Opposing View of the Week: "Abortion and the Law" from Antigone Awakens

This post was brought to my attention by pro-choice tweeter @heather_parker during a discussion on the rights of the zygote/embryo/fetus (ZEF) vs. the rights of the mother. The blog is called Antigone Awakens (not quite sure what the author is going for there, but the "i" is a little washroom women figure - kinda cute!), and the title of the blog post is "Abortion and the Law".

For your background, here is our twitter convo:

 

 @heather_parker's first tweet was in response to a retweet of one of Life Reports podcasts - you can listen to that particular podcast, "What makes human beings valuable?", here.

Now, let me preface my response to "abortion and the Law" by first saying that I do not believe that either the ZEF's or the mother's rights are more important than the others - their rights are, in my opinion, equal in value and consideration. They are both, after all, human, and so both have basic human rights (including the rights to life and liberty).

The million dollar question therefore is: does the baby encroach on the rights of the mother, or does the mother encroach (through abortion) on the rights of the baby?

From the author, Heather's friend "J":

"Here's where what you believe meets what actually is."

Ugh. Don't you just love it when people are condescending? That being said, what "actually is" is actually what is under debate (btw, if you're wondering, I had fun writing this sentence!). What I, and other prolifers, believe is that the unborn baby "actually is" a person, endowned with all the basic rights born people should enjoy - with the addition of a right that children enjoy. That is, the right to basic care (and children deserve this right because, self-evidently, they are not able to achieve their right to life without the aid of someone older than themselves).

"The real issue is whether [the fetus] is a person [in the legal sense]. If it is a person, then it has a right to life. If it is not a person, it has no constitutional rights at all."

We agree on this one. It is very rare to find a pro-choicer willing to admit that this is the major question in the abortion debate. Awesome!

"The woman is a person. There is no issue with that. It is not a matter of debate."

It was once. And it still is in many corners of the globe. And this is one thing I find very disturbing about pro-abortion/pro-choice feminists - they are having the very same debate about their children that was once applied to them - that is, whether certain individuals are property or people.

"[The woman] has certain liberty interests that are constitutionally protected. One of those is privacy: the right to be left alone."

The right to privacy is very much a conditional standard. If you are committing a crime, and the police have probable cause, then you no longer have the right to be left alone. You get arrested, your house is searched (providing there is reason for the issue of a warrant), and you go to jail. Or, a more apt example would be child abuse. Should child protection services have reason to believe you are neglecting or abusing your children in some way, you no longer have the right to be left alone. The government enters your life, makes your business its business, and can even go so far as to take away your wanted children - all in order to protect your children's rights. And so we come back to the central question: does the unborn baby have rights, and are these rights worth protecting?

"The issues of abortion, pregnancy, and family are private matter which the woman is entitled to control and safeguard against government interference. So what you have now is a situation where a non-person would have greater rights than a person."

This is the author's premise (which, in the case of family, we have already established to be untrue in cases of abuse). "J" has not, in any way, shape, or form, proven or supported this premise. So forgive me if I ignore the "non-person having greater rights than a person" argument, because the author has not proven that the baby is not a person. While it is true that the baby is currently not defined as a person in US (or Canadian) law, that does not mean that the current law is correct. Otherwise women, blacks, Jews, Native Americans, people with disabilities (etc. ...) were all once non-persons who only became people once governments decided to define them as such. And I sincerely hope that we don't look to the government alone to define for us who is or is not a person, because they have (evidently!) been very, very wrong in the past.

The second thing that the author needs to defend, and has yet to do so, is why providing babies with a right not-to-be-killed (i.e.: a right to life) somehow gives the baby greater rights than the mother. I contest that this is not so. But right now, the burden is on Heather and "J" to explain exactly why an unborn baby is not a person, and why its right to life gives it greater rights than the mother (after all, the unborn baby, in the vast, vast (it cannot be said enough) vast majority of cases does not threaten the mother's life, nor her liberty, nor her pursuit of happiness - unless one wants to argue that pregnant women are willing slaves to their unborn children - and I hope that sounds as ridiculous to you, dear readers, as it does to me).

