Who cares whether the fetus is viable? Quote from Jessica Grose, former editor of Jezebel

"A lot of women have abortions and don't look back. A lot of women don't want a baby, and they don't care whether the fetus is viable or how much money is in their bank account." Jessica Grose, from "Enough With the Grueling, Wrenching, 'I Had an Abortion' Essays"

And this is why, like I keep saying, the abortion debate is not about bodily autonomy. If it was, viable fetuses would be "aborted" through early induced birth, not through actual abortion. After all, both procedures stop you from being pregnant, right? And the whole reason why abortion should be legal is because women should be able to decide if they want to be pregnant or not, right?

B-freaking-S.

Reading things like this make me SO angry. Thank goodness most of the people I know who are pro-choice are not actually pro-abortion like this former editor of Jezebel. No wonder that website is vomit-inducing.

Abortion as Birth Control

Someone needs to tell these people that they are doing no favours for the pro-choice movement.

I have no doubt that there are many, MANY women who face an agonizing decision when they choose to abort. I have no doubt that there are many women who are coerced or forced into killing their children by abusive partners, parents, or even friends.

But then there are women like this, who see abortion as no different from birth control. And I see this opinion expressed widely in my post-graduate peer group. There are many, otherwise smart and compassionate people, who see sex as so necessary to their happiness that they see tearing apart an unborn baby as no different from using a condom. Is is this precise reason that I believe that promoting birth control in no way helps pro-lifers promote a culture of life. Sure, maybe some abortions would be prevented, but no one would be convinced that a baby is a human being deserving of respect and life. Instead, we have people like Lisa, who would gladly turn to abortion if her birth control were to fail.

How do we go about changing opinions like these?

By the way, she tweeted this in response to my post, Discouragement.

Quote of the Week: "My baby's alive"

Failed abortions do happen.

Former abortionist Dr. Paul Jarrett tells of one of his experiences:

"Since hypertonic saline was so toxic if it was injected into the uterine wall instead of the amiotic sac; there was a constant search for the ideal drug. Prostaglandin has now become the drug of choice, but one of the early experiments was with hypertonic urea. The pajor disadvantage in using it, was the problem of live births. I remember using it on a patient that the psychiatric residence brought to us from their clinic from an institutionailized patient who really was crazy. I'll never forget delivering her nearly two pound baby, and hearing her screams, 'My baby's alive, my baby's alive.' It lived for several days."

Read more from clinic workers and abortion doctors at Clinic Quotes.

And don't forget, Planned Parenthood believes that a baby born alive after an abortion should be treated or killed according to the mother's and doctor's wishes.

Why the abortion debate is still not about bodily rights

Most pro-lifers agree that the strongest argument for the legality of abortion is the bodily rights argument. In fact, there's been recent chatter in the pro-life blogosphere that bodily rights is what the abortion debate boils down to, and that we should be focusing on these arguments in order to win public opinion to the pro-life side.

But while I agree that bodily rights are an important part of the pro-choice philosophy (and are, in fact, the only "good" - though not necessarily strong - argument in favour of abortion in my opinion), we Canadian pro-lifers should not make that our only focus.

Why?

Because abortion is not about bodily rights.

If it was, late term abortions would be illegal across the board. After all, birth can be induced, and with proper treatment, the baby would survive. But in Canada, there are no laws restricting the availability of abortions, regardless of the age of the baby.

Instead, we find that bodily autonomy is not the real reason that pro-choice advocates are in favour of abortion. If it was, we would not have the average abortion advocate:

At a time when there is a chance that a 21-week-old (~5-and-a-quarter-month-old) baby can survive birth with almost no developmental complications, this kind of sentiment is so tragic. And it demonstrates how the debate is still not about about bodily autonomy. However, it is about personhood. It is about what the unborn baby truly is. It is about the value of a life.

If you want to know how to talk about abortion with a pro-choicer who believes that aborting a baby in the womb at any time, for any reason, is a moral choice, go to Canadian Centre for Bioethical Reform's website, and get educated.

Gosnell by the Numbers

created by the Pennsylvania Family Institute

Discouragement

For me, one of the most discouraging things about being pro-life is seeing what other people think of the abortion issue and how cavalier or celebratory they are with regards to issues surrounding the grossly misnamed "reproductive freedom" issue. I just can't understand how someone, even someone who supports abortion in most cases, can be happy about the fact that abortions occur at all. Whether you are pro-life or pro-choice, is it not a tragedy when someone decides that they aren't able or don't want to help their own family live? Mom's having abortions because they can't afford their children, or because they found themselves in a situation where they don't want to be attached to the father, or because their family or partner is not supportive of any choice other than abortion, or because they aren't given the resources necessary to raise a special needs child.

