C-484: A Bill about Justice, Not Abortion

Published today in the editorial section of The Telegram, Newfoundland & Labrador's daily provincial paper.

*********

C484: A Bill about Justice, Not Abortion

by Eric Alcock

Lane Jr. was 27 weeks old, still in the womb, when his mother Olivia Talbot was fatally shot twice in the head in 2005 by a childhood friend. Baby Lane perished too. Olivia had been shot three times in the abdomen as well. No charges could be laid in Baby Lane’s death.

When Aysun Sesen, 25 and seven months pregnant, was brought to hospital in October 2007 with multiple and fatal stab wounds to her abdomen, her fetus still had a faint heartbeat but died shortly thereafter. Her husband was charged with her slaying. No charges could be laid in the unborn child’s death.

Five pregnant women have been murdered in Canada in the past three years. Unquestionably, the torment of the grieving families of the victims due to their double loss is compounded by the impossibility of securing justice for their newest family member. They say society refuses to recognize their loss. How profound their pain!

Bill C-484 brings justice to these unborn children and their families. C-484 is titled “Unborn Victims of Crime Act,” and will amend the Criminal Code to prosecute attackers who injure or kill an unborn child during the commission of a crime against the mother.

Thus far, the word “abortion” is as distant from the discussion as green cheese. Why? Because C-484 has nothing to do with abortion. The bill explicitly excludes abortion. Clear headed and fair minded Canadians obviously agree. An Angus-Reid poll showed 70% of Canadians support this legislation, with only 19% of women suspecting the government of a sneak attack on abortion rights.

Joyce Hancock of the Newfoundland and Labrador Feminist Coalition recently captured the attention of The Telegram by claiming the federal conservatives were using C-484 as a back door attack to outlaw abortion.

Ask Hancock what she sees in the bill and she’ll tell you abortion. But I’ll let you in on the secret here. What she really sees is a law that recognizes the fetus as a distinct entity, separate from the mother and worth something. And that scares her because radical feminists and abortion advocates have unceasingly drummed into Canadians that, in effect, the fetus does not exist until it’s born. That’s their justification for abortion, which, incidentally, happens to kill the fetus every time. But it’s no excuse for fear mongering and misrepresentation over C-484.

They’ll tell you the bill grants a “form of personhood” or legal status to the fetus. It plainly doesn’t. They’ll try to sidestep the fetus by saying the “real issue” is domestic violence, not losing an unborn child, or that it does nothing to stop violence against women. Perhaps they should check the title of the bill. It’s not a domestic violence bill. We have those already and if they’re ineffective, let them put their energies into improving them.

They’ll tell you the bill blunders through a loophole in favour of perpetrators of domestic violence or that double charges won’t change anything because criminals serve concurrent sentences anyway. False—they’re grasping at straws.

Liberal MP’s in our province voted against this bill. Provincial Opposition Leader Yvonne Jones immediately pledged support for Hancock but admitted she hasn’t even read the bill! How telling. Shame on them all!

Get fully informed about C-484. Visit MP Ken Epp’s website where you can examine the bill from every possible angle. Contact your own MP as soon as possible and urge support for this bill which corrects a serious flaw in our justice system.

Yes Virginia It's Alive and It's Human and It Needs Protection

Suzanne posted video of her recent ultrasound. Wow!

Preborn Babies Are Like Unfinished Houses Says Abortionist Susan Wicklund

Does worldview make a difference to your outlook on science and morals, e.g. when a new organism comes into being and how it ought to be treated if it’s of the homo sapiens variety?

Read Jill Stanek’s posting on abortionist Susan Wicklund who is promoting her new book, This Common Secret: My Journey as an Abortion Doctor, and see what you think.

Here’s a sample of what Jill says:

She admits in the book "of an abortion she performed for a rape victim, only to find out afterward that the fetus she terminated was conceived earlier than thought and would have been the much-loved child of the woman and her husband," according to SFGate.com.

But nevermind the whoopsies, let's talk logic. To an interviewer's question, "What do you say when people tell you that 'abortion is murder'?" Wicklund appears to first say aborted babies don't look human, so it's not murder to abort them.

Read the full entry here.

CUPE and International Day for the Eradication of Poverty Must First Target Poverty of the Unborn

Yesterday, about 2,000 union members and supporters rallied in downtown Toronto against the “scourge of poverty,” and called poverty a “national disgrace.”

The rally, one of many around the globe, was in support of International Day for the Eradication of Poverty.

Paul Moist, national president of the Canadian Union of Public Employees, which has more than 500,000 members indicated poverty was a moral issue when he was quoted as saying:

Canada cannot claim to provide moral leadership to the world without putting its money where its mouth is.

It’s very normal—and right—to view poverty as a moral issue. Of course poverty can also be considered an issue of justice. Poverty in Canada is truly a “national disgrace,” as the protestors claimed.

But let’s be very clear about what we are talking about when we refer to poverty. As I said in a previous posting entitled “Politically Correct” Poverty Versus True Poverty,”

Considering the fact that poverty, in the narrow sense of proper food and clothing, is deemed an injustice, then the denial of that individual’s very right to live would constitute the greatest poverty and an infinitely greater injustice.

Again, in the narrow, “politically correct” sense of poverty, we see that it is only one of many kinds of injustices against children. Child abuse is another. As a society we are enraged at the thought of children being abused in any manner by adults. But which is the worse injustice: “pc poverty” or child abuse? The answer is obvious. Taken a step further, it should be equally clear that killing a child is a worse injustice than abusing a child.