"There are major major problems with defining a fetus as a person ... [including] the government suddenly having the ability to control everything about a pregnant woman's life from her diet to her workout schedule specifically because the fetus now has liberty and life rights. The slippery slope there is too great. Every study that came out saying that mothers who watched TV while pregnant had higher incidence of miscarriage would potentially result in government intervention in the TV-watching habits of pregnant women - you know, because they have to protect the person that is the fetus."

Bravo, excellent job of fear-mongering, and excellent use of the fallacy form of the "slippery slope" rhetorical device. This is a fallacy here for two reasons: (1) The author ignores any possibility of a middle ground and (2) the author does not demonstrate a process which could lead to this extreme state of government control. This slippery slope is very obviously, ridiculous. To demonstrate, let us compare pregnancy to a natural, common relationship that is as close to pregnancy as possible - that is, the relationship between parents and the born children who are under their care. There are countless studies which show that the things that parents allow their kids to do every day may not be in the best interests of their kids' health: watching TV, eating candy, eating fast food and heavily processed food, playing video games, watching R-rated movies, drinking alcohol, smoking around their kids, raising kids as a single parent, raising kids in a home where both parents are working ... the list goes on. Kids who eat lots of junk food and sit around watching TV and playing video games are more likely to be fat, and have all the toher health problems that come along with poor diet and exercise habits. Kids who watch violent and sexually explicit movies at a young age can be adversely affected emotionally. Kids who are raised by single mothers are more likely to grow into a life of drugs and crime. Kids who have a sip of beer or wine from a parent's cup (and teenagers whose parents allow them to drink at home) have underdeveloped brains which could be adversely affected by alcohol. Working parents do not have as much time as stay at home moms and dads do to spend time with and care exclusively for their children. But do you see the government jumping in and controlling every aspect of these parents' lives, even once these children exhibit negative health consequences unto natural death? Do you see the government mandating that one parent must stay at home, that single mothers must marry to give their children fathers, that parents must serve only certain foods at certain times to their children, and that children are only allowed to sit in front of a TV for a certain number of hours a week - all this, of course, to ensure that children are cared for in the very best way possible that research can demonstrate?

No, you don't see this happening. And you don't see this, in spite of the fact that kids are considered people under the law, and kids really are at the mercy of their parents' habits and customs.

What you do see is the government becoming involved in the severe cases - cases where children's lives are threatened to an unnatural degree: where they are neglected, starved, beaten, and not cared for in even the most basic of ways.

That is when the government becomes involved in the care of vulnerable people (or rather, vulnerable humans - humans just like unborn babies).

So please, spare me the whole "women's lives will be controlled in every imaginable way" sob story. It is not true. If it becomes true, we'll have a lot more to worry about than just pregnant women being controlled by the government, because the exact same thing will happen to anyone who has a vulnerable person under their care.

"This is why, regardless of whether you find abortion morally or religiously offensive, you cannot legislate on it."

The vast majority of countries on this earth, who actually do have laws regarding abortion (including western countries who are largely considered to be "free" nations), would beg to differ. This also contradicts an earlier statement by the author - specifically, if unborn children are people then they have a right to life. "J" completely ignores this question and claims that they cannot be considered people, not because of any intrinsic characteristics of the unborn babies themselves, but because of the supposed consequences of this view, which "J" has yet to demonstrate as plausible.

"you don't like abortion, don't have one."

This is a tired, worn-out, ridiculous statement that, quite frankly, pro-choicers should stop using. Replace "abortion" with anything else, and you can see how ridiculous it sounds when the person you are talking to believes abortion is a grave human rights violation. You aren't convincing any pro-lifers by using this statement, after all, we can just shoot back: "Don't like rape? Don't rape someone. Don't like slavery? Don't own a slave. Don't like mobs? Don't participate in one. See how ridiculous that sounds?" ... and on and on we go, constantly talking past one another. 