The fact that abortion happens is not a good thing. This is our culture refusing to help mothers and children in need, and pushing a "quick fix" solution towards moms who find themselves in less than ideal circumstances. The existence of abortion is a tragedy.

Which is why things like this make me so sad:

Free abortion for all women - yay!! This isn't about killing our children, no, this is about having freedom! This isn't about helping women and children escape their circumstances, no, this is about having rights! 

How do you convince people that they support something that has caused the deaths of billions of people? How have we gotten to the point where this is even something that has to be done?

Sometimes this world is just so discouraging.

At least things like this really highlight how necessary it is for those of us who are pro-life to speak up and engage our peers. It can be so difficult to do sometimes, but it is so, SO necessary!

Failed Abortions and the Washington Post Commentaters

I just came across this article from the Washington Post, about the appalling youtube video where a Planned Parenthood representative claims that any decisions regarding care towards an infant born alive after a failed abortion should be up to the medical practitioner, the mother, and her family. In other words, abortionists should not be required to provide basic or lifesaving care for an infant born alive after an abortion attempt.

Chilling.

But what I really wanted to point out was the reaction this article received in the comments section. Beyond the usual "Republicans only care about your right to life from conception to birth!!!" vitriol (I find it odd that no one seems to recognize the ridiculousness of these rants considering this issue in question deals with a baby after birth), a lot of people are expressing disbelief that such a situation could ever happen at all. For instance, OldUncleTom writes:

"I would be very surprised to see any legitimate case of an infant born alive not receiving care. This line of questioning sounded very hypothetical, and agenda-driven."

AnnabelleLee16615 says:

"There was no proof of this [infants born alive and left to die] occurring, no examples provided, this was an agenda driven attack by a group of Republicans looking to earn points for denying women health services." 

and

"When and where are these live births occurring after botched abortions? Most states don't allow abortions after 24 weeks. Babies born at less than 24 weeks of gestation tend not survive. This seems like a disingenous line of questioning designed to inflame the base, not address a real concern."

Curwood writes: 

"One might question 'botched abortions" ...and if here are actual proof of babies being born ... that far along developmentally... and who would pay for the 100 of thousands it takes to keep any preemie alive."

These people seem to be forgetting Kermit Gosnell, who is facing the death penalty for allegedly "deliver[ing] live babies and then deliberately sever[ing] their spinal cords, killing them." (from the Toronto Star).

I really do wonder where people get their information regarding late term abortion practices. And I wonder how these people can live with themselves, for instance: "who would pay for the 100 of thousands it takes to keep any preemie alive" as a reason in support of dismissing this rare (but not unheard of) event.

Never mind that I like to think the "100 of thousands" of dollars it took to keep me alive after I was born premature were worth it ... tell me to my face that I should have been left to die because keeping me alive is too expensive.

Seriously, abortion advocates, if even only one baby who is born (and is therefore considered a live human being by the law) is left to die or is deliberately killed by a doctor, then it is an outrage and even if you support abortion up to birth, YOU SHOULD BE PROTESTING AGAINST THIS PRACTICE.  

Quote of the Week: "God holds the keys to life and death - not men"

I've had a long absence, but now that my life finally seems to be less busy, I will be posting here a bit more :)

As many of you are aware, I am a HUGE fan of the American organization Secular Pro-Life. I'm such a huge fan, that I have spent much of my time wishing and praying that such an organization existed in Canada, so that I could join them. I am a Catholic, but I am extremely wary of using solely "religious" arguments against abortion because I know that for someone who isn't Christian (and actually for many Christians), the Bible holds absolutely no weight, and if we only focus on Bible quotes and eternal damnation, then we aren't convincing the abortion lobby of anything and lives will continue to be lost. Anyway, this tension between the "religious" and "secular" is often on my mind.

