As a pro-life woman, it is certainly heartening to see the lack of receptivity to Justin Trudeau's position that pro-life candidates need not apply to be nominees for the Liberal Party. There has not been much (any?) support for this bold declaration that freedom of speech and conscience ought to be denied Liberal nominees. His position sounds extreme. But is it? In my opinion, Mr. Trudeau's remarks are a logical extension of pro-choice philosophy. In spite of the rhetoric, being pro-choice is not actually always in favour of choice. I'm not talking about the woman here; I'm talking about the developing human in the womb.
A young woman's recent decision to film her abortion and share it with the world has been making headlines lately and, over the course of the past few days, I've observed the puzzled, horrified, and downright hateful reactions of many on my social networks. But the more I saw the hate, the more I realized that what Emily Letts did was pretty ground-breaking and unbelievably brave. Letts isn't celebrating abortion. She's simply demystifying a procedure that most people have been conditioned to avoid talking about, and by doing so, removing all the shame and fear associated with it.
The British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA) has filed a constitutional lawsuit against the University of Victoria and the UVic Students' ...
While there was undoubtedly something less than consistent about his "Stop being so preoccupied with abortion!/Let's talk about abortion!" chain of commentary this week, the Pope still deserves credit. His actions and words have been constant in their focus on delivering people help, love and protection, rather than on condemning people for their choices or natures. Even Pope Francis's anti-abortion comments to Catholic gynecologists on Friday seemed to centre on the dignity of life, rather than on the sin of those who would take it.
Whenever I write or talk about abortion and mention the possibility of a slippery slope, I am told that the slippery slope discussion is a straw dog. There are rules after all! But rules are only as good as the people who follow them and the institutions that are set up to oversee them. There is an assumption of honesty and human goodness. In the case of the Philadelphia House of Horrors there was a breakdown on both fronts. Abortionist Dr. Gosnell has no ethical/moral core and the overseers in Philadelphia dropped the ball for 17 years. Anyone who assumes Gosnell's clinic is a one-off is blinded by ideology. Those who refuse to look at limits in abortion are stuck in the rut of Manichean thinking.
At the University of Waterloo last week, Conservative MP Stephen Woodworth was scheduled to speak to a group of students at an event organized by the Students for Life campus club. Unfortunately, a group of students shut down Mr. Woodworth's speech by shouting him down, until he was left with no choice but to cancel the event.
It's time to shift away from the messy public spectacles regarding euthanasia. Instead let's follow Quebec's lead -- Canadians everywhere should be able to choose from a full range of end-of-life options, including -- if the prerequisites are met, the option of a medically assisted suicide. There aren't really any scary precedents or slippery slopes here. What there is, is an alternative to an existence of suffering and pain that should, and can be afforded to a terminally ill, palliative treated, mentally competent adult.
To run into the waiting room of an abortion clinic and pummel patients with dogma is not a good idea. Yet, two women, Mary Wagner and Linda Gibbons, have been awarded Diamond Jubilee medals for doing just that. For two "activists" to be rewarded for attacking women when they're at their weakest, their most vulnerable, and on top of that say that these two women are "heroines for humanity" is one of the most backwards things I have heard in recent times.
Many saw Rona Ambrose's vote as the opening salvo in an effort to unwind the long-established principle of a woman's right to choose, and a terrible betrayal by Ambrose, who should now be called the minister in charge of turning back the clock. None of this was terribly surprising, since women seem to have been coasting on autopilot when it comes to protecting the rights we have gained, much less advancing the cause of equality and fairness going forward.
Wednesday evening was a perilous moment for every person with a uterus in Canada and elsewhere. In a country where we are applauded for not having legal restrictions on abortion, Parliament voted on M312, which was defeated 203-91. Though the motion claimed to be in the interest of equality for everyone, nowhere did the word woman, womb, fetus, uterus, or (heaven forbid) vagina appear in the motion. The person who should have been fighting the hardest Wednesday night was the Minister for the Status of Women, Rona Ambrose. Instead she sucker-punched everyone in this country who hopes and expects to be treated in accordance with their charter rights and as a person, by voting yes.
The Prime Minister himself has said he will not open the abortion debate. This goes as far as the PMO working to strongly encourage members of parliament to vote against MP Steven Woodworth's bill -- that asks our government to review the definition of when a child become a human being -- though that doesn't look to be stopping some members. If Prime Minister Harper is not interested in opening the abortion debate, and if this was only a private member's motion to create a committee -- the least threatening and most common of all government workings, then what makes Motion 312 important?
Pro-choice advocate and HuffPost blogger Joyce Arthur's views on abortion are ripe with inconsistencies. She bemoans what she believes was a recent attack on a woman's "right" to abortion. But according to parliament, women do not have a right to abortion. The "right" to abortion that's so often touted is about as substantial as the unicorn, and the act itself is far uglier: the antithesis of good mothering.