If one protests about “pc poverty,” maintaining that a child cannot be denied proper food, clothing, housing, etc. [as these thousands of protestors seem to be doing] but says nothing when the same child’s very right to live is denied [make no mistake about it, most of these protestors were not participants in the March for Life], how seriously must we take them? If we are to be truly concerned about poverty we will not conveniently close our eyes to the far greater injustice of killing children. This parable strikes a blow to such hypocrisy.

Of course, some will protest that “abortion is about a woman’s right to choose,” and not about killing children. It’s not about poverty at all, they will say. But merely stating such slogans do not make them true. The one question that must be asked by all Canadians considering the larger picture of poverty is this one: What is the Unborn?

Let’s rightly answer that question first and set ourselves upon the truly high moral ground. Then and only then can we consider ourselves in any important sense to be a “moral beacon” to the world.

And by the way, since Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) was such a high profile presence in this march against poverty, it would be good to see what CUPE’s position is on legalized child-killing.

Obviously CUPE, like too many other groups, including religious ones, is concerned about the “politically correct” and very narrow version of poverty. Someone needs to help them get their eyes opened.

Baby Leif and Baby Kintyre Witness to Canada’s Schizophrenia Regarding the Unborn

In a story entitled “At last, a chance to rest” the National Post reported yesterday on a “unique” funeral held Friday for an infant found mummified and wrapped in an 82-year-old newspaper.

Although no family came to see him off, an infant found mummified under the floorboards of a downtown Toronto home in July got the dignified burial that children's advocates were hoping for yesterday morning. Baby Kintyre -- so named by the home renovator who found him curled in fetal position and wrapped in an 82-year-old newspaper on Kintyre Avenue in the city's east end -- was buried as part of an unusual ceremony held to draw attention to the plight of abandoned babies.

This case raises a host of questions about the dead child. Although the story indicates they “found him curled in fetal position” the urgent question of whether the child was actually a “fetus” or an “infant” was immediately answered in the second paragraph.

Investigators never did find Baby Kintyre's next of kin, or a cause of death, although Ontario deputy chief coroner Jim Cairns determined the infant was born alive by looking at the air sacs in his lungs.

So obviously by outward appearances it was not possible to say whether the mummy was a fetus or an infant. [I guess there can't be THAT much difference between these two entities, can there?] In fact the original July story identified the mummy as either a fetus or a “young baby.” A medical examination was necessary. This crucial determination paved the way for a huge memorial service with all the bells and whistles, along with headline media coverage.

What do you think might have happened to this little child’s remains had the coroner not been so sure that Baby Kintyre had made it through to birth? In that case, the child would have actually been a “fetus” and I’m guessing the discovery would hardly have qualified for much more than a line or two buried somewhere on page B14.

Fetuses, after all, have no legal standing in Canada. Legally they are not considered persons. Small wonder then that after nearly forty years of such confusion some Canadians even question whether they are truly human beings. We really don't seem to know what they are.

No one would have risked entry into the “A-word” debate by highlighting the strange death of a mummified fetus by means of a funeral , even though it might have only been days away from drawing air into its lungs. Imagine suffering the wrath of the advocates of “choice” who do everything in their power to de-humanize the unborn child at every stage of its life, right up to that “magic” moment of birth whereupon a “blob of tissue” miraculously becomes a fully formed “wanted” baby, complete with personhood.

In Canada no abuse of unborn children is actually possible under the law since mothers hold supreme power over the growing mystery entity within their bellies, consigning them even to the butchery of an abortionist’s knife or suction machine if it suits their circumstances. Note in the following quote what is considered as “the very first stage of abuse” for children.

Yesterday's elaborate funeral was arranged by The Canadian Centre for Abuse Awareness as part of its ongoing campaign to honour children who have been abandoned, what the centre considers the very first stage of abuse. It is also using Baby Kintyre's funeral as an opportunity to advocate for legislative reform.

What would happen I wonder, if Baby Kintyre had turned out to be a fetus and some pro-life group had decided to hold a grand funeral pageant like this one in order “to advocate for legislative reform?” I can hear the howls now from “poor-choicers” but then again, perhaps they wouldn’t have heard about it because the media would have suddenly had better and more important matters on which to report.

Apparently in Canada today the “children’s advocates” referred to in the first paragraph of the story have a very selective understanding of the term “children” and “babies.”

In a unique agreement with the cemetery and the coroner's office, the centre will now receive babies from across Canada, give them a name and arrange their funerals. This way, the discarded infants will not end up in minimally expensed municipal graves, or "paupers' graves," as Dr. Cairns calls them.

Discard in dumpsters or incinerators more than 100,000 dead and bloodied “fetuses” violently killed in the womb and we are not expected to be the least bit concerned about a decent and respectful burial. But abandon a baby and we rush to create a national funeral centre to avoid “pauper’s graves.”

Kill the child in the womb, right up to 9 months—no problem. Kill the child the first day of his/her infancy—it’s a clear-cut case of abuse, even murder.

But both our semantics and our heartlessness are catching up with us. Unsurprisingly, the line now appears to be blurring with respect to what is and is not infanticide.

Still, the call for similar measures resonates in Canada every time there is a fatal case of newborn abandonment, or another crime where a troubled mother kills a newborn. After a 15-year-old girl gave birth to a healthy girl in the bathroom of her parents' home in Brampton in 2002, then stabbed it in the neck, police opted for a second-degree murder charge instead of infanticide.

What might we next consider to be tolerable—Peter Singer’s take on infanticide?

In considering our tragic duplicity in Canada, try to grasp this statement by Ellen Campbell, the centre’s founder:

These little babies, I just think they're screaming from their graves about abuse of children.

