Typical “Pro-Choice” Response: “Nuh-uh!”
January 26, 2008 · By Matthew
The National Post has been running a nice little series this week in honour of the 20th anniversary of the R v. MORGENTALER ruling in 1988. While every since article this week, including those from authors on both sides, has been a welcomely fresh debate on abortion that we should’ve been having instead of the blatant name-calling and attacks that have characterized the last 20 years (mostly from the “pro-choice” side, but admittedly some from the “pro-life” side too!), today marked a departure as a guest columnist, former “pro-choice” spokeswoman and current Ryerson University professor Judy Rebick demonstrated the real reason that we haven’t been able to have a mature debate in this country. Aside from emotional hyperbole that essentially repeated the same old insufficient arguments that her side has been stating for decades now, we also get a perfect example about half-way down as to why most “pro-choicers” cannot be debated in their current mindset:
No one has been silenced on the issue, as Barbara Kay suggested this week in her column. Dr. Morgentaler has fought province by province to ensure that the legal right to abortion is supported by medicare.
By “no one”, I presume Prof. Rebick means no one on the pro-choice side since Barbara Kay’s column earlier this week dealt specifically with university administrations and/or student governments in Newfoundland, Ontario and B.C. all refusing equal rights to pro-life groups or their apologists. That quote above is all there is; I presume that by referencing Mrs. Kay that Prof. Rebick read the work cited but seems to offer us no compelling reason to believe her statement.
Sadly, this is the habit that I have witnessed in almost every pro-abortion individual who wants to “debate” abortion; state the emotional arguments how how a woman has the right to control her own body’s functions (she doesn’t, otherwise women would have a legal right to be cured from cancer or at least to cosmetic surgery), dangerous abortions would happen if it were illegal (completely ignoring present dangers in legal procedures, not to mention the disregard of the rule of law), only women can understand and therefore speak on this issue (so what of all the “pro-life” women out there and does this mean that men should only be able to speak on issues that we feel we have special insight on?) and we’re not sure when life begins anyway (a point that actually enhances the anti-abortion arrangement since most of our laws err on the side of caution, which in this case, would mean preventing the abortion of a life at the earliest point in time that this life could exist).
The comments I made in brackets are all responses that we who feel abortion is murder (by definition, a taking of a human life) have made and have yet to hear a direct response on that isn’t a rephrasing of the original argument. Here we have a well-established academic, writing for a national newspaper, and even she cannot bring herself to confront any rebuttal to her arguments. And that, my friends, leads me to wonder if all of the “pro-choice” forces now hypocritically breaking the mantra of universal freedom of expression on university campuses are really aren’t just tactically smart after all…
quoting Barbara Kay
Such a bizarre concept, I would say…
If medicare is scrapped or goes bankrupt, this “right” to abortion disappears.
In his column on abortion last week, David Frum pointed to the U.S. anti-abortion movement and the bugaboo of late-term, partial birth abortions. Ninety per cent of abortions in Canada take place in the first 12 weeks. In fact, one of the major impacts of the legalization of abortion is that the waiting time for the procedure has been reduced considerably. A mere .04% take place after 20 weeks and only when the health or life of the woman is at stake. The gruesome procedure he describes does not happen here at all and is rare in the U.S.
I wonder where she got those statistics? It is difficult to find any stats on abortions in Canada.
Don’t I know it Joanne; I actually did a whole study on this a couple of years back and it appears that the entire academic community refuses to research anything on this subject anymore. However, now that she’s cited this in the newspaper and because she is an academic, you can believe that the ‘pro-choice’ side will be citing those numbers for the next 20 years!
You’re right though Charles Anthony that they’re playing fast and loose with the word right.
“You’re right though Charles Anthony that they’re playing fast and loose with the word right.”
Unlike you, of course, when you state:”…how a woman has the right to control her own body’s functions (she doesn’t, otherwise women would have a legal right to be cured from cancer or at least to cosmetic surgery)…”
Come on, Matthew.
How about the ‘transoption’ solution?
Ya, I saw that article too. I’m planning on doing my “official” abortion post on Monday in which I will discuss both that and the other column the post ran yesterday (the one by Colby Cosh). I have to admit that I’ve never read such well-written articles by two individuals who support legal abortion and I certainly hope that it will lead to true dialog and a more loving society where unborn children are concerned! By the way, I hope to see you on Thursday if you’re going to be at the DSM; I’m friends with Beth and we’ve been doing some work just to the south of your riding (I’m literally on the other side of the expressway).
I won’t be there because I’m not a party member, but I do support your cause.
dangerous abortions would happen if it were illegal (completely ignoring present dangers in legal procedures, not to mention the disregard of the rule of law)
Okay, let’s put it in perspective. It’s a surgical procedure. ALL surgical procedures bear some degree of risk by definition.