"[T]he personhood status of women who are already here, already independent human entities, has to be eroded. You cannot have both women and fetuses be considered persons. It is a legal impossibility."

Why? Please, try to explain this without using a fallacy. And while you're at it, explain why conjoined twins also cannot be considered persons under the law.

"So if the "right to life" movement wants to end abortion, they're going to have to focus on alternative ways"

Oh gee, its a good thing we are already doing that then! (hint hint: pregnancy care centers are just one example of this).

"[P]rohibitions on abortion are notoriously ineffective in reducing the incidence of terminated pregnancy"

Given the difficulty of obtaining statistics for abortions performed legally vs. illegally, and (in Canada at least), the utter failure of the government to compile any kind of reliable stats on abortion at all, this statement is absolutely impossible to prove or disprove and should not be presented as absolute fact. This, or course, ignores the inherent fallacious nature of such a "it will happen anyway" argument. Just because something will happen anyway, does not mean that it should be legal, nor does it necessarily mean that it should be illegal either. Criminal activity happens whether we legislate against it or not - does that mean murder, theft, slander, drugs, domestic violence, or child abuse should be legal? Nope. "It will happen anyway" is a statement which neither supports nor denies a particular thesis, and should not be present in any discussion of the legality or the ethics of any action, including abortion.

"That's it, that's the abortion issue in a nutshell."

Actually, the author ignored pretty much every opjection that pro-lifers have to abortion, and the ones he or she did mention were not refuted. So no, this is not the abortion issue in a nutshell. This is the author's opinion, presented as argument, and supported by fallacies, in a nutshell. 

"All this other crap about people accepting responsibility for their actions, taking advantage of the abortion "faucet", respecting life, or whatever your emotional argument is, that's all completely irrelevant."

Right, because claiming that illegal abortion will lead to the utter and complete control of women's lives by the government is not emotional at all.

And if one dismisses "respecting life" as an emotional argument, one has relegated to the corner a compelling reason against murder and abuse. After all, are we not called to respect the people around us? And I would be seriously surprised if the author did not believe in personal responsibility. Otherwise, I hope she spends just as much time protesting against the legal system which assumes personal responsibility in order to charge people for their possible crimes and the consequences of such crimes (for instance - drunk driving. People who drive intoxicaed to not mean to get into accidents, and yet, if they do they are considered responsible for the destruction that their intoxication caused).

"... your purpose is to blame women for pregnancy in an effort to imply they are not really entitled to personhood status."

Hyperbole, ridiculousness, and a blatant attempt to completely disregard and misunderstand the actual pro-life position. Also, it is true that the vast majority of abortions are performed on women who risked the possibility of pregnancy by engaging in consensual sex. This is not a "blame" game - this is a fact. Pregnancy can lead to babies. Shocking, I know. But true nonetheless. Accepting reality does not mean you are "blaming" someone for something. And pregnant women, simply by virtue of being pregnant, are not denied their personhood, nor any of their rights. Unless you bleieve that people have rights which allow them to kill someone who does not threaten their own lives in any way. And from the standpoint that we all have a right to life, this is utterly ridiculous.

As for the "Note on international human rights, rather than US Consitutional rights": this is simply a reminder of what pro-lifers are attempting to change. We know that the unborn are not considered persons. We know that they currently do not enjoy a codified right to life. Quoting articles which are formed based off this understanding does not present an argument - it presents a conclusion, and as such, it is not something that will convince anyone who has an opposing view. 

Now, I spent most of this article demonstrating how the author(s) did not do a good job of arguing the case for legal abortion, but I did not make a complete case in opposition. So please refer to my blog posts here and here, which discuss whether or not a woman has a responsibility towards her unborn child. Also, please see discussions from Life Report here and here on this topic. I also am in the process of compiling essays and arguments for/against bodily autonomy as I have come across them (along with other issues related to the abortion debate) - you can find them here.