And lo-and-behold, I just downloaded abort73's book on abortion and Christianity, and the author managed to say exactly what I have always thought about this issue, only much more eloquently. So without further ado, here is the quote of the week:

"I had one explanation for why abortion is wrong: Revelation 1:18. God holds the keys to life and death - not men. That was good enough for me, but it didn't go very far in public debate. [...] Because I had framed abortion in such narrow, spiritual terms, I had almost no capacity to demonstrate its injustice. And so I stayed quiet. All these years later, it's ironic that I so often condemn abortion on scientific grounds while my opponents defend it on pseudo-religious grounds. I argue that abortion kills a living human being; they argue that they're not yet persons. I argue that there is no debate regarding the biological beginning of human life; they argue there is more to being human than biology. I argue that embryos and fetuses are just as human as we are; they argue that they don't have a soul (even if they call it something else). [...] [I]t can actually be easier to argue against abortion from biology than from the Bible."

- Michael Spielman (from his self-released book: Love the Least (a lot))

Talking about abortion is really scary

The other day I was hanging out with some friends from school.

It was a ridiculously hot day, so we decided to go out for bubble tea (i.e.: basically fruit smoothies, because none of us like tapioca).

While we were talking, somehow we came to the topic of downloading movies and music for free off of the Internet, and whether it is a crime or not.

One of my friends brought up an interesting point:

"Oh please. It's not like downloading stuff off of the Internet is all that bad. I mean, it's not like the question of whether or not you want to keep a baby!"

This would have been the perfect opportunity to steer the conversation towards the question of abortion. Instead, like always, my palms got all sweaty, my heart started racing, and my eyes started to water (I get that upset when I think about killing babies!). Instead of addressing his point - which is a good one (i.e.: people get all worked up about downloading some songs you probably wouldn't have bought anyway, and yet no one cares that there are children being created only to be discarded), I jumped in right away and brought the conversation back to downloading.

 Seriously. I'm still wondering why I did that.

I need to grow a pair!

Does anyone else have trouble discussing abortion with friends or family?

And another post on maternal mortality ...

From the MCCL Blog, "Evidence presented at World Health Assembly that health care, not abortion, will solve maternal mortality" (emphasis my own):


"The new analysis, "Women's Health & Abortion," explains that maternal mortality fell dramatically in developed nations as a result of mid-20th century improvements in health care—well before the widespread legalization of abortion. Today Ireland and Poland, which prohibit most abortions, boast among the world's lowest rates of maternal death. [...] Chile's success contrasts with the recent record of the United States, which permits abortion on demand and has seen its maternal mortality rate climb upward over the last two decades. The U.S. maternal mortality ratio (the number of deaths per 100,000 live births) increased from 10.3 in 1999 to 23.2 in 2009. Over the same period, Chile's ratio decreased from 23.6 to 16.9. A report issued this month by the World Health Organization and other U.N. agencies estimates that maternal deaths worldwide dropped 47 percent from 1990 to 2010. The report offers further proof that women’s lives can be saved through improved health conditions."

Like I said, healthcare conditions, not the legality of abortion, seem to be the deciding factor in reducing maternal mortality. That's why US abortion deaths were dropping long before Roe v. Wade, and that's why Chile saw a reduction in maternal mortality rates even though abortion was re-criminalized. Never mind that wasting resources lobbying for abortion "rights", when you could be spending money and time helping to bring healthcare systems out of the dark ages, is just bad policy. Why would you advocate for abortion access when the healthcare systems are in disarray? Abortions are not simple procedures and I could see more deaths occurring simply because women are having abortions from untrained professionals, with tools that aren't sterilized, and equipment that isn't up to date. And what about all the other people who are dying because of poor access to healthcare? Their lives clearly won't be saved by abortion legality. Pro-choicers: if you are so worried about women dying, deal with the things that are directly causing their deaths.

(btw the last bit was my opinion, would love to see some articles / stats / papers that talk about this so please if you have any send them my way! Merci!)

One last thought, which I got from Jennie from LiveAction, is that if women are dying from illegal abortions, it is the pro-choicers who are killing them since pro-lifers (obviously) don't do abortions. Interesting point, and it really hits home to me the real tragedy of abortion, which is that in a society that focuses so much on "pro-choice", the only option that seems to be discussed at length is abortion - women are very often not given or encouraged to consider other choices. It is one of the reasons PP performs so many abortions vs. adoption referrals. It really is a tragedy, and it is a sign, like Feminists for Life says, that we as a society are failing women.

Okay, now I'm officially done. Sorry for the rambling, I'm in a reflective mood today! :)

Feticide according to the Royal College of Gynecology

Want to know what abortion truly does? Just read the guidelines for feticide from the Royal College of Gynecology ...

