ProWomanProLife.org Personally Opposed But Will Not Force Morality

I held some hope when I wrote my posting yesterday that the women at ProWomanProLife.org might respond by simply removing what appeared to be ambiguity and say, “Yes, without hesitation we totally believe abortion ought to be illegal—even though our group will not be directly involved in trying to change the law.”

But today a different picture is emerging. In a blog posting today Andrea Mrozek, as well as Brigitte Pellerin, offered a shallow and twisted [respectively] response to my concern and both women purposefully avoided making such a simple pro-life statement as suggested. Their comments seem to indicate that [to some extent, not sure what extent] they are personally opposed to abortion but they will not deny a woman the choice to make that decision. They certainly don’t think the law should be interposed between a woman and her decision to abort.

So let’s see if I have this right. They are personally opposed but they don’t want to impose their morality [through the law or otherwise] on any woman. Women, they maintain, should be free to choose [the cruel killing of their unborn children] and in the meanwhile, until women are convinced [by their group and other “pro-lifers”] to make better choices, the killing of these children ought to be permitted under the law. Have I got that right?

That seems to be what Mrozek meant when she stated today,

I may well be Canada’s first pro-choice pro-lifer.

Perhaps to some people this sounds like a “moderate” position.

But what moderate or middle ground can there be between pro-life and pro-choice? Anything less than pro-life, i.e. EVERY life, always results in a dead child—somewhere, sometime, under certain circumstances. A pro-choice pro-lifer is an oxymoron, just as contradictory as the term “a cruel kindness” and, if accepted, provides cover for just another “pro-choice” apologist—one wearing a ‘pro-life” mask this time.

Regarding the name ProWomanProLife.org….

I strongly object to their use of the name ProWoman. On the basis purely of the tragic testimony of women in the CanadaSilentNoMore campaign, Mrozek’s ProWoman group ought to unabashedly endorse laws which in every way possible prevent a woman from suffering the lifelong trauma and scarring of abortion. On the basis alone that 50% of all abortions end the lives of fellow women, Mrozek’s ProWoman group ought to unabashedly endorse laws which in every way possible prevent the violent “termination” of an unborn child of the female sex.

I strongly object to their use of the name ProLife. If human life has intrinsic worth then EVERY life deserves protection. If pro-life doesn’t mean that, it means nothing. Words must mean something or they mean nothing. If human life is intrinsically valuable then we have a duty as a society to preserve and protect human life at ALL stages, including preborn stages. If law means anything and protects anything, it must first and foremost protect the most vulnerable human lives from willful destruction by others. Mrozek’s ProLife group, by definition, ought to unabashedly endorse such laws.

I have emphasized that ProWomanProLife.org ought to unabashedly endorse laws which protect unborn children from being killed and which protect women from the horror of an abortion choice. Note that I did not say the group ought to divert their energies into political activism to change current laws or even to otherwise change their approach. I am simply making the claim that for the sake of the integrity of the pro-life movement in Canada, ProWomanProLife.org ought to stand on the bedrock principle of endorsing such laws. In my opinion anything less than that disqualifies them from the title “Pro-Life.”

Wouldn’t it make sense for ProWomanProLife.org to simply go on record saying they believe the killing of unborn children ought to be illegal and then go about their business of convincing women of the wrong headedness of such a decision? After all, the current laws are indeed forcing somebody’s version of morality on Canadians and it’s a deathly, devastating version at that. Why then would they refuse to make the most basic pro-woman, pro-life, pro-child and pro-human rights statement of all?