In conclusion, I wish to summarize what I believe Heather and J's main points are:

(1) Unborn children are not considered persons and are not endowed with the right to life in either the US consitution or in international human rights documents.

(2) Giving the unborn a right to life or personhood status necessarily degrades the rights of the pregnant women by subjecting her to government control and violating her privacy.

(3) Abortions happen anyway, whether illegal or legal.

Here are my main points in response:

(1) This is not an argument, it is a conclusion, and it is the very thing that pro-lifers are trying to change.

(2) This conclusion ignores any possibility of reasonable middle ground and is demonstrably false when compared to any other relationship in which one of the persons involved is vulnerable.

(3) This is not an arugment in favour of either legality or illegality; it is simply a statement which can by applied to any legal or illegal action.

But again, for an in-depth discussion of the pro-life perspective on this topic please read through the links I provided above.

That's all for now! Let me know if you think I have misunderstood Heather's and J's arguments in any way! Ciao :)

Opposing View of the Week: From Naked at UBC: Why the hell did that woman take her clothes off on campus?!

You can read the article here.

I've been wanting to comment on this for a really long time. Basically, the Genocide Awareness Project, which compares abortion with other atrocities such as the Holocaust, was holding a demonstration at the University of British Columbia, and rather than protest the old-fashioned way, Justine (the young woman who wrote the blog post) decided to take off all of her clothes. Back in March, an acquaintance of mine, who goes to UBC, posted Justine's blog on her Facebook, so I clicked on the link because it said "naked" (I know, so mature!!). When I saw what the nakedness was about, my immediate thought was "wow! the pro-life world is going to be all over this, if this is the best protest pro-choicers can come up with". Alas, the pro-life blogosphere largely ignored Justine (perhaps because her protest was just so juvenile?). Her blog, however, is very articulate, and so I will attempt to address her points here.

Justine protesting against GAP

(Aside: you can listen to CCBR's thoughts on her display here).

The theme:

"I hope [this post] will prompt people to think about free speech, our right to protest against things we find abhorrent, and what role the university plays in restricting or allowing protest."

(note: these are all worthy things to consider)

What happened:

"So I took off all my clothes and sat in front of the display until it was taken down..."

Her bias:

"As someone who supports women’s universal access to free, safe abortions, I fundamentally disagree with the anti-abortionists’ message. That said, I respect their right to hold their opinion as long as they don’t infringe on anyone’s right to access a free, safe abortion."

I always find statements like this interesting. She respects the pro-lifers right to their opinion, but only as long as their opinion does not "infringe on anyone's right to access a free, safe abortion". Since the pro-life goal is, broadly speaking, to have abortion re-criminalized, infringing access to abortion is exactly what pro-lifers are trying to do. Perhaps not specifically with the GAP display, but the comparison of abortion with other legal atrocities like the Holocaust, does imply that abortion should be made illegal. Clearly, she does not truly respect the pro-lifers "right to hold their opinion", since their opinion drives them to try accomplish exactly what she doesn't want them to do.

(Quick explanation for my American readers: abortion is paid for by our taxes in Canada, which is why Justine says "free, safe abortion").  

Now moving onto the meat of the post.

  

First, I would like to point out that Justine completely ignores the main message of the GAP display, which is that, similar to how other victims of genocide have been stripped of their rights, pre-born babies are also considered non-persons by those who support abortion. For example,

Her main points, as I see them, are addressed below.

"They are saying that a woman who chooses to terminate her pregnancy is akin to Nazis, terrorists, Klu Klux Klan members and the Santebal [...] The implication is [also] that anyone who supports a woman’s right to choose is also participating in mass, organized murder ..."

She at least gets part of the message. The implication that pro-choicers themselves are actively supporting and participating in the systematic destruction of real human persons is uncomfortable to say the least. But that is what is happening. You won't find a single post-abortive, ex-pro-choicer who denies that. A recent article by Abby Johnson, who herself had two abortions and was a Planned Parenthood employee, is a wonderful example of the growth, love, and healing that the pro-life community strives to extend to those Justine claims we condemn as evil. Additionally, many women are tricked, coerced, or pressured into choosing abortion, at which point they also become victims.