No doubt Ms. Campbell is a well meaning and compassionate individual. She may even be a “pro-lifer.” And the fact is that abandoned children, like Baby Kintyre, do suffer terrible abuse at the hands of their parents, as Ms. Campbell rightly laments.

Yet—we are permitted no sympathy or pity for the more than 100,000 “little babies” killed in the womb “legally” in Canada every year but for these who are abandoned, she (along with the rest of Canada) says,

It's a huge statement about how we value children and the dignity of life.

Kinghorn, the home renovator who found Baby Kintyre, described for us near perfectly in one sentence Canada’s schizophrenia:

I can't fathom murder ... I want to think it was natural.

Scream Bloody Murder

Yes, it sounds sensationalist—like a Hollywood line. In fact, Hollywood has made millions from a couple of movies with this line. But I don’t use the line for sensationalism.

And I don’t use the phrase to draw your attention to some fictional thriller.

I ask the reader, and particularly the Christian reader, “Why aren’t we screaming bloody murder about the killing of unborn children in Canada?”

Not only are we not screaming loudly about this horrific injustice but the vast majority of Canadians are saying very little if anything about the “A-word.”

Please think about it for a moment.

If we were personally attacked and overcome by an aggressor, wouldn’t “screaming bloody murder” be the least we would do? We’d try to draw attention to our plight in any way we could and our attacker would make every effort to silence us because screaming to the top of our lungs would very likely bring help--and fast.

Likewise if we were to see a fellow human being attacked, wouldn’t we, at the very minimum, scream and yell as loudly as possible, hoping for assistance?

Imagine if, from a distance, we saw an elderly lady being assaulted—or a handicapped child being mugged—or a toddler being shaken violently. Wouldn’t we “scream bloody murder,” make noises, drop what we’re doing, and even rush to defend the victim?

Then why not for an unborn child?

In every major city and hospital in Canada, perhaps around the corner from where you live, unborn children are being violently attacked and killed every day.

“But,” you say, “I object. It’s not the same thing.

Are we really even talking here about a child?

Can we consider it to be a human being?

I really doubt that it’s a person anyway.”

Fair enough. I see a problem here. So let’s not use the word child—or baby.

And let’s place a hold for the time being on our original question, “Why aren’t we screaming bloody murder about the killing of unborn children in Canada?”

It’s obvious that there’s a bigger question in the background that needs examination: What is the unborn?

---

Here’s a list of the postings in the Scream Bloody Murder series:

Part 1 Scream Bloody Murder

Part 2 Only One Question To Ask: What Is The Unborn?

Part 3 Speaking as a Former Fetus, I was Always a Human Being—According to Science

Part 4 Speaking as a Former Fetus, I was Always a Human Being—According to Philosophy

Part 5 Speaking as a Former Fetus, I was Always a Human Being—According to Theology

Part 6 Who Says There’s A Difference between a “Human Being” and a “Person?”

Abusing a Living Child is Worse Than Killing an Unborn One

As a result of issuing this press release on October 1, 2007, and the resulting news coverage by VOCM radio, a visitor named Mark dropped by the Vote Life, Canada! blog to do a little reading and left a comment.

Mark said...

I think you should devote your time to something more important like helping the poor, the sick or the elderly. Instead of wasting your time on something that is a woman's choice. It also makes me sick to hear you say that abusing a living child is not as bad as killing an unborn one. You've got to be kidding me.

Secondly, you and the Religious Social Action Coalition and everything else I read or see about religious groups, proves to me once again, that religion poisons everything. Society has spent the last 100 years trying to release itself from the dangers of religion and you people are trying to set us back. And say what you want about my comments, I don't care, I won't be coming back to this site anyways so I'll never know.

I feel bad for you and your crazy followers. Hopefully, you people will never be in power. We already had the dark ages once, we don't need go through it again.

Probably Mark was serious when he said he wouldn’t be returning to our site to read any responses to his comment but regardless, I’d like the opportunity to respond.

First of all, Mark offered no comment whatever on content of the press release which brought him to the website, i.e. the despicable actions of the Religious Social Action Coalition and the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary in arresting me and locking me up in a paddy wagon for simply having a viewpoint. I presume that he is not troubled by such minor human rights violations in relation to a “woman’s choice” to altogether remove her unborn child’s right to live. Clear enough.

When Mark says, “It also makes me sick to hear you say that abusing a living child is not as bad as killing an unborn one,” I don’t know precisely what statement I made to which he is referring. However, looking simply at society’s present attitudes towards infant children, I think everyone—without exception—would agree that taking and killing an infant child by cutting, slashing or ripping him/her to pieces constitutes a crime worse than the typical charge of child abuse. What’s the difference one week or one month earlier in the womb through late term abortion—which is perfectly legal in Canada and it does happen.

Mark is obviously of the persuasion that childbirth magically confers upon the unborn the status of human being, or more likely he’s thinking of personhood. He needs to answer the question, “What is the Unborn?” No, Mark, I’m not kidding you.

As for the canard “religion is the source of all our problems,” I’d refer him to a posting written this week by a fellow blogger (and pastor) on just that subject. It’s entitled Isn't religion the source of all wars? If more serious address on this phony claim is required, the reader can go here and here.

If Mark thinks we’ve come out of the dark ages into the light, what other injustice from those past ages matches the contempt for life represented by the violent deaths of 50 million unborn human beings in North America over the past forty years?

