Pro-Life Humanists

Navigation Menu

Attacked by Tomatoes at Canadian March for Life!

Posted by on May 13, 2016 in Abortion in Canada |

Good argument

Dear pro-choicers:  A tomato is not an argument.  Running down the street screaming “pro-choice!  pro-choice!” and pelting pro-lifers and pro-life signs with mushy fruit does not make your case that a fetus is not a member of the human species worthy of protection.

It does, however, put stains onto the brand-new, not even fully completed, sign we were making with not-so-cheap colourful fabric.  It’s also an act of destructive violence.  But that kind of seems to be par for the course when it comes to abortion.

Sorry you couldn’t stop to chat with us.  As a group of atheists and humanists joined by a queer (lesbian & trans) pro-life couple, we were probably some of the nicest most open-minded pro-lifers you could’ve interacted with at the March for Life.  Thanks for the extra laundry while I’m hobbling around on a broken foot.   Hopefully we can have real dialog at some point in the future.

The new PLH fabric sign (before it got tomatoed)

The new PLH fabric sign (before it got tomatoed)

 

Close-up of some of the tomato stains

Close-up of some of the tomato stains

 

They're here! They're queer!  They're pro-life!  (Our new local allies)

They’re here! They’re queer! They’re pro-life! (Our new local allies)

 

Read More

Green Party Leader Elizabeth May: Open to Abortion Debate?

Green Party Leader Elizabeth May: Open to Abortion Debate?

Posted by on Oct 14, 2015 in Abortion in Canada | 2 comments

(L-R) Stephen Harper (Conservatives), Elizabeth May (Green), Tom Mulcair (NDP), Justin Trudeau (Liberal)

(L-R) Stephen Harper (Conservatives), Elizabeth May (Green), Tom Mulcair (NDP), Justin Trudeau (Liberal)

With Canada’s next federal election right around the corner, it’s a bleak landscape for Canadians who care at all about the issue of abortion.   Stephen Harper has repeated again and again that he will never touch the issue as long as he is Prime Minister, and both Tom Mulcair and Justin Trudeau have made it clear that their Mp’s must support the status quo on abortion.

Since 1988, Canada has been one of three countries without abortion laws, resulting in abortion on demand through all nine months, usually tax-funded.   However, according to a 2011 Environonics poll, 77% of Canadians disapprove of third trimester abortions, 58% want restrictions after the first trimester, 54% want tax coverage only on medically necessary abortions or in case of rape, and a whopping 92% of Candians favour a ban on sex-selection abortions, which recent studies and a CBC investigation have shown are happening increasingly in some part of Canada.

In anticipation of the upcoming election, the pro-life community has spent the year campaigning against Justin Trudeau’s prochoice extremism.   With tweets, graphic postcards, and cross-country demonstrations, the #No2Trudeau campaign sought to discourage voters from backing a leader who would bar prolifers from his party and champion unrestricted abortion.

Unfortunately, the NDP leader Tom Mulcair shares the same conviction as the Liberals: no anti-abortion candidate will be allowed to run for the NDP.   If you’re a socialist who thinks women deserve better options than being told to abort the kids they can’t afford, you’ll have no voice in the NDP.

And of course pro-life Conservatives still exist, but true to his word to not reopen the debate, Prime Minister Harper has squashed all private member’s bills.  He voted against MP Stephen Woodworth’s Motion 312, which merely sought an investigation of human beginnings in light of modern science.  Even MP Mark Warawa’s Motion 408, “That the House condemn discrimination against females occurring through sex-selective pregnancy termination”  was stomped out despite its wide public support.  A Conservative government may prevent Trudeau’s intended abortion funding overseas, but that’s as good as it gets.

Only Green party leader Elizabeth May, despite being pro-choice, has shown receptiveness to public debate on touchy issues like abortion.  Last November,  during the Q&A at her lecture on Proportional Representation, I asked May in light of Canadian abortion polls:
How is it possible for the majority of us who want some sort of restrictions or protections for the humans in the womb to have any kind of say or representation in parliament, if our leaders refuse to even allow us to have the debate in parliament?

May responded by assuring me that unlike the other parties, the Green party has no whipped votes and therefore “No Green Party member has to vote according to our policies.”   She added:

It is to me not a good situation when any issue is viewed – especially an issue of public policy – as too tough to handle, too sensitive to discuss.  I personally prefer the status quo in not reopening the debate because there are so many hard-won victories for women to ensure legal and safe abortions… but the courts are likely to say to parliament again: ‘You’ve got to have something on the books, we have nothing on the books.”