"'[My] first thought was: "I wish I were Jewish, or Lakota, or Cambodian so I could tell those people how deeply disrespectful and ignorant their posters are.' Imagine that! My first thought was that I, as a woman, did not have a legitimate grievance against images which equate my right to choose with enthusiastic membership of the Nazi party."

I find this quite refreshing actually. Normally, I am confronted with pro-choice activists who claim that lack of access to abortion confers onto them the title of Most Oppressed People Ever. It is nice to see a pro-choicer realize that the lack of abortion access is NOT the same thing as having your life violently taken from you. Now if only she could extend these same thoughts to the unborn, whose lives are also being stolen from them in the most atrocious of ways. 

"Many of the people I spoke to said they wished they could knock over the signs or unplug the PA system [... they] also said they were afraid of getting [in]  trouble and remained where they were. [...] I was deeply troubled by the fact that people were so afraid of … what? Getting kicked out of university? Being stripped of their scholarships? There seemed to be a feeling that stepping outside of the zone reserved for protest would have disastrous results, and no one seemed willing to test the rules."

This is most telling. She began her blog post by talking about nice things like "free speech", "right to protest", and "respecting opinions"; and yet implies (if not fully admits) that she wishes that she and her fellow counter-protesters could shut down and suppress the pro-lifer's message without repercussion. I am glad no one actually knocked down signs or unplugged the PA, but I am deeply troubled that the reason this did not happen is because they were afraid of the consequences. What about respectful, peaceful dialog? What about encouraging discussions between opposing views? What about, to use Justine's words, the right to free speech and the "right to protest against things we find abhorrent?" No matter what side of the debate you are on, if you feel you have to silence your opponents through vandalism and interference, then (in my opinion) you immediately sacrifice your credibility, otherwise why wouldn't you be in favor of open, respectful dialog? Additionally, freedom of speech and expression is supposed to be  a fundamental freedom in Canada, and I would hope that most Canadians want this freedom to be respected.

A GAP display

What Justine wishes she could have said to those running GAP:

" I am an exceptionally privileged person."

I agree. For one thing, you are alive - unlike the victims of abortion. And you live somewhere where you can exercise life-or-death decisions over someone else and not get arrested for doing so. 

 "My freedom to exercise control over my own body without shame or fear is a freedom I want all people to have because only when all people are free from oppression and shame will we live in a universally peaceful and egalitarian society."

That's interesting, considering the unborn are not even considered persons under Canadian law, and those who are aborted will never be able to exercise control over their own bodies. Does that sound equal to you, dear reader? Let me fix her statement: "My freedom to exercise control over my own body [by killing my children should they reside in my womb] without shame or fear is a freedom I want all [born] people to have because only when all people are free from oppression and shame [but are not free from being dismembered, disemboweled, starved, burned, and/or poisoned if they happen to be less than approximately than 9 months old] will we live in a universally peaceful and egalitarian society [excepting those who are pre-born, who do not have any rights whatsoever]".  

 "[As] I take my freedom for granted I make it more difficult for someone else to achieve freedom."

Someone, perhaps, like a full term baby that is torn apart limb from limb? And before anyone claims that we don't need laws against late-term abortions in Canada because they just don't happen, they do.

 "Freedom ... is beautiful."

Apparently only when it does not extend to everyone in our human family.

 "My body is where I exercise and appreciate my freedom on a daily basis, and I reject outright the assertion that by supporting the right to free, safe abortions, I am turning it into a tool of mass murder."

Except by supporting abortion on demand, for any reason, Justine is supporting the abortion (i.e.: killing) of the unborn. She might not think that killing unborn babies is a bad thing, but she should be honest with herself: she is supporting the mass destruction of unborn babies' lives.