Ontario’s Top Political Leaders Pledge Support So Morgentaler Abortuary Can Quickly Kill (More) Babies

Yesterday, we reported on the news item about wait times for legalized child-killing [aka abortion] in Canada’s capital city.

Today we hear from the leaders of the three top political parties in Ontario.

Gee, that was quick—but predictable in response.

All three, including a "good" Catholic premier, unquestionably favour killing womb children whenever the mother chooses and decry this injustice of having to wait for this "front-line" health procedure.

Voters in Ontario truly concerned about justice and human rights obviously need to shop for new parties.

Not sure? Answer this question and then listen to this message.

**********

Leaders promise action on abortion waiting times

The Ottawa Citizen

Tuesday, September 25, 2007

Party leaders responded yesterday to a Citizen story that said Ottawa has the longest wait times for abortion in the country.

The story reported yesterday that while the average wait in Canada is two weeks, women in Ottawa wait for about four weeks, and sometimes up to six.

At a campaign stop yesterday, Premier Dalton McGuinty said increased hospital funding will eventually provide easier access to abortion. "I fully support a woman's right to choose, No. 1," Mr. McGuinty said. "No. 2, we have provided an additional $9 billion by way of new investments in health care."

Conservative leader John Tory said the Ottawa abortion wait time issue reflects a lack of leadership by the premier.

"Wait times for many procedures in Ottawa are not only below recommended Ontario government levels, but also behind provincial averages. This is unacceptable for the second largest city in the province and shocking given Ottawa is the home of the premier," he said.

Maron Nader, a spokeswoman for NDP leader Howard Hampton, called abortion services a "front-line" health procedure. She accused the McGuinty government of following too narrow a focus with its wait time strategy, saying all Ontarians deserve fair access to health care.

[Source]

The Rosa Acunas Of The World Deserve Better. They Deserve All The Information

In yesterday’s edition of The Bulletin, Philadelphia’s Family Newspaper, columnist Frank Diamond writes a piece entitled “N.J. Supremes Issue Flawed Abortion Ruling.”

I covered the news about this NJ Supreme Court ruling just a couple days ago, making special reference to the one question that must always be asked in discussions about the entity growing within the body of a pregnant woman.

Then yesterday I blogged about the upcoming art exhibit crafted by Naomi Kasumi, a Japanese woman whose experience with abortion is partly summed up in these words of hers:

Since 1998, I have been making hand-made objects spontaneously, and obsessively, as a therapeutic, redemptive action, as a way to atone for my sin. The loss of this tiny life has led me to create repetitive objects, re-creating the same object and same action over and over, day and night. This ritual seems timeless. Sharing the truth of my experience with others publicly is my catharsis and part of my healing process.

Columnist Frank Diamond draws many of the elements of these stories together when he tells the story of George Zallie.

Last week's decision by the New Jersey Supreme Court in the abortion case Acuna v. Turkish hit so close to home for George Zallie that he can't even speak about it. Zallie is a Cherry Hill resident whose daughter, Stacy, committed suicide in 2002. He learned afterwards that Stacy had been suffering from depression because of an abortion she'd had. Zallie believes that the medical community let his daughter down by not warning her of the possible psychiatric ramifications of terminating a pregnancy, and he's turned that belief into a crusade.

His Stacy Zallie Foundation offers counseling for post-abortive women suffering from depression. He's also lobbying the American Psychiatric Association to provide better information about the risk of abortion but, so far, has gotten no response.

That's because the entire counseling profession - psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers - is so infected with political correctness that it refuses to concede that abortion can be anything other than a liberating experience. After all, if a woman could be psychically scarred by abortion, might that not imply that the procedure isn't simply a routine affair, like having wisdom teeth pulled?

Diamond gives little evidence of being a principled “pro-lifer” but much evidence of being a true human being and poses very reasonable questions about the convoluted and bizarre status quo of legalized child killing.

What can we do to get more people making these observations and asking these sort of questions?

His article appears below.

**********

N.J. Supremes Issue Flawed Abortion Ruling

Last week's decision by the New Jersey Supreme Court in the abortion case Acuna v. Turkish hit so close to home for George Zallie that he can't even speak about it. Zallie is a Cherry Hill resident whose daughter, Stacy, committed suicide in 2002. He learned afterwards that Stacy had been suffering from depression because of an abortion she'd had. Zallie believes that the medical community let his daughter down by not warning her of the possible psychiatric ramifications of terminating a pregnancy, and he's turned that belief into a crusade.

His Stacy Zallie Foundation offers counseling for post-abortive women suffering from depression. He's also lobbying the American Psychiatric Association to provide better information about the risk of abortion but, so far, has gotten no response.

That's because the entire counseling profession - psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers - is so infected with political correctness that it refuses to concede that abortion can be anything other than a liberating experience. After all, if a woman could be psychically scarred by abortion, might that not imply that the procedure isn't simply a routine affair, like having wisdom teeth pulled?

Zallie is engaged in a public effort to help an at-risk group. He's also fighting a personal battle. He couldn't comment on Acuna v. Turkish because he's suing Stacy's psychiatrist. Still, the case resonates with him because it deals with just what a physician needs to tell a patient who is weighing whether to have an abortion.

In 1996, Rosa Acuna discovered that she was six to eight weeks pregnant. When she asked her gynecologist, Dr. Sheldon Turkish, if there was a baby inside her, she says that he responded, "Don't be stupid; it's only blood," according to the New Jersey Supreme Court decision. Turkish doesn't remember exactly what he said, but he believes that he probably told Acuna that what was inside her "is just tissue at this time." Acuna signed a consent form acknowledging that "the doctor had explained all the risks and complications to her."