… I personally am very disturbed by the notion that Canadians  would go get an ultrasound and abort a healthy fetus because they didn’t want a girl.  It’s concerning.  But if we can’t even discuss it in parliament… I’m with you there!  … There are a lot of questions that are profoundly moral questions that are tough to handle.  But our constituents are talking about  them.  If our constituents are talking about it, then I think we ought to be able to talk about them as parliamentarians.

[Hear full question & response]

In fact, upon rejecting the 1969 abortion law, the 1988 Supreme Court told parliament that it was up to them to enact a new and better law with the interests of the later-term fetus in mind.  We’re still waiting for them to do so.  No issue that continues to so widely divide Canadians more than 30 years after its onset  can honestly claim to be a closed debate – even if most of our leaders want to pretend that it is.

Read More

What Do Canadians Think about Abortion?

What Do Canadians Think about Abortion?

Posted by on Jul 1, 2014 in Abortion in Canada, Abortion Politics | 4 comments

Canadian flag with 12 week fetus in red parts

Happy Birthday Canada! It’s July 1st, Canada’s national holiday. I know you’ve got BBQ’s and fireworks to get to, but please allow me to interrupt your celebrations for just a moment as I turn your attention to the 3 million Canadians who aren’t here to celebrate with us.

What do Canadians really think about abortion? Our politicians would have you believe that Canada is a pro-choice nation and that the issue is settled, with no need to be revisited in parliament.  Is that the case?  Since 1988, when the 1969 abortion laws were struck down with the Morgentaler Decision, Canada has been one of three countries in the world with zero laws on abortion. Despite individual hospital and provincial restrictions, abortion is legal in Canada throughout all nine months, for any reason at all – and in most cases, they are paid for by our tax dollars.  (That’s right: essential dental care isn’t covered, but elective abortions are!)   … And the vast majority of Canadians agree with this, so we have nothing to talk about in parliament and can go back to our burgers, right?

Hold the mustard!  According to abortion polls (which admittedly vary widely, depending on how the questions are asked) by such firms as Angus-Reid, Ipsos-Reid, Abacus and Environics, only 30% of Canadians fully agree with the status quo which current government parties seek to uphold (no abortion restrictions and tax-funded coverage of almost all abortions).  That’s right.  At least 70% of Canadians are not in complete agreement with the unchallenged law as it currently stands!

– According to a 2011 Environics poll:

77% of Canadians believe abortion should be illegal in the 3rd trimester

58% believe abortion should be illegal in the 2nd & 3rd trimesters

– 92% believe that sex-selective abortions should be illegal

54% want tax payers covering only medically necessary/rape abortions (13% want no tax funding at all, with only only 30% agreeing with our current coverage)

– 70% would support legislation making it a separate crime to injure or kill a fetus during an attack on the mother.
(See also Environics, 2007; Angus-Reid, 2008)

So Happy Canada Day! Enjoy the festivities – but be ready to get back to our work when the day is done! It’s time to let Canadians know that if they are not at ease with tax-funded abortion on demand through all nine months, that they are in the majority, not the minority! And it’s time to make sure our government is speaking for us, not shutting pro-life voices out of parliament!

—————————————

For more polls and sources see:
Wiki Page: Abortion in Canada
Abortion in Canada: Thirty Years of Surveys Show Canadians Oppose Unrestricted Abortion
We Need a Law: Resources, Abortion polls

Read More

Who is Lying Now?

Who is Lying Now?

Posted by on Jun 13, 2013 in Abortion in Canada | 7 comments

Irony: Complaining about "lie

Did you know that pro-lifers only account for 5% of Canada’s population and that all national pro-life organizations secretly oppose all abortions, including life-saving abortions? Neither did I. But Joyce Arthur, prominent Canadian abortion advocate would have you believe that is the case.

Her recent article, ironically entitled “Nothing but contempt: Putting the lie to media coverage of Dr. Henry Morgentaler” speaks anything but the truth about pro-life Canadians. Bemoaning the fact that the media often gave equal voice to abortion opponents, while covering the recent passing of abortion provider Dr Henry Morgentaler, Joyce Arthur says:

“Apparently, the media thinks that view has some kind of legitimacy and must be presented against the pro-choice view in the name of “balance.” Well, NO. The anti-choice position — that women must be compelled to carry every pregnancy to term under threat of criminal law regardless of circumstances — is an extremist view held by only 5 per cent of Canadians. It is also profoundly mistaken, cruel and undemocratic. As such, it does not deserve equal time or respect in Canada. That tiny 5 per cent minority has great representation though — most, if not all, anti-choice organizations in Canada adhere to that same extremist belief. They don’t advocate it openly anymore because they know the public finds it abhorrent. But don’t be fooled — their dream is to ban abortion completely with no exceptions, the same goal as other anti-choice groups around the world. (She then goes on to highlight recent and extreme cases where pregnant women have been denied life-saving surgery.)