(Aside: I am wondering why she did not simply walk up to the GAP protesters and speak her mind - the whole point of GAP, as quoted from their website, is to "engage passersby[s] in discussion[s] about abortion", so the opportunity was definitely there. I've also listened of recordings of different GAP demonstrations, and the people running GAP spend much of their time listening to and addressing the public's responses to their display. Odd that she seems to think freedom of speech is such a great thing, but didn't even bother to exercise it by directly confronting the GAP activists).

"It didn’t take long for campus security to arrive and ask me to 'cover up.' I asked why, and was told that I was 'indecent.' I found this particularly ironic, seeing as I was sitting in front of a six-foot-high image of naked bodies piled in a mass grave"

There is a huge difference between choosing to strip down in public vs. being murdered and then stripped naked by the people who killed you. I'm ashamed for her for making this statement.

Justine's description of how the UBC administration dealt with her protest loosely reminds me of the difficulties pro-life students have been having in exercising their own rights to protest and demonstrate:

"And this is the kicker – the university has translated the campus security guard’s allegation that I 'disrobed in the plaza…' into an allegation that I disrupted the GAP display. In other words, UBC is laying charges on behalf of a 'victim' who never even made a complaint. I expected that there would be repercussions to my actions that day, but I never suspected the university would come to the defence of a highly controversial anti-abortion group WHICH DIDN’T EVEN ASK TO BE DEFENDED" 

I am totally in support of Justine on this. UBC did not handle the issue properly at all. By all means, take issue with the fact that she was sitting outside naked on school grounds, but she was clearly very careful to not disrupt GAP in any significant way.

"The university can expel you for plagiarism, but they can’t kick you out for expressing your opinion – in fact, that’s what we’re supposed to be learning how to do. Do not be afraid to speak up when you see something that offends your humanity. Don’t let the threat of campus security or the police stop you from speaking truth to power, or the fear of breaking with social norms stop you from standing up for what you believe in."

I agree with everything here, with the proviso that "speaking up" does not involve suppressing the counter-message (like Justine implied she wanted to do earlier in her post). I'd also like to point out that in terms of having your message silenced, Justine had a much easier time than quite a few anti-abortion protesters. She wasn't arrested, and she wasn't forced to leave - even though she did not comply with the security officer and claimed not to be a UBC student. Here are just a few examples of worse situations off of the top of my head:

Carleton Lifeline's GAP display suppressed, protestors arrested and charged 

Mary Wagner arrested and charged multiple times for peaceful protest

Linda Gibbons spends years in jail for peaceful protest

Censorship of Youth Protecting Youth, University of Victoria's pro-life club

My point? Freedom of expression has to go both ways, and the issues in Canada (both at Canadian Universities and in the public) with regards to our freedom of speech are pretty serious, especially if you are pro-life. When a peaceful, old grandmother spends years in jail for having an opinion in the wrong location, then there is a problem with free speech that goes beyond anything that happened to Justine. I am extremely glad that the injustice of UBC's actions against Justine were brought to light, but I would like to see worse transgressions equally condemned and dealt with in a similarly quick and fair manner. It took about a week for UBC to drop the allegations against Justine - it took over a year for Carleton University to drop trespassing charges against Carleton Lifeline members, who were arrested for trespassing onto University grounds ... and three of them were members of that university.

Carelton student arrested

In conclusion there are three things that Justine should acknowledge before discussing this topic again:

1. That in supporting abortion rights, she does support the destruction of human lives. She might not find those lives valuable or worthy of protection, but she supports their destruction nonetheless, and so statements like "I reject outright the assertion that by supporting the right to free, safe abortions, I am turning it into a tool of mass murder" demonstrate how much she has missed the point.

2. Freedom of speech should extend to abortion activists and anti-abortion activists in equal measure. Justine and her fellow protesters are not brave or noble for expressing a desire to sabotage the GAP display, and being afraid to do so does not mean that they are being oppressed in some way.