Thanks to Pro Life Pagans, who posted the full quote on Facebook - go read it!

Emphasis my own, italics and links are my own additions:

"Feticide should be performed before medical abortion after 21 weeks and 6 days of gestation to ensure that there is no risk of a live birth. [...] Inducing fetal death before medical abortion may have beneficial emotional, ethical, and legal consequences [i.e.: because it is such an emotional/ethical dilemma to have the person you were going to kill minutes before, be born alive and subject to protection by the state.]  [...] in cases where the fetal abnormality is not lethal or the abortion is not for fetal abnormality and is being undertaken after 21 weeks and 6 days of gestation, failure to perform feticide could result in a live birth and survival, which contradicts the intention of the abortion [look at that! Abortions do cause death!!]. Regarding fetal pain and awareness, the RCOG has published guidance and concluded that 'In reviewing the neuroanatomical and physiological evidence in the fetus, it was apparent that connections from the periphery to the cortex are not intact before 24 weeks of gestation and, as most neuroscientists believe that the cortex is necessary for pain perception, it can be concluded that the fetus cannot experience pain in any sense prior to this gestation.' [note that this is a conservative estimate that is far from settled. There is ample evidence that fetuses before this age respond to painful stimuli. From an interview with Sir Albert Lilley, the father of fetology: "I can only say that the [8 - 10+ week old] fetus responds violently to stimuli that you and I would find painful."] Very few abortions ... are undertaken at late gestations. Only 9% [in 2004, this corresponds to 16687 abortions in England and Wales] of abortions occur after 13 weeks and only 1.5% [corresponding to 2761 abortions - let that sink in. Over 2000 people in the England and Wales alone are being killed once they are viable!] occur after 20 weeks of gestation. [...] When the method of abortion chosen ... is surgical (D&E), the nature of the procedure ensures that there is no risk of a live birth [scroll down to D&E to see why]. [...] When medical abortion [involving drugs like Mifepristone or RU-486] is chosen, special steps are required to ensure that the fetus is dead at the time of abortion. [...] The RCOG recommends intracardiac potassium chloride (KCl) 2-3 ml strong (15%) injection onto a cardiac ventricle [i.e.: injecting poison into the fetus' heart]. A repeat injection may be required ... and fetal demise should be confirmed by ultrasound scan ... . Fetal demise may also be induced by intra-amniotic or intrathoracic injection of digoxin (up to 1 mg) and by umbilical venous or intracardiac injection of 1% lidocaine (up to 30 ml); however, neither procedure consistently induces fetal demise [this is just another way of stopping the fetus' heart]. A dose of digoxin 1 mg given either intra-amniotically or intrafetally will cause fetal death in 87% of cases; the latter method is much more rapid. A dose of digoxin 1.5 mg given intra-amniotically caused death within 20 hours (in most cases there was still fetal cardiac activity at 4 hours) [not only are we killing the unborn, we're drawing out their deaths so they last as long as 20 hours - how cruel can the human race get?]. In a large retrospective review, Molaei et al. (2008) concluded taht the overall failure rate with digoxin was 7% [remember this number when pro-choicers tell you that its impossible for babies to be born alive after an abortion], although there were no failures with an intrafetal dose of 1 mg. Importantly, in this review there were no adverse effects at any of the doses used [for the mother]. Intracardiac injection of either KCl or intrathoracic injection of digoxin requires considerably more skill than intra-amniotic injection of digoxin. While the latter may be slightly less effective in inducing fetal demise, its use may be an option for services that lack personnel with sufficient skill in administering intracardiac injections."

Opposing View of the Week: "Reopen the abortion debate?" from This Magazine

This is an article by Kyle Dupont on re-opening the abortion debate (because, of course, people seem to think this debate has been closed these past two decades).

His opinion:

"If this country were ever to allow restrictions to be implemented on a women's choice over her own body, we would be taking one giant leap backwards."

Right. Because being the only country in the world with absolutely no laws restricting abortion is just so progressive. It would seem, however, that the rest of the world does not agree.

In spite of this, he does think that the abortion debate should see the light of day (emphasis mine):

"We live in a democratic society where issues are openly discussed and voted on by the individuals we have elected into power. [...] It would be wrong and dangerous not to reopen the debate in a democratic nation."

Kudos to Mr. Dupont!