The issue is not that surgery is necessarily “safe”, but that it is done above board so that its practitioners are accountable for their work. Drive it underground, and bad things happen all too easily.
“Safe” in this case means “as safe as reasonably possible” - as is true with any surgical procedure.
state the emotional arguments how how a woman has the right to control her own body’s functions (she doesn’t, otherwise women would have a legal right to be cured from cancer or at least to cosmetic surgery)
Oh please. Have you even read R. v. Morgentaler?
To be precise, R. v. Morgentaler did not establish any right per se. It did, however, make it extremely difficult to render a medical procedure illegal by being based on the provisions regarding “Security of the Person” in the Charter. As long as the patient has consented (in the generally understood sense of “informed consent”), there is no crime.
Mysteriously, R. v. Morgentaler DOES reinforce the notion that a woman is perfectly capable of making rational decisions regarding her body, regardless of whether she is pregnant or not, as it is based on the basic concepts of “Security of the Person” AND “Informed Consent”.
In other words, you would have to demonstrate that not only did the doctor not inform the patient adequately about the procedure, but that the woman was legally incompetent at the time.
Thank you Grog for taking the time to address my points; you have my utmost appreciation for this. I feel it only fair to return the favour:
Okay, let’s put it in perspective. It’s a surgical procedure. ALL surgical procedures bear some degree of risk by definition.
The issue is not that surgery is necessarily “safeâ€, but that it is done above board so that its practitioners are accountable for their work. Drive it underground, and bad things happen all too easily.
You’re quite right, although the impression I get (and everyone in our reading audience is allowed to chip in on their own experience regarding this matter) is that the pro-abortive side argues as though legalized abortion eliminates any risk. As this type of surgery is not essential, any woman who undergoes the procedure must weigh the risks. If the risks are higher because of external factors, that too would weigh into the decision-making process — even on a civil level, you do the crime, expect to do the time, or consequences in this case as it were.
I have read the summary of R. v. Morgentaler, although I feel that reading the case is a moot point in this argument as my case is being presented in the court of public opinion. The fact is that everyone now seems to be under the impression that abortion should be legal in order to grant people rights to control their own bodily functions (I wish this were so since having to get up in the middle of a movie is very embarrassing!) Even if there weren’t a specific Charter clause that this case could be argued under, my goal is to see the proper legal framework created that would protect unborn children.
As for the rational decisions point of view, it is interesting admittedly, although I feel that we could find more than a few examples of people committing acts that they thought were perfectly suitable at the time but then later lived to regret or caused dire results. I appreciate your research and attempts to present this within the confines of the current legal framework, however it is my goal to change that very framework in the first place.
I hope people remember this day because Science is slowly decoding the DNA and a Clinic opened in Toronto in 2006 that does Gender-cide terminations if the Mother is designing her family around age groups and gender balance for the kids , there is also the tragic case of the DownSyndrome Gene being mapped out to help parents but now close to 80% of the ID is sued to stop these people from being born.
Please don’t whine to me in 10 years when Gendercide Abortions morph into Homo-cide Abortion where the Mother has every RIGHT to choose and her Medical records are private so nobody will know the real reason for the Abortion if she doesn’t go public with being pregnant news to her friends.
After all, who would have thought back in the 60’s that one day an Ontario Leader would allow a Segragated Public Schools system for non-Whites under the Guise of helping them to meet the same standards as every other non-Black immigrant child that seems to do well with all the other races and religions.
Expect special-marked Subway cars for sensitive minorities that want to be with theirown kind and not the bigots that endorse Segragation , then buses will have special seats , Hospitals will cater to Minorities and become a two-tier system by Faith or Colour, Fire fighters and Police will have special areas to work for certian coloured people or language skill levels to be among theirown kind.
So sit back folks and watch how canada will finally have true equality and Justice one day so Those-People won’t have to sit next to Those-people who are bigots that won’t sit near Those Other People .
BTW
The man who pioneered Blood-Typing that saved millions of lives and made transfusions a common thing today ended up dying at a Hospital Emergency Room , the reason? , the Hospital was a Segragated one and refused him aid based on his colour .
Funny how good intentions can seal your fate to die one day or lose out on a good Education merely because of your Colour being used to help you become equal or stay unequal depending on your perspective.
I have read the summary of R. v. Morgentaler, although I feel that reading the case is a moot point in this argument as my case is being presented in the court of public opinion. … attempts to present this within the confines of the current legal framework, however it is my goal to change that very framework in the first place.
If your goal is to change that framework, then it is absolutely NOT “moot” to discuss the legal frameworks, both statutory and case law history that is involved.
I have read the summary of R. v. Morgentaler, although I feel that reading the case is a moot point in this argument as my case is being presented in the court of public opinion. … attempts to present this within the confines of the current legal framework, however it is my goal to change that very framework in the first place.