3. The attacks on pro-life demonstrators for expressing their opinions have been far more serious than those that were leveled against a girl who stripped naked and then lied to a security officer. It is awesome that the university dropped the allegations against her, but people everywhere should be equally prepared to defend pro-lifers in similar situations, especially if they claim to value freedom of speech and expression.

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.

Opposing View of the Week: "Woodworth's Misogyny" from The Abortion Monologues

Opposing Views of the Week is a chance for you to learn what the other side thinks (if you're pro-life) or for you to learn what the other side thinks of you (if you're pro-choice). I will be featuring a blog post by a pro-abortion advocate every week, with a(n) (attempted) rebuttal. 

 
You can read the full blog post here, called "Woodworth's Misogyny" written by Jane Cawthorne. Before I start to address her points, I just wanted to point out that the very first label she identified with "Woodworth's Misogyny" was #nodebate. I thought that was interesting.

Now onto the blog post:

"To Stephen Woodworth and your cabal of fetus fetishists."

No, we do not have a fetus fetish. Glad we got that cleared up. :)

"Why do you hate women?"

We don't hate women. I'm a women. Most of the leaders in the pro-life movement are women. If you really don't believe me, look at the work that Feminists for Life is doing in the USA, advocating for pregnant women in the workplace and at school. Also, I looked through your "List of Anti-Choice MP's", and it turns out that that 19 of them are women. Huh.

A woman hatin' woman!

"Why are you and your anachronistic patriarchal cabal trying to force your opinions up my vagina?"

Who said anything about your vagina?

 "Why are you forcing Parliament to waste time on a question that has been settled for decades? Give it up, man. It's over." 

You really don't understand the position of pro-lifers if you think that we will ever give up. Until every human being, at ever stage of its life, is respected and protected by society and by law, we will not give up. Considering the 27% of Canadians in 2007 who said they believe that abortion is morally wrong, the 39% of Canadians in 2010 who said that the government should only fund abortions in the event of a medical emergency, and the 15 300 pro-lifers who attended the 2011 March for Life, I think it is quite clear that the debate is not as settled as you would like it to be. Sorry to disappoint.

"Why can't you see the evidence in front of your eyes, and know that denying a woman the right to an abortion only results in driving the procedure underground and bringing harm to women. Are you trying to find ways to harm us? Why do you deny the science and the surveys and the studies and the irrefutable evidence that criminalizing abortion does nothing to reduce its incidence? How can you be so blind to fact?"

Hmm, maybe it's because when abortion advocates speak, their words themselves do not completely support this view! There are many factors that determine whether a particular abortion procedure is safe for women, and illegality is not the foremost one. From the 2009 National Abortion Federation's medical textbook on abortion, Management of Unintended and Abnormal Pregnancy (emphasis my own):

"The high risk of death from unsafe abortion in Africa reflects the procedures used and the poor availability, accessibility, and quality of services for management of complications." (19)

"First-trimester aspiration abortion is one of the safest procedures provided for women of reproductive age. Its use in lieu of dilation and sharp curettage has reduced abortion-related morbidity worldwide." (152)

"Where mifepristone is not accessible, various misoprostol-only regimens are being used... its widespread use in countries with restricted abortion laws appears to be associated with reduction in maternal morbidity and mortality." (122)

"Even in developing countries with restrictive abortion laws, increasing use of MVA (manual vacuum aspiration) and medical abortion methods has reduced abortion-related mortality. (135)" 

"Induced abortion is an impressively safe procedure, particularly but not exclusively where it is legal. (224)" 

"Why are potential people, clumps of cells no bigger than a few milimeters, more important to you than actual women?"