There are a few things about this article, however, that I want to specifically address. Mr. Dupont makes the point that with major advances in medical science and maternal care, the face of the abortion debate has changed. He asks:

"What happens when we reach the point when we can find out with certainty that a child will grow up to have Parkinson, ALS, or Alzheimer's? Is it humane to let the fetus survive only to live a life of unspeakable pain and suffering?"

First of all, I cannot even believe anyone is asking this question. If it is not humane to "allow" (because we are, apparently, the arbitrators of life and death) someone to survive if they will suffer later, we should just kill everyone because, guess what, at some point we are all going to suffer! And before you jump in and start crying about how I would think differently if I knew someone who has a horrible disease like Alzheimer's - I do. My Godfather. And he may be suffering now, but he isn't yet suffering unspeakably and, in fact, he is still able to smile, laugh, converse, and participate in life. And he has had an amazing life so far, with 2 beautiful children, one adorable grandchild, a loving family, and a distinguished career in business. I just don't understand how the fact that he is now ill somehow erases the entirety of the rest of his life, which was (and often still is) filled with incredible joy.
 
The real question is: how can we deny our fellow human beings the chance at life, love, happiness, and self-determination based on the knowledge that at some point in their life they will suffer? How is that fair? How does that make sense? Why aren't we instead asking: "how can we cure these diseases, mitigate the suffering of those afflicted in the meantime, and show our fellow human beings that we are here with them and for them"? When did our focus shift from helping and curing those who are suffering, to eliminating those who are suffering instead? Why is the elimination of those who are ill seen as a "cure" by so many people? By that logic, we should also kill anyone living in abject poverty ... but of course, we do not! Why? Because killing those who are suffering does not solve the problem! Killing does not stop poverty, nor does it cure Parkinson's, ALS, or Alzheimer's. And, in fact, many people who are suffering are still happy to be alive. Since that is the case, how can we be so arrogant to think that we can decide for others whether or not their lives are worth living?

Next he asks:

"Female feticide is a regular occurrence in China and India where boys are the preferred sex - and is now occurring in North America. Should parents be allowed to choose the sex of their child?" 

Quite simply, no. It is discrimination based on gender, and after the women's suffrage movement, I would have thought most people agree with the idea that discrimination based on gender is not alright. According to UN statistics, there are about 100 million girls missing due to gender selection. Girls are being targeting for the simple reason that boys are considered an asset, while they are seen as a liability. How exactly is this okay?

"I don't know the answer to any of these questions. Nobody does."

Well I do. Groups like "All Girls Allowed" do. Activists like Chen Guangcheng and Reggie Littlejohn do. Doctors, nurses, scientists, and medical researchers, who all strive tirelessly to cure and treat those with illnesses like Alzheimer's, do. Individuals who live with debilitating diseases do. And I thank Mr. Dupont for supporting the "re-opening" of the abortion debate, so that their voices can finally be heard by all Canadians.

Thoughts on a Mother's Day Dinner Conversation

First of all, Happy Mother's Day! 

Today I had a lovely Mother's Day dinner at my parents' house. While there, of course conversations turned towards politics (as they are wont to do when my family gathers) and someone mentioned how politics in the US focuses too much on religious issues like abortion and gay marriage, and that these issues distract from what is truly important, like the economy or bombing the living daylights out of Iraq. I stayed silent throughout the conversation, as I prefer to listen to what other people think rather than bulldoze through and push my beliefs on people (besides, there was no way I was going to start a heated debate on Mother's day). Anyway, there were four things that struck me about the conversation.

1. The sympathy for Obama. I just don't understand how anyone can have sympathy or support a president who signed into law a bill which codifies indefinite detention without trial (see commentary from Human Rights Watch here), or encourages US citizens to report those who disagree with the president's policies. Talk about having rose-coloured glasses! Even my ridiculously pro-abortion, far-left, NDP-worshiping friends no longer support him. Of course, these are the friends who actually follow politics and don't get all their news from the MSM.

2. The claim that abortion/gay marriage issues are unimportant. If both were completely outlawed overnight, I guarantee these same people would be up in arms over the human rights violations. So basically, these issues should only be considered unimportant if you are against them, but they are of course very important human rights issues if you support them. Everyone take note - if you ever come across someone who disagrees with you, just claim their views don't matter in the grand scheme of things!

