Thursday Update: Good letters in the National Post re: their March 14 editorial "Start Making Babies":

If the government wants to increase Canadian birth rates instead of relying on immigration to bolster the population, perhaps the Minister of Finance's budget should consider full income spitting for families with babies. Every skilled immigrant taken from a Third World country reduces that country's ability to improve its own living standards. Beggaring your neighbour is a poor substitute for working together to make a better world.

A more truthful headline would have been: Stop aborting babies. We have over 100,000 innocent lives lost to abortion, oops, I mean "choice." Is it any wonder we have a "fertility crisis"?

Friday Update: Sun's Licia Corbella - Baby-Making Needed. Licia explains why immigration alone won't solve our problems. A must-read.

Would it make a difference?

In October I wrote about 3D Ultrasound baby pics, and the ironic dichotomy that exists between preborn humans who are wanted vs. unwanted. The trend towards being able to show off baby before birth is obviously on the increase with the Hamilton Spectator profiling the opening of Hamilton's first "entertainment ultrasound clinic" called 'Fetal Expressions'.

Cute.

It seems that the decision to carry a baby to term has become somewhat of a designer option - Do you want to discard it, or would you like to keep it and give Grandma her brag book ahead of time?

As much as I resent the fact that Ontario taxpayers are paying for abortions on demand, I would be in favour of an increase to that coverage if it would include a compulsory 3D ultrasound and viewing by the woman before an abortion is performed - especially if the pregnancy is at the stage of viability.

Apparently there are possible risks associated with 3D ultrasounds:

"We are doing something to the baby that could be shown to be noxious and we are not able to show a benefit to the baby," said Dr. Ants Toi, a Radiologist, at Mt. Sinai & Princess Margaret hospitals.

Gee. I'm fairly certain that abortion might fit that category too. Funny how that doesn't seem to worry anyone.