Perhaps Mz Arthur didn’t expect her readership to click on the link she so generously supplied to back up her claim that that the pro-lifers speaking in disfavour of Dr Morgentaler were all part of a “tiny 5% minority” that necessarily included “most, if not all anti-choice organizations in Canada”. In fact, key findings of the 2013 Augus-Reid public opinion poll tell quite a different story:

In reality, only 35% of Canadians agree with Canada’s current status-quo on abortion, where any woman can have an abortion at any time during her pregnancy, with no restrictions whatsoever. Furthermore, only 43% believe the health care system should fund abortions whenever they are requested, while 42% think the health care system should only fund abortions in the event of medical emergencies. (Currently, abortions in Canada are almost entirely tax-funded through all nine months for any reason, with exception of New Brunswick where hospital but not private clinic abortions are covered). And while 59% of Canadians say they do not wish to reopen the abortion debate, it’s important to note that only 23% of those polled were previously aware that abortion is legal throughout all nine months without restriction (a reality that 65% do not agree with).

In other words, Henry Morgentaler’s national legacy of tax-funded abortion on-demand and without restriction finds disagreement and varying degrees of discomfort and/or unawareness with a majority of Canadians. It is blatantly dishonest of Joyce Arthur to lump all such disagreements into the tiny 5% that would deny life-saving intervention to a pregnant woman.

So what are we to make of that 5% anyway? Do they indeed represent the future if Canada becomes a pro-life country like Ireland and El Salvador, who made recent headlines for their refusals to allow pregnant women to undergo life-saving surgery that would jeopardize their fetus? Is Ms Arthur correct in assuming that a pro-life country would ultimately lead to Canadian women facing similarly life-threatening fates?

In a word: no. Guidelines were in place in Ireland that should have allowed the Irish woman to obtain necessary medical attention, and I am grieved that similar protections were not in place in El Salvador. That these women were delayed or denied treatment is more attributable to malpractice than to pro-life philosophy. The vast majority of pro-lifers believe in saving the greatest number of lives, and if a pregnant woman’s life is threatened, it makes no sense to lose two lives rather than intervene and save at least one. Receiving life-saving medical care is not a privilege belonging only to non-pregnant women, and I believe that hospitals that fail to provide timely care and to save at least one life are in the wrong and not being pro-life at all. The solution is not to do away with pro-life laws and thinking, but to enact them more appropriately so that they might save the lives they were intended to save.

That said, let’s be clear that Mz Arthur’s interest in painting pro-lifers with an extremist brush, and her concern for women in life-threatening situations is not merely a concern for these women. Joyce Arthur and most of her fellow abortion advocates want to protect the status quo of abortion on demand. It is always easier to hide behind the harder cases of rape, incest, and life of mother when trying to frighten people away from debating or discussing abortion. It is certainly easier to pretend that pro-lifers are all “anti-choice extremists” with no concern for dying women when attempting to silence those who would question the status quo.

Make no mistake about it: Canadians are largely divided on Morgentaler’s legacy, and as long as free speech is still a right belonging to all Canadians, the newspapers will be more than justified to include pro-life voices. And make no mistake about it, Joyce Arthur: we’re not going away and we’re not shutting up simply because you tell tall tales about who we are and what we’re truly about.

Read More

Dr Henry Morgentaler vs Pro-Life Humanism

Dr Henry Morgentaler vs Pro-Life Humanism

Posted by on May 30, 2013 in Abortion in Canada, Featured posts, Humanism & Morality | 5 comments

morgentaler1

He broke the law and became a national hero.  That’s the story of Dr. Henry Morgentaler, the abortion provider credited for Canada’s current lack of abortion laws.  Dr. Morgentaler passed away of a heart attack May 29th 2013, at the age of 90.

Morgentaler has been aptly called in his biography by Catherine Dunphy, a “difficult hero”.     “Difficult” may be putting it far too mildly, and “hero” naturally depends on one’s point of view.  Certainly it can be said of the man who performed abortions while they were still illegal, challenging the abortion laws to the point of going to jail, that he was a consistent advocate for abortion and a true believer in his cause.     It takes courage to go against the grain of one’s society, and as a Humanist and activist, I honour that in him – even if I disagree with the cause he championed.

Dr. Morgentaler’s story is a fascinating one.  A Holocaust survivor, having been interned in both Auschwitz and Dachau concentration camps in his youth, he immigrated to Montreal, Canada in 1950 where he studied medicine and became a family physician.  After specializing his practice to family planning and becoming one of the first physicians to perform vasectomies and to offer contraception to unmarried women, his clientele increasingly turned to him with requests for elective (non-life threatening) abortions.  Abortion was illegal in Canada prior to May 14th 1969, and afterward only legal when performed in hospitals under the approval of a Therapeutic Abortion Committee.   Morgentaler defied the law and was thrown in jail for his efforts, facing a decades-long legal battle in court case after court case.    In January of 1988 the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that Prime Minister Trudeau’s 1969 Omnibus law on abortion violated women’s “right to life, liberty and security of the person” as per section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the inadequate abortion laws were struck down, leaving a legislative void on abortion in its place.