3. The claim that abortion and gay marriage are in anyway comparable, and are "religious" issues. One allows two men or two women to have their relationship recognized by the state, the other allows doctors to dismember, disembowel, starve, burn, and/or poison a member of our human species. Where exactly does religion come in (beyond the fact that the Catholic church has an opinion on both issues), and how exactly are these things the same? This is why I believe the pro-life community as a whole has to forget about the gay marriage debate, and focus only on life issues like abortion, euthanasia, and assisted suicide. And we really need to focus on secular arguments, similar to the work of CCBR or SecularProlife. When our fellow humans are being legally killed, things like gay marriage or belief in Christianity just don't matter. Let gay unions be recognized by the state. Let people be atheists. Focus on saving lives. Or at the very least, separate these aspects of your activism. I firmly believe that once people realize that they can be against abortion, but pro-gay rights, or pro-secular things in general, our community will explode in numbers.

4. The irony of being against war, but being in favour of abortions. Both are violent, and both end innocent lives in brutal ways. But one takes place in a doctor's office, so it's okay. 

Anyway, those are my thoughts for today :) I've been very busy lately, but I will update my post on the Canadian March for Life ASAP, promise!! Love you all <3 

A Misguided Sense of Empathy

I have only a few friends who are decisively pro-choice, and all of them are pro-choice because they are able to empathize more easily with the pregnant woman than with the fetus. When we talk about abortion, they always focus on the horror of finding your body change when you don't want it to, the injustice of having to cater your life to someone who you'd rather wasn't there, the difficulty of finding yourself pregnant with the child of a man you don't love, the options and opportunities that disappear once accidental parents are responsible for a new life, and the lives of women who have health risks which are compounded by a pregnancy. They never talk about the lives that are lost, or even the "potential lives" that are lost (if you're a pro-choicer who views an unborn baby as a potential) - in fact, the baby is rarely, if ever, mentioned by them.

My pro-choice friend, who I've mentioned before, also spends a lot of her time lamenting on the "poor young people" and "poor women" who have limited to no access to artificial birth control, and attacking the pro-life side for being largely against the pill, and to a lesser extent against all birth control methods except NFP. She goes into great detail about how difficult it is for her to afford birth control, and how it is a stress that she and her boyfriend should not have to go through. But when I asked her about failure rates, about how she could become pregnant even if she is using contraception, she acknowledged that she does worry about the possibility of becoming pregnant. And when I pointed out that this is a major reason that pro-lifers are against marketing contraception as a solution to abortion (though we are not necessarily against contraception itself) she side-stepped the issue and continued to act as if the pill would completely protect her against an unwanted pregnancy.

So then I brought up how it is horrible that pregnant mothers are not given more support, which often forces them into believing that abortion is their only option, and how this is not a very "pro-choice" state of affairs.  I brought up examples of programs (largely the work of pro-lifers) that help make life a possible choice for women facing unplanned pregnancies, and my friend went right back to the contraception issue - claiming that contraception would make my points completely moot because then there would be no unwanted pregnancies. She claimed all of this even though she had just admitted that contraception fails.

I have always found the focus of self-professing "rabid" pro-choicers to be quite odd. All of the focus is on the mother and on contraception ... the baby is ignored, the actual abortion procedure is ignored, and solutions which would enable women to keep their babies are dismissed as unnecessary "because we have abortion and the pill." The intrinsic morality of killing your child because you cannot deal with them is glossed over or dismissed, the psychological or health effects of the abortion procedure are unimportant when compared to the effects of childbirth.

So even though these friends of mine really do believe that they are being supportive of women, I do not see this worldview as compassionate towards surprise mothers in any way. Everything regarding pregnancy, childbirth, and motherhood is seen as evil, unless (of course) the pregnancy was explicitly planned.  As someone who knows and loves many "surprise" babies, I will never understand the misguided sense of empathy pro-choicers feel towards pregnant women. There is nothing compassionate about claiming that contraception will solve everything, and that providing pregnant mothers with help and support beyond the abortion clinic is a side issue not directly related to the abortion debate.

Question from Pro-Choicers

Yes, yes, and yes a thousand times. Everyone has a right to life. No discrimination based on sexual identity, gender, race, or some nebulous concept of "wantedness."

Liberals include abortion as part of their platform

Well, looks like I have no party to vote for any more. LifeSiteNews explains how the liberal party has decided to include abortion as a key strategy in their rebuilding process, after the fiasco that was the last federal election. Well, definitely never voting for them again.

Interesting side note: they also decided to support the legalization of marijuana. I have no opinion on pot being legal or illegal because I just don't really care, as long as its kept away from kids, but this is sure to get a lot of my peers to vote liberal.