Well, considering that Stephen Woodworth is opposed to a law that says that we are not human until we completely exit the birth canal, when we are no longer mere clumps of cells, I find it odd that you would even bring this up. We aren't just talking about humans at their very earliest stages of life (though we pro-lifers care about them too!!). We're also talking about humans that have arms, legs, a heartbeat, and brainwaves. We're also talking about humans that can learn, play, laugh, yawn, and cry. We're also talking about humans that can survive outside of the womb. These humans are not considered human beings under Canadian law and it is completely legal for a doctor to kill them. Never mind the fact that women are very often hurt by abortion (both physically and emotionally), are discriminated against through abortion (even in Canada), and that more than half of all victims of abortion are unborn women. We care about all women. You seem to only care about the ones who are born.

"You don't get to decide what I do with my body. Only I get to decide that."

I totally agree. I only object when women (or men for that matter) decide what to do with someone else's body. 

"But this is just women we're talking about here, so you don't care. You feel we can't be trusted."

We are not the ones who think that aborting a baby girl just because she is a girl is totally fine. Believing that every person, no matter the age, deserves life and love and respect is the exact opposite of not caring. We are not the ones who think teenagers should abort even if they don't want to. We are not the ones hiding abortion images from women. We are not the ones who refuse to allow women to see their ultrasounds. Believing that every woman has it in her to be a wonderful mother, and giving her the resources to make that possible, does not mean that we don't think women can be trusted - in fact, it means the exact opposite.

I also have numerous posts detailing the efforts the pro-life movement is making towards helping young mothers and women who find themselves in crisis pregnancies have other options available to them besides abortion. Please read through them, and then tell me again that we don't care about women.

"You know that petition you are sending around, the one that you're putting up in publicly funded schools and having Catholic school children sign, the one that shows a woman's pregnant belly and cuts off her head? [...]You've broken that woman into parts, objectified her, made her pornographic."

Catholic schools promoting Catholic values?? Oh noes!! And maybe the petition focuses on the pregnant woman's belly because that is where the baby is - you know, the baby that doesn't have any human rights and isn't even considered a human under Canadian law? And showing a picture of a pregnant woman's belly is pornographic now? That just takes the cake. I guess My Pregnancy Guide and other pregnancy resources which also show pictures of pregnant bellies objectify women and turn them into objects too then, right?

 "Why are you obsessed with women's bodies?"

First Woodworth has a fetus fetish, and now he's obsessed with women's bodies. Notice that the only one talking about vaginas and pregnant bellies is you. 

 "Why can't you go about your business and leave me alone?"

This isn't about you. Its about her.

"Did someone hurt you when you were little and ruin your sense of eroticism and any possibility you have of enjoying a healthy sexual relationship? Did someone convince you sex was a chore done only to procreate?"

You know, just because pro-lifers know that having sex could create a baby, doesn't mean we have no sense of eroticism. Really, the logical leap from "they think sex can make babies" & "they think babies should have human rights" to "they must not have healthy sexual relationships" & "they must think sex is a chore" is astounding. Many pro-life women have lots of kids. How exactly does it follow that they don't enjoy sex?

"How many more generations will we have to wait until people like you are gone?"

Considering that the pro-life movement is made up of quite a few young people, you will have to wait awhile!

 "I have values, and they are just as strong and important and vital to me as yours are to you. The difference between you and me is I'll never try to shove mine up another woman's vagina, or down another man's throat."

But you will use your values to tear apart a fetus limb from limb, inject poison into its heart, burn it inside and out, suck it out, and basically do anything at all that will kill it. And that's okay. Incidentally, abortions generally shove things up a woman's vagina, so I really think you ought to pick another euphemism.

This is the best quote of the entire blog post:

"I'll never support your efforts to force others to abide by your twisted, erotophobic, anti-sex, misogynist, patriarchal bundle of human-rights affronting crap that your motion represents."

And:

"You are waking a sleeping giant. Women are not things for you to possess and command. You are about to find out, we are warriors."

We are warriors, and we pro-life women will fight until our last breath to make sure that all human beings have rights, including the unborn. And there are many women on our side. And we won't stop until abortion not only becomes illegal, but both unthinkable and unnecessary. Good luck in this battle, because when you're against this, you are definitely going to need it.