There is no mention in the court decision that Acuna was given any information regarding what to do in case she felt depressed after the abortion. Zallie contends that few women are given such guidance.

Acuna had the abortion, and it might have ended there except that something had gone terribly wrong. In the following weeks, she experienced bleeding. Finally, after about a month, she was admitted to Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital in New Brunswick, where she was diagnosed with an "incomplete abortion." An additional procedure was performed.

"What happened?" a recovering Acuna asked a nurse. According to court documents, "The nurse replied that 'the doctor left parts of the baby inside of you.'" The realization that it had been more than just "blood" or "tissue" sent Acuna into emotional distress until she was finally diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder.

What the New Jersey Supreme Court last week found important was that "she understood that without some intervening circumstance or medical procedure, a child would be born, but what she needed to hear on the day of her visit to [Turkish's] office was that she was carrying 'an existing living human being.'"

Well, the court ruled, maybe Acuna needed to hear that, but Turkish was under no obligation to say that "an abortion results in the killing of a family member." What Acuna expected from her doctor, the court decided, cuts to the core of an issue that theologians, physicians, and philosophers have been unable to resolve: When does life begin?

"We are not unmindful of the raging debate that has roiled the nation and of the sincerely and passionately held beliefs by those on opposite sides of the debate."

The court added that "Acuna must demonstrate that Dr. Turkish withheld medical information that a reasonably prudent pregnant woman in like circumstances would have considered material before consenting to the abortion."

Yet, wouldn't a "reasonably prudent pregnant woman" want to know that having an abortion might result in depression or post-traumatic stress disorder? Zallie argues that people on both sides of the abortion debate - those who claim to care only about the mother's welfare as well as those who say they're looking out for the baby - should be able to reach some sort of agreement about providing post-abortive counseling.

You would think that pro-choicers would be OK with a doctor or psychiatrist saying something like this: "Be mindful that some women - not all or even most, but some - do experience acute depression after having an abortion. It may well be because the crazy pro-lifers insist on saying that abortion is murder and try to make you feel guilty. Regardless of why you may be feeling depressed or anxious, just remember not to hesitate to come to me for help. I can get you counseling."

This is the least that should be done. Think of all the outreach programs for women suffering from post-partum depression. Think of all the segments on television news magazines that have focused on that very real problem. Now, do you remember ever seeing post-abortive syndrome featured on a talk show?

The pro-choice side claims that there's not enough evidence to suggest that post-abortive syndrome exists. Then, because it controls the universities and organizations such as the APA, it stymies any attempt to study the issue. Meanwhile, the thousands of stories about post-abortive syndrome are derided as being merely anecdotal.

The result: psychiatrists in lockstep interpret that ancient tenet of healing, "First, do no harm," as meaning, "Do nothing." Meanwhile, thousands of post-abortive women suffer in isolation. The Rosa Acunas of the world deserve better. They deserve all the information.

Yes Mary Smith It Is All About Babies

In Australia’s e-journal of social and political debate, Mary Smith poses a question today, “Is it all about babies?”

She asks,

Is the opposition to abortion simply about saving babies? Or, are there other motives behind the graphic images of advanced fetuses?

From there she launches her attack on pro-lifers, accusing them of being disingenuous because they focus on late term abortions when, in fact, she notes these are rare. She seems to think that abortions up to 20 weeks or so are perfectly fine and therefore that pro-lifers ought to admit that because women “act swiftly” [in killing their offspring], at least 90% of “terminations” shouldn’t be an issue.

She moves on to accuse pro-lifers, and particularly the Catholic versions, of having an agenda to eliminate all of society’s hard earned rights to abortion, contraception and sex education. She challenges the claims that emergency contraception can cause abortions and mocks the possibility that “A group of eight cells held together by the egg membrane is now a child!”

Her diatribe is full of disinformation and prejudice against the unborn child, never once raising the most important question of all. She seems incapable of grasping the simple truth: Yes! It IS all about the babies—and babies who are babies from the point of conception through to the day of birth, and beyond.

As usual, these types of “poor-choice” opinion pieces are poorly constructed in terms of reason and argument but they do pass the test with too many who are already fooled by the shallow slogans and rhetoric. A look into the comments box for these kinds of columns usually corroborates such superficiality and, unfortunately, not only that of poor-choicers.

Take a look at Mary Smith's article [reproduced below] and see if you can locate some of the distortions, generalizations, sloganeering, etc. Why not post a comment to this blog with your observations.

**********

Is It All About The Babies?

Is the opposition to abortion simply about saving babies? Or, are there other motives behind the graphic images of advanced fetuses?

Many anti abortionists, or pro-life activists as they prefer to be called, focus on the issue of late abortions even though the vast majority of abortions, about 90 per cent, are performed during the first trimester.

Most women facing unwanted pregnancy act swiftly, I cannot imagine that a woman would deliberately wait until the fetus reaches 20 weeks before having an abortion. Late abortions occur in cases of fetal abnormality and complications affecting the health of the woman. Other pro-lifers adopt a feminist facade and spread misinformation about the safety of legal abortion while conveniently ignoring the dangers of illegal, unsafe abortions which affect millions of women, mostly in developing countries.

By focusing on the few late abortions, the pro-life lobby hopes to harness public support in chipping away abortion rights. Indeed, not only do they want ALL abortions banned, they also want to ban contraception.