22 October: Defund Abortion Rally

link

Spread the word! :)

Update: Here's how the protest went - http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/2300-ontario-pro-lifers-rally-to-defund-abortion

Download and sign the petition here! And PASS IT ON!!!!!

Mother Teresa

She's so eloquent, just had to put this all out there :)

"America needs no words from me to see how your decision in Roe v. Wade has deformed a great nation. The so-called right to abortion has pitted mothers against their children and women against men. It has sown violence and discord at the heart of the most intimate human relationships. It has aggravated the derogation of the father's role in an increasingly fatherless society. It has portrayed the greatest of gifts - a child - as a competitor, an intrusion, and an inconvenience. It has nominally accorded mothers unfettered dominion over the independent lives of their physically dependent sons and daughters.

And, in granting this unconscionable power, it has exposed many women to unjust and selfish demands from their husbands or other sexual partners. Human rights are not a privilege conferred by government. They are every human being's entitlements by virtue of his humanity. The right to life does not depend, and must not be declared to be contingent, on the pleasure of anyone else, not even a parent or a sovereign."

"But I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child - a direct killing of the innocent child - murder by the mother herself. And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another? How do we persuade a woman not to have an abortion? As always, we must persuade her with love, and we remind ourselves that love means to be willing to give until it hurts. So the mother who is thinking of abortion, should be helped to love - that is, to give until it hurst her plans, or her free time, to respect the life of her child. The father of that child, whoever he is, must also give until it hurts. By abortion, the mother does not learn to love, but kills even her own child to solve her problems. And by abortion, the father is told that he does not have to take any responsibility at all for the child he has brought into the world. That father is likely to put other women into the same trouble. So abortion just leads to more abortion. Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching the people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want. This is why the greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion."

"Please don't kill the child. I want the child. Please give me the child. I am willing to accept any child who would be aborted, and to give that child to a married couple who will love the child, and be loved by the child. From our children's home in Calcutta alone, we have saved over 3000 children from abortions. These children have brought such love and joy to their adopting parents, and have grown up so full of love and joy!"

To the President and First Lady: "What is taking place in America is a war against the child. And if we accept that the mother can kill her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another?"

"It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."

From http://www.gargaro.com/mother_teresa/quotes.html

Abortion vs. Shopping - are they even comparable?

Well ... looks like I'm never buying anything by Kenneth Cole -_-' They currently have a pro-choice campaign (other issues are also included, such as gay rights and war - navigate around to view them too) which compares the right to choose an abortion with the right to choose a handbag ... because a woman "carries" both (see the Live Action article here).

Seriously, who compares abortion to shopping anyways? This an insult to women who choose life, and an insult to women who choose abortion. Even if you're pro-choice, I think most people are reasonable enough to realize that choosing abortion is an extremely difficult decision, and a harrowing experience. Abortion is nothing like shopping. For one thing, the act of shopping itself is basically morally neutral. And it is rarely emotionally difficult to do.

Their current question regarding abortion is "Should the government have the right to choose?"
I'm not even sure how to answer that question. By banning abortion a government is not "choosing" anything - at least not in the ordinary sense of the word. A government would simply be making a law which limits what actions we can or can't do ... something that is pretty much normal for a government to do. For example, we're not allowed to drink and drive here in Ontario. I guess that's a "choice" that the government has made for us. But it is a reasonable choice to enforce, because it protects people. Banning abortion would protect people as well - it would protect children from having their lives brutally and unfairly terminated, and it would protect women from killing someone without realizing it (well, here I'm assuming that a lot of women who have an abortion rationalize away the implications of ending a life - I think overall that's a safe assumption to make. After all, few people want to kill their children once they are born - once they obviously human and alive). And besides, by banning something the government is not deciding who will do the action and who won't, they are simply stating that anyone who chooses such an action would be violating the laws of the land, and will be prosecuted under the law.

One comment on the Live Action article makes an interesting point regarding the government question:
"The governments right to choose? Don't they do that in China?" - Cassie Wonderalke

Anyway, now I'm really pissed off. And I wonder ... will we ever see a major company come out in support of life? I haven't heard of any, and I'm not holding my breath.

:(

Abortion to Save the Mother?