Now it has not escaped my notice as a pro-life Humanist that Dr. Henry Morgentaler also identified as a Humanist.  In fact, Morgentaler was the first president of the Humanist Association of Canada, from 1968 to 1999, and he remained its honorary president after that.   I had the privilege of rubbing shoulders with some of his long-time friends and colleagues at a recent Humanist Association Christmas party in Ottawa, and it was evident how revered he  still is among Canada’s Humanists.   The American Humanist Association likewise honours him, and named him their 1975 Humanist of the Year.    I met Dr. Morgentaler briefly in 2004 and have been saddened by threats to his life and property made by more extreme opponents of abortion.  As a Humanist I found him to be quite personable and couldn’t help but like him, his stance on abortion aside.

“The fact that some people are opposed to abortion on religious grounds doesn’t bother me as long as they are not allowed to influence other people by force or by other means,” Dr. Morgentaler said in 2008.  “… I believe as a medical doctor my duty was to help humans, and I did it.”     Morgentaler assumed what most people assume: that opposition to abortion is primarily if not entirely religiously grounded.   He also assumed that the best way to help a woman facing a crisis pregnancy is to eliminate the pregnancy, rather than the crisis.   I believe he was wrong on both counts.

Pro-life Humanists are now the ones going against the grain.   After all, the 1973 Humanist Manifesto II (article six) clearly names abortion as a right that should be recognized along  with the right to contraception and divorce.   Nevertheless, all versions of the Humanist Manifesto and its subsequent declarations lend themselves toward a belief in egalitarian treatment of all human beings.   Article eleven of Manifesto II speaks eloquently of our particular obligation toward the disadvantaged and those unable to support themselves.   Included in that list are “the mentally retarded, abandoned or abused children, the handicapped… [and] all who are neglected or ignored by society.” Developing humans in utero, biologically members of our species though too young to possess the strength, awareness, or physical functions for independent living, demand on account of their dependence and vulnerability more special care and support – not less.   Their current age-related mental and physical state does not translate into a justification for extermination.

Dr Morgentaler frequently justified his illegal abortions by citing “necessity“.   He argued that women would seek illegal and dangerous abortions if he didn’t help them out.   While I appreciate that his intentions in trying to help women were for the good, I think the doctor ultimately failed in his attempt to increase freedom for women.  Freedom that comes at the expense of a weaker and more vulnerable being is not freedom at all.  It’s tyranny.   More to the point, society has not elevated women by removing their pregnancies from the equation.  The very same problems of inequality that make it so challenging for a woman to couple motherhood with career and education are not eradicated by the abortionist’s suction.   They remain an entrapment for the next woman and the woman after her.   Abortion puts a band-aid over society’s blistering pus  while never actually addressing the root infection that causes a pregnancy and a new human life to be so problematic in the first place.    If abortion appears necessary, and if any woman is so desperate to escape the trap she finds herself in that she will resort to dangerous surgery, perhaps it’s not abortion that she needs, but real choices and a reform of society itself?

Pro-life feminist and author Frederica Matthewes-Green once stated that “no woman wants an abortion as she wants an ice cream cone or a Porsche. She wants an abortion as an animal caught in a trap wants to gnaw off its own leg.”   Abortion providers like Dr Morgentaler correctly perceive the trap, but they merely offer the woman a sterile knife to aid in the amputation.   Real help does not sacrifice one human life at the expense of another, but goes to the source of the trap to unscrew the hinge and free both.

Dr Henry Morgentaler has died but his legacy, along with the false beliefs of abortion as the salvation and equalizer of women, are still very much alive.  Believing that he was improving the lives of women, Dr Morgentaler sacrificed a generation of future women and men whose lives were cut short before they’d drawn their first breath.  Pro-Life Humanists dare to imagine better.   We seek a world in which all humans are equally valued and where pregnancy isn’t a desperate problem in search of a desperate solution.   In the words of another feminist writer Germaine Greer: “Too many women are forced to abort by poverty, by their menfolk, by their parents … A choice is only possible if there are genuine alternatives.”

Dr Morgentaler, we are Humanists — and more than that, we are Pro-Life Humanists.  Most of us are survivors of the generation your work diminished by a third, and we reject the “solution” you offered our mothers and their peers.   We seek to make your “necessity” both unnecessary and unthinkable.   We believe we can do better than abortion.

Read More