In El Salvadore and Nicaragua the Catholic Church pro-lifers succeeded in banning ALL abortions, including those necessary to save a woman's life, doctors are reluctant to provide emergency treatment to any woman with pregnancy-related complications and even fear to treat women with ectopic pregnancies. Their fears are not unfounded, any doctor accused of performing abortion, even to save a woman's life can spend up to 30 years in jail.

In the Philippines (PDF 114KB), it is estimated that about 400.000 illegal abortions take place every year, yet contraception is banned from public hospitals and clinics. The government endorses Catholic-approved Natural Family Planning only. But Natural Family Planning or abstinence does not work if women are forced by their husbands to have sex.

You need not take my word for this; check out what pro-lifers have to say about contraception:

"By outlawing contraception, you're closer to outlawing surgical abortion," says Matt Sande, director of legislative affairs for Pro-Life Wisconsin.

“Sande says the 1992 Supreme Court ruling that narrowly upheld Roe v. Wade - the court's landmark 1973 decision legalizing abortion - forces the hand of abortion opponents because it reasoned that abortion was the legal fallback for contraceptive failure.

"So if, as the pro-life community, you're trying to outlaw surgical abortion but the court has told us its legal basis is founded on the necessity of abortion, shouldn't the pro-life community begin to take a look at contraception?" Sande says.

"We're trying to overturn Roe v. Wade, but the court is pointing us over here," he adds. Those who don't turn their attention to trying to outlaw contraception at this point, Sande says, hurt the anti-abortion cause.

And closer to home Nicholas Tonti-Filippini says:

The pro-life concern is that the effect of mini-pills such as Micronor, because they are unlikely to suppress ovulation, are much more likely to be abortifacient. The lining of the uterus is altered so that if the effect on cervical mucus fails to prevent the passage of sperm, then embryos created are likely to be unable to embed and develop in the lining of the uterus. The mini-pills do carry a significant risk of loss of human lives at an early stage.

Even if one of the modes of action of the pill is preventing the fertilised egg from attaching to the uterine lining, it would still not constitute an abortifacient action, the pill would not be acting to kill the fertilised egg but merely to prevent its implantation in the uterine lining. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists defines pregnancy as starting at implantation, when the fertilised egg attaches itself to the uterine lining.

In the US, 86 anti-abortion groups have committed to opposing all forms of contraception. Pro-life organisations in Australia also oppose contraception, even though they are not as vocal about it as their American allies.

Many pro-life websites are full of propaganda about how the pill and the IUD are abortifacients and that the Emergency Contraception pill is a form of early abortion similar to the actual abortion pill, RU486. The pro-life gospel goes something like this: "The pill/IUD alters the lining of the uterus and the six-day-old child cannot implant on the uterine lining and is sloughed off." Or, "Pills and IUDs kill people".

A group of eight cells held together by the egg membrane is now a child!

Pro-life organisations oppose not only abortion and contraception but sex education and even condoms for disease prevention. And it doesn't end here, the recently introduced Human Papilloma Virus vaccine is also under fire. As far as we know, the HPV vaccine does not have any abortive or contraceptive properties and it can help prevent cervical cancer, so why oppose it? If pro-lifers insist that women be told that having an abortion can lead to a great risk of developing breast cancer, why oppose a vaccine that prevents cervical cancer?

The plight of women in the Philippines, Nicaragua and El Salvador, illustrates what can happen when the Catholic Church-pro-life lobby dictates public health policy.

The Reformed Pastor Trashes NJ Supreme Court Verdict On Unborn

A few days ago in a posting on the topic of attitudes towards children, I noted a link to the story on New Jersey courts questioning the humanity of the Unborn.

Evangelical Presbyterian church planter and blogger The Reformed Pastor weighs in on the verdict, linking at one point to an excellent NRO column, and after a few paragraphs states the obvious

I laughed out loud when I read this. What does the disagreement over the “moral, theological, [and] ideological” status of such children have to do with “biological fact”? As far as it goes, I wonder why abortion proponents continue to argue about this. You can argue about the legal or philosophical definition of “person,” and whether a fetus fits that definition. But biologically there’s nothing else it could be but human.

The New Jersey court cowardly sidestepped the most important question in any discussion of justice for the unborn child.

And now I’ll state something even more obvious. These judges were appointed to ensure justice in American society. But how can justice even be considered for those whose very existence and identity are questioned, as the New Jersey court has done in respect of the Unborn?

This makes their verdict especially egregious and despicable.

Only One Question To Ask: What Is The Unborn?

Presumably you’ve arrived at this page because you wonder whether there’s really any need to “Scream Bloody Murder” about the deaths through abortion of over 100,000 “unborns” in Canada yearly.

Remember, this discussion started when we asked the question: “Why aren’t we screaming bloody murder about the killing of unborn children in Canada?”

However, some have objected to calling them unborn “children” and asked whether they were really “human beings.”

So that brings us to this posting, where we zero in on the question "What is the Unborn?"

**********

Mention the word “abortion” to most people and chances are they’ll think of anything except what abortion actually is. The word has lost almost all its meaning because of the many half truths, slogans and emotional appeals which have moved the focus away from the central question raised by abortion.

Consider the following illustration which identifies the crucial question. [This illustration has been drawn from the folks at Stand To Reason, an apologetics group based in California.]

If your child comes up behind you while you’re working and asks,

“Mommy/Daddy, can I kill this?”

what one question must you ask before you can answer his question? Think carefully for a moment. Before you answer the question

“Can I kill this?”

you must first ask the question

“What is it?”

If it’s a spider or a cockroach, you might say it’s ok to smash it. If it’s the funny looking boy down the street, you’ll need to sit down for a long talk with your child.