These are two amazing photos taken by a med student in India. The mother of this baby was diagnosed with cancer in her cervix, and had a hysterectomy as treatment. The baby was also removed as a result, and here he or she is, completely whole and absolutely beautiful. I was reading over the comments on the image and I wanted to clarify a few things, specifically comments along this vein:

"Yes, I'm not convinced abortion is a crime because, unlike you, I realise that not everything is black and white. Is this abortion a crime? That's what this is - the fetus has been aborted to save the Mother's life (albeit it as a side-effect of having the womb removed) - do we consider this a crime, or is the greater crime to allow the mother to die?" - Yottskry

"Pope Ratzinger will condemn to hell the mother, doctor, and all who participated in this sad, but necessary surgery. Her other ix children will continue to have the love and nurturing of a healthy mother. Perhaps that doesn't matter to the anti-abortion fanatics?" - Sirman42

So I guess the first thing we have to do here is properly define abortion. Is it simply defined as the ending of a pregnancy, regardless of the circumstances? This definition would include miscarriages, and procedures such as this one which inadvertently cause the baby's death. So obviously, if this is how abortion is defined, there are some instances where abortion is a morally acceptable or, at the very least, a morally neutral act. If, however, you define abortion as an act which is performed with the singular purpose of intentionally causing the death of the baby, then our opposition to abortion is hopefully easier to understand. In this case, the procedure that the mother went through would only be considered a hysterectomy, not an abortion. This is because the intention was not to kill the baby, and the action did not directly cause the baby's death. The baby died because the entire womb was surgically removed, not because a doctor dismembered the baby or burned the baby with a saline solution. If this was an abortion as pro-life Catholics define it (since I am a Catholic, that is who I can speak for), then the pictures of this baby would not look beautiful at all.

So, to address the first comment. If you define abortion as the intentional killing of a baby, yes it is a black and white issue because it is always wrong to intentionally kill someone. That is not what happened here. The baby died as a side-affect of the mother's treatment, NOT because it was aborted. And anyway, a hysterectomy is not included as an abortion procedure on any abortion websites I've read.

To address the second comment, Pope Benedict would not condemn this woman, her doctor, or anyone involved in the procedure, to hell, because they did not intentionally kill a baby. They treated the mother's illness. And sadly and very regrettably, the baby died as a result. As long as the intention is not to kill the baby, this is allowed in Catholic teaching. We are against elective abortion. We are against abortions which tear apart the baby's body, or burn it until it dies ... we are not against performing standard, life-saving medical procedures, when the procedure is one that would be used in the case of both a pregnant or non-pregnant woman and when the procedure does not intentionally cause the death of the baby. We are for doing everything possible to save the mother AND the baby, but we recognize that sometimes, it isn't always possible to save both.

Hope that clarifies the issue for all the pro-choice people who might come across this. It is extremely frustrating when people misunderstand your position, and are against it without really knowing what the position is. It happens all the time with Catholic teachings, and it happens all the time to pro-lifers. That's where ignorant statements about the Pope condemning people to hell come from. Incidentally, the Pope cannot condemn people to hell anyways. In fact, the Catholic church has never decisively stated that anyone is in hell, because no one can know the state of someone's soul before they die. Only God does. :)

I'd like to end this post with another quote from the comments.

"what nobody notices is that the foetus we are looking at has just died, or is dying, from hypoxia. not a very pleasant way to go. i have no issue with the reason the abortion was performed, or the fact that it was, but just wish to point out that entities in situations that make them photographable, and that look pretty and fascinating may be suffering, unbeknownst to us because we can't recognise the signs" - restiform body

I don't agree with everything restiform body said, but it is important to remember that while the photos of this baby are beautiful, the baby is dying, and we should acknowledge that.

Update 29/03/2012:
Hi Everyone. I noticed that this is a really popular post, so I thought I'd make a small addition. I talk above about how this photo would not look beautiful if it had been a typical elective abortion procedure. To contrast the above photo, I thought I would show you all some pictures of babies who have been aborted, according to the definition I use above. Here is a video called Created Equal. I warn you, it is VERY graphic (and I have not checked if the images and videos have been verified by a doctor - but they seem consistent with images I have seen which have been medically verified - but of course I am not in the medical field so I cannot say with any certainty whether this is actually the case or not). So watch it if you feel you can (and take it with a tiny grain of salt). I burst into tears halfway through and probably won't ever see it again if I can help it.

Update 25/08/12:
Here is an excellent post by Abolitionist Society of Oklahoma that explores this issue in a very logical framework (I encourage you to read through the whole thing!):
Abortion and the Life of the Mother