If your goal is to change that framework, then it is absolutely NOT “moot” to discuss the legal frameworks, both statutory and case law history that is involved.
(* I apologize if this is a double post - the “spam trap” in wordpress decided to act oddly the first time I posted this response *)
Fatty Hanlon is also a slum landlord and an obesity advocate.
I have a recommendation for all the people who oppose abortion: pay people to not have an abortion.
That’s an interesting idea Charles Anthony, and one I think that the pro-life side might be driven to at this point (there are groups like Birthright that already do this in so much as they take care of single mothers who carry their children to term). I know that some philosophical objections might be raised over us pricing the life of a child but it the idea still deserves some consideration. Anyway, sorry that I didn’t get back to the comments left here since Sunday but I had a family matter to attend to in another city. I will be back shortly to do my posts/responses.
First and foremost, and before anyone jumps to any conclusions, I am neither pro-life nor pro-choice. If I had to choose (which I don’t) then I am not sure where I would fall on this one.
Irrespective of the philosophical objections, I have often said that pro-life people need to put their money where their mouths are. If they are indeed serious about saving the lives of the unborn, then supporting the mother to term is the very least they should offer. And while I am sure that the decision to terminate a pregnancy is about more than just money, lets explore the possibility that it could save a number of babies from this fate.
So then how far do you take it in order to be fair, to both society and the child? In fact, if pro-life people really put their money where their mouths are, then shouldn’t the idea of financial support be pushed a little further than just the term of the pregnancy, because, after all, shouldn’t the child then have the right to be raised by his/her biological mother? Furthermore, shouldn’t that child be brought up in the very best of circumstances in order to ensure the best outcomes under the circumstances? (Research demostrates that children who grow up in single income/low-income families tend to have poorer health / academic / financial outcomes.) For example, what about providing income support for the mother to up-grade her credentials in order to be able to financially support the child, free from 18 years of government assistance or minimum wage jobs where the support for the child may not be adequate? If the mother has not finished high school yet, that support should not be cut off as soon as she has finished high school, but shouldn’t it continue until she has finished postsecondary education? Furthermore, shouldn’t that support be augemented for girls whose parents kick them out of the house?
I would be interested to hear just how far pro-life people were willing to put their dollars (or from a policy perspective, the tax dollars of Canadians) in order to support the best outcomes for these children they want to save.
Again, neither pro-life or pro-choice here, but wanted to throw that in for debate.
Maybe it’s interesting in a philosophical sense. But in reality, the pro-lifers have lost the argument. Abortion is legal in Canada and the US. Any party that tries to change it will spend the next 15 years in the political wilderness and the law will be stuck down by the courts. Pack the court with all the conservatives you want; an abortion law is still going to get killed. The amount of jurisprudence that would have to be unwound would cause the whole system to crack. Not just R v Morgentaler , but also Tremblay v. Daigle, R. v. Sullivan, Winnipeg Child and Family Services (Northwest Area) v. G. (D.F.) and more.
“Nuh-uh” Maybe that annoys you but in the political and legal world it’s really all that’s needed because the fight is over.
First and foremost, I am anti-abortion in the sense that I think abortion is exceedingly abhorrent.
I agree with Tom that the fight against abortion is practically over. I accept that reality in the same way that I accept the reality of taxation.
As an anti-abortionist, I would like to address some of your questions, Smarter than Ezra, that you pose.
I will start with the most important one: “how far pro-life people were willing to put their dollars (or from a policy perspective, the tax dollars of Canadians)”
My answer is simply: nowhere. I am not willing to force Canadians to pay for anything. At the same time, if people want to have an abortion, they should pay for it themselves.
The rest of your questions effectively ask how far should a child’s life be subsidized. My answer again is simple: as far as the donor wants to subsidize. I do not believe any of it should be imposed on tax-payers at all.
I disagree with some of the inherent assumptions that you make. Specifically, you seem to suggest that a mother going to school is the key to a child’s financial success which, in turn, will translate to an improvement in the child’s welfare. I disagree. Once a child is already born, I think the child is better off with that mother at home. However, in general, I agree that pro-lifers should look beyond just the birth if they want to put their money where their mouths are.
Matthew,
Thank you for giving me some insight on what Birthright does. That would be a worthwhile charity for a pro-lifer to support. Philosophically, I think the “pricing the life of a child” is a false dilemma. At best, it is as valid as associating the cost of a child car-seat with the price of a child’s life.
My initial post #15 was a lot more complicated and convoluted. I wanted to suggest that the pro-lifers offer pregnant women all-expenses paid nine-month vacation cruises. I was afraid that my main point would get lost in a failed attempt at humor.
[...] past weekend, I posted a blog entry on the column that the National Post printed on Saturday featuring Ryerson University professor [...]