This illustration plainly cautions that before we can determine whether or not it is moral to kill something, we must know what it is that we are killing. Abortion kills something that was alive. Is it right or is it wrong?

Again, we must answer the question, “What is being killed?” i.e. what is the unborn? If the unborn is not a human being, if it’s simply an extraneous blob of tissue, an optional part of a woman’s body like the appendix, or even a “potential” human, then we needn’t be concerned with justifying the killing. Go ahead and have the abortion. In fact have as many as you like provided medical care ensures your continued good health.

However, this is precisely where arguments in favour of abortion become incoherent. Abortion is defended on the basis of choice, privacy, economics, “It’s my body,” unwanted children, physical defect, rape, incest, etc. Such rationalizations last year resulted in the violent deaths of over 100,000 unborns in Canada alone. Nonetheless these justifications are irrelevant because they avoid the real issue—abortion itself—and the question “What is the unborn?”

Let’s continue to put things in perspective through the following imaginary dialogue.

Abortion Advocate (AA): Abortion is a private choice between a woman and her doctor.

Pro-Lifer (PL): Do we allow parents to abuse their little children if it is done in private?

AA: That’s not fair. The children you’re talking about are human beings. I’m talking about a fetus.

PL: Then the issue isn’t really privacy, but rather whether the fetus is a human being.

AA: But lots of poor women can’t afford another child.

PL: Let me ask you a question. When human beings get expensive, can we kill them?

AA: Well, no, but aborting a fetus is not the same as killing a human being.

PL: So, once again, the real question is “What is the unborn?” Is the fetus a human being?

AA: Why do you insist on being so simplistic? This is a very complex issue involving women who are forced to make agonizing decisions.

PL: The decision may be agonizing for the mother, I admit that. But it’s not a complex moral issue. It’s wrong to kill innocent human beings simply because they’re in the way and can’t defend themselves.

AA: Killing defenseless human beings is one thing. Aborting a fetus is another.

PL: So we’re agreed: If abortion actually killed a defenseless human being, then the issue wouldn’t be complex, right? The question we still need to answer is, “What is the unborn?”

AA: Enough with your abstract philosophy. Let’s talk about real life. Do you really think a woman should be forced to bring an unwanted child into the world?

PL: The homeless are unwanted. Can we kill them?

AA: But it’s not the same.

PL: That’s the issue, isn’t it? Are they the same? If the unborn are truly human beings, like the homeless, then we can’t just kill them to get them out of the way. We’re back to my first question, “What is the unborn?”

AA: But you still shouldn’t force your morality on women.

PL: You’d feel very comfortable “forcing your morality” on a mother who was physically abusing her two-year-old, wouldn’t you?

AA: But that’s not the same.

PL Why not?

AA: Because you’re assuming the unborn are human, like a two-year-old.

PL: And you’re assuming they’re not. You see, this is not really about privacy or economic hardship or complexity or unwanted children or forced morality. It’s about whether the unborn are human beings. Answer the question “What is the unborn?” and you’ve answered the others.

And if the unborn is a real human being, then abortion kills an innocent child simply because that child is in the way and can’t defend him/herself. And if the unborn child is as fully human in his or her essential nature as you and I, then he or she deserves the same legal protections as you and I.

The question “What is the Unborn?” is therefore absolutely crucial to any discussion about abortion because it must be made plain whether the unborn are indeed human beings.

And therefore our original question: “Why aren’t we screaming bloody murder about the killing of unborn children in Canada?” must be put on hold for a while longer until we settle the bigger question of ‘What is the Unborn?”

One way to tackle this bigger question might be to say:

Part 3
Speaking as a Former Fetus, I was Always a Human Being

**********

See previous postings:

Part 1 Scream Bloody Murder

Part 2 Only One Question To Ask: What Is The Unborn?

“Politically Correct” Poverty Versus True Poverty

The word poverty comes from the Latin signifying “to get little,” and in nearly universal application refers to a lack or deficiency, or to be denied adequate resources to participate meaningfully in some way in society.

It ought to be reasonably obvious then that the greatest poverty would be a denial altogether of an individual’s ability to participate in ANY way in society, i.e. a denial of their very right to live.

Such a definition clarifies the statement made by Mother Teresa that abortion is a poverty and the greatest destroyer of peace in the world today.

Poverty is an issue with men and women of good will simply because it is seen to be an injustice to the individual who lacks or who is deficient in resources, ability, etc. So what is being said is: “This is not right. Children deserve better than what they are receiving right now. They deserve everything necessary to participate meaningfully in society.”

That is the kind of thinking embraced by compassionate individuals who have great concerns about those facing poverty. Quite simply, they maintain, and rightly so, that IT IS WRONG. So poverty is an issue because justice demands that proper and rightful resources be granted the individuals in question.

Clearly, these individuals deserve basic supplies of food and clothing as well as suitable housing and education. More fundamentally however they deserve the right to life. Without that “resource” they have no ability whatsoever to participate meaningfully in society.

Considering the fact that poverty, in the narrow sense of proper food and clothing, is deemed an injustice, then the denial of that individual’s very right to live would constitute the greatest poverty and an infinitely greater injustice.

Again, in the narrow, “politically correct” sense of poverty, we see that it is only one of many kinds of injustices against children. Child abuse is another. As a society we are enraged at the thought of children being abused in any manner by adults. But which is the worse injustice: “pc poverty” or child abuse? The answer is obvious. Taken a step further, it should be equally clear that killing a child is a worse injustice than abusing a child.

Regardless of whether we frame these violations as injustices or different kinds of poverty, the worse violation of all is the killing of a child and all other injustices or poverties pale in comparison.

