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.
—
I’d count the number of logical fallacies Joyce Arthur makes in that paragraph alone but I don’t think I can count that high.
It is interesting how the pro-abortion lobby wanted to use the case of Savita to change the Irish law. The problem in Savita’s case was an infection with an ESBL e.coli which still has a 30% mortality rate. The problem was not the failure to remove the foetus but the unfortunate presence of the coli strain as sepsis is still the highest risk factor following any abort, in fact higher for surgical abortions then for medical or expectant treatment. The latter have the same low risk of infection but with the possibility of requiring surgical intervention if there is tissue remaining in the womb.
The funny thing is that those who normally claim to lack any beliefs have such a strong faith that an earlier abortion would have saved her from falling ill with the e.coli strain.
You’re right. And even if we began to allow abortions not only to save the woman’s life (which I think we should do if her life is in immediate danger prior to viability since doing nothing would lose two lives), but also extended that to more broader scenarios where her future physical health is threatened, we’re still only looking at a relatively small number of abortions. It’s important to remember that abortion advocates want NO restrictions on abortion (abortion on demand through all nine months and the government should pay for it). The appeal to hard cases is more often than not, a smoke screen to illicit sympathy for any and all abortions.
Hi.
“[We should] allow abortions . . . to save the woman’s life (. . . if her life is in immediate danger prior to viability) . . .”
Do you mean that if, after viability, the situation is such that either one can be saved, but only at the expense of the other, we should not allow abortion — the baby should be given preference?
Apart from that ethical question, a factual question if you happen to know: Of all the cases where both will die without intervention, there must be 1) some cases where, with intervention, the mother can be saved, but the baby will die anyway, and 2) some cases where, with intervention, the baby can be saved, but the mother will die anyway.
Then there must be 3) some cases where either can be saved, but only at the expense of the other (as in ethical question above).
The question: cases of kinds 2 and 3 are pretty rare, aren’t they?
I don’t know of any cases where an abortion was needed to save the life of the mother past the point of viability. But on a theoretical plane, once the fetus is developed enough to stand a chance at survival in an incubator, early induction or c-section is the moral way of ending the pregnancy if a woman’s life is threatened. Prior to viability if the woman’s life is threatened we’re usually talking about tubal pregnancy. In such a case the baby has no chance of survival and must be removed or the mother will die as well.
Then again, why am I not surprised that an abortion advocate would be so dishonest as to equal abortion to life-saving therapy?
Termination of pregnancy is NOT a synonym to abortion – you may terminate a pregnancy by inducing labor or by practicing a cesarean. And in cases in which termination of pregnancy is indicated because the life of the mother (and the baby’s as well) is at high risk, no sane healthcare professional would doubt a second before performing the indicated therapy to try to save them both, be it a termination of pregnancy or be it a surgical procedure or be it any other kind of therapy. Needless to say, not every high-risk pregnancy will require its termination – in fact, the majority of these cases don’t.
That’s what “double-effect doctrine” is about, right? Try and save your patient by all means – both of your patients in this case -, and if your patient dies as a consequence of either his/her condition or the intrinsic risks of the procedure to save his/her life, it’s an unintended and unwanted outcome. If a surgeon operates a patient with an aneurysm and the patient dies during the procedure, it’s not like the surgeon wanted and tried to kill his patient, it’s simply an unintended outcome due to the intrinsic risks of his condition and the intrinsic risks of the procedure while trying to correct it. Abortion, on the other hand, has the main and only intention to end the life of a human being: humans are not a disease, and abortion is not a cure to anything. Its main and only purpose is to kill a human being, not to mention the risks that the woman is put through as with any other medical procedure – all for nothing.
If a pregnant woman needs a procedure (whatever that may be) to save her life at inminent risk, you don’t think it twice or even once: you perform the procedure. Depending on the procedure, her baby may or may not be harmed or die: if the baby dies because of it, that was a sad, unintended outcome, a consequence of the procedures inherent risks. The physician’s intention was not to cause the baby’s death. In which protocol, may I ask, does it state that a pregnant woman can be denied a life-saving procedure unless she undergoes an abortion first? Prolifers are not the ones who would rather let a pregnant woman die: it’s not us who say that a woman cannot have a life-saving procedure without having an abortion first.
Well said! 🙂