If one protests about “pc poverty,” maintaining that a child cannot be denied proper food, clothing, housing, etc. but says nothing when the same child’s very right to live is denied, then who will take such a person seriously?

If the deficiencies spoken of are interpreted in light of rights, a similar double standard can be seen. If one maintains that a child has a right to be properly cared for in respect to food and clothing but equivocates or is silent regarding the child’s right to live, one’s friends will scream “crazy.”

But at this point some will strongly point out that of course every child has a right to live—except those who are still in the womb. Conveniently in such cases, these Unborns, for mysterious reasons, are not considered children. Presumably, all those who are impressed with proposals to abolish “pc poverty” but pooh pooh the wider notion of poverty and injustice for Unborns, must not consider the Unborns as children. Why else would they not be protesting such grave evil and injustice aimed at the most innocent of children?

Theirs is certainly a narrow perspective on children’s rights and it is also a uninformed perspective on the question of What is the Unborn? It certainly is not a Christian view of the Unborn as confirmed by over nineteen centuries of Christian teaching and practice.

If we permit a focus on “pc poverty” and turn a blind eye to the greater poverty of abortion, what happens when there are no more children to be concerned about? Must we wait until that extreme point before considering the answers to these questions?

This Is What Amnesty International Used To Look Like

From Death Penalty News December 1998

I have promised Amnesty International that I will never sign the death sentence for a fellow human being. I would like to reaffirm this commitment. Life is sacred. I believe a person can reform. I believe that forgiveness makes all of us better persons. In the cause of truth and justice, I invite all heads of state in Africa, our common home, to abolish the death sentence, to work for the removal of violence among our peoples and so to prepare a better future for our children.

- Dr Bakili Muluzi, President of the Republic of Malawi, in a message to the Eighth General Assembly of the World Council of Churches in Harare, Zimbabwe,
6-14 December 1998

[source] Readers might find it worthwhile to look further into that report.

Amnesty International (AI) continues to insist that its goals—to abolish the death penalty and to promote forgiveness and reformation—have not changed.

Yet, through AI’s recent decision to advocate for legal and worldwide access to abortion, an entire, distinct group of completely innocent human beings have been robbed of the most fundamental right to life, made subject to the death penalty without trial and without advocacy, and without an appeal to forgiveness, which even the most guilty, and heinous, parties have been granted.

When all is said and done, the biggest question in “civilized” society and in the future of mankind at this time is, “What is the Unborn?”

Why aren't Christians nailing this question to rooftops and billboards? Why are we not screaming bloody murder?

Only One Question To Answer: What Is The Unborn?

In a Viewpoints section of one of Boston’s university newspapers, a freshman student goes on record with her perspective of human rights.

It’s worth reading because it offers a study in the shallow and non-critical thinking of today’s young college women. This young freshman, Alyssa, has a full life ahead of her [God willing!] and it will be a great shame if she does not progress any further in her attitudes towards the unborn. Judging by the fact that she is in her freshman year and already she’s been recruited by the feminists through their “Reproductive Rights and Social Justice Conference,” I’d say Alyssa’s attitudes will grow even more prejudiced against the unborn.

Alyssa starts out by expressing a desire to talk about oppression, which, it would seem, was brought to her attention at the above mentioned Conference. She notes,

I never realized that I was part of a group that is still under a great deal of oppression. But it turns out, even in America in 2007, women still face sexism just as much as other minorities still face racism (which, I am ashamed to say, I also learned this weekend).

She begs the “self-proclaimed pro-lifer” to not tune her out because her goal

is not to impose my own beliefs, but to present the issue from a new perspective: one of human rights and the oppression of half the world's population, in which certain opinions, although personal, are detrimental to women's health and livelihood.

Although I am proudly and passionately a pro-choice feminist, I seek to try to bridge some of the gaps between the two thought camps. Of course, I can't help my bias and will certainly be pushing a "pro-choice agenda," but I feel that it is essential to women that other people see this issue as extremely important.

And so her thoughts flow on, never seeming to coming close to the all important question of “What is the unborn? Are they human, and if so, what of their rights?”

No, the question is never asked, which, by default, indicates that in fact it has been answered already in the negative: No, the unborn are not human; they must not be human. How could they be considered human and yet their human rights disregarded so? How could they possibly be human considering that we speak of ending their lives?

The unborn MUST be dehumanized first in order to be killed. Their humanity MUST be denied because the conclusion would be too shocking: We are killing human beings, and the law is allowing it. This is to think the unthinkable.

What is the unborn? That’s the question to be answered honestly in the abortion debate. Alyssa came somewhat close to the question when she said,

Sometimes, I do falter in my beliefs. Last night as I helped baby-sit the child of a Tufts mother at the Senate meeting, I caught a glimpse of the legalize abortion sticker on my bag. For a second, it occurred to me that this adorable, energetic boy full of life could have been aborted.

But Alyssa is quite blinded and overcome by the pro-abortion rhetoric and slogans. She ends her piece,

But the thing is a woman needs the ability to make decisions about her own body. After all, doesn't a woman know best?

Take note Alyssa, it’s not about “her own body,” or “choice,” or “reproductive freedom,” or “rape victims.”

Answer the question, “What is the unborn?” and you’ve answered all the rest.

Take note pro-lifers, that it is pointless to engage people like Alyssa on all the other questions, which are only rabbit trails anyway. Focus on the main question, get yourself equipped to discuss abortion on that level, or first on a more basic level, and Alyssa and her friends will start thinking differently.