Friday, August 24, 2007

ABORTION IN CANADA: SOME FACTS

Some bloggers have mentioned an abortion protest that occurred in Toronto yesterday. Others have taken issue with it.

I just wanted to clarify something about this issue so that anyone who wants to discuss it will be informed.

There are no laws regarding abortion in Canada at this time in our history. None. We are the only country in the civilized world to not address this issue in any way.

Theoretically, if you can find a doctor who will perform it, you can kill your child up until the moment it is born in Canada. Period. For any reason. There is no grey area about this in Canadian law because there is no Canadian law.

While most doctors might not perform the procedure, at this point in Canada's history there are no laws restricting an abortion for any reason.

That is one of the reasons why abortion is a multimillion dollar industry in Canada and private clinics are allowed. Abortion doctors do not live in Parkdale.

You can abort your child for any reason from rape and incest, to gender selection, birth control reasons or your baby has Down's Syndrome.

There are no legal ramifications whatsoever.

Whether one is pro-life or pro-choice, these facts must be acknowledged.

This is not a pro-life or pro-choice post but a post about facts. I do not think all people who are pro-choice are evil and I do not think all people who are pro-life are saints. But I do think we need to, as a country address the facts of this issue, because without the facts, how can you find the truth.

7 Comments:

At 1:06 PM, Blogger Raphael Alexander said...

The facts about human sexuality are widely available, but I wouldn't want to subjected to images of heterosexual or homosexual sex in public. Graphic images are usually banned in public for good reason. The reason people aren't offended is because of the subject. They are offended because the forum is inappropriate. The fact you feel strongly about it doesn't give you right to impose that view on others through graphic imagery.

 
At 1:23 PM, Blogger Nicol DuMoulin said...

As I said on the other blog, graphic images are seen in public all the time;

Ever been to gay pride? Should that be banned? Calling it graphic is an understatement.

How about the Chinese community who protests on Spadina with graphic images against the Communist government?

What about protesters of the war in Iraq who use graphic pictures of war-torn children?

Burning flags outside embassies if offensive to many; what about them?

The root of free speech is the right to offend.

Where do you have the right to not be offended? Where is this written? Why are your standards the ones to abide by?

"The fact you feel strongly about it doesn't give you right to impose that view on others through graphic imagery"

And the fact you are so sensitive and disagree does not give you a right to ban it, friend. That is the root of totalitarianism.

Thanks for your comment.

 
At 3:37 PM, Blogger been around the block said...

Why are the images "graphic," Raphael? They're graphic because they show us exactly what's happening: a human life, tiny as it is, being carved up and done away with. There's blood involved and shocking imagery precisely because what is happening is--or should be--shocking to our humanity.

We see images like this all the time in war photography and most of us don't object. We usually say, well, we need to know what's happening in Afghanistan, or Darfur, or Sudan, or wherever atrocities against humanity are taking place.

Abortion, sadly, is no different. As our host blogger has pointed out, Canada is the only "developed country" ('makes you wonder what THAT means) that has absolutely NO PROTECTION for the child in the womb, absolutely no laws to protect the unborn child at any time in its development. CANADA IS THE ONLY "CIVILIZED" COUNTRY IN THE WORLD WITHOUT A LAW CONCERNING THE RIGHT TO LIFE OF THE CHILD IN THE WOMB. (I'm not shouting. I don't know how to do italics when I'm blogging, otherwise I'd be italicizing the captialized letters, in order to put an emphasis on what I'm saying...)

Over at Spinks, Henry Morgentaler was voted #1 worst Canadian and I applaud that designation. Since 1967 and his championing abortion, there have been over 1.5 million abortions in Canada. When you consider that many of these phantom-Canadians would be of child-bearing age and haven't had children, we're looking at far more than a loss of 1.5 million Canadians.

If we are repelled by graphic images of aborted babies, we should, IMO, be far more indignant at what that means in human terms...

 
At 3:50 PM, Blogger Nicol DuMoulin said...

Thank you for your comment.

The war photo analogy is perfect.

What bothers me is this; the level to which many people who are pro-choice do not believe in free speech is frightening.

Views on abortion aside; this very much is a free speech issue. I would never tell Iraq war protesters with graphics photos to go away. Why would I do the same for pro-life advocates?

 
At 5:28 PM, Blogger hunter said...

First time I saw those images, they disturbed me, you see, I knew abortion was killing a baby, I just didn't realize how bad it really was, until I saw the factual images. They sickened me, they still do.

I'm glad the photos are actually working, they are upsetting people, getting them out of their self serving, "choice" mode and making them understand, abortion is killing, not zygotes, or monkeys or unborn chickens, it's a human baby being killed. Period.

 
At 5:39 PM, Anonymous 'been around the block said...

Exactly, Nicol.

And yet, the powers that be in Canada, including the members of the MSM, our judiciary, our educational systems, etc., have always assigned second-class citizen status to pro-life advocates when it comes to demonstrating.

There's a total double standard in Canada about who's "allowed" to protest and demonstrate and who's not. Freedom of speech (though let's not minimize the issue of an individual's right to life) is badly in need of a "refresh" in Canada, and this latest pro-life demonstration makes that clear.

 
At 6:32 PM, Anonymous sad in canada said...

I'm hoping that you can post this at The War Room, as my many attempts to post this at Atheist Conservative seem to have failed.

AC has made a number of inaccurate statements on his blog that, IMO, need to be pointed out. He's riding on a lot of debunked myths about abortion. His statements are in quotation marks.

Beginning of post:

I'm not sure where you've got your "facts," AC.

"They neglect to tell the viewer which abortions are not legal anyway (abortions in the third trimester)."

Where did you get this idea? Are you American or British? If you're a Canadian, then you're wrong. There is absolutely no law in Canada to protect the life of a child in the womb up to the time of birth. There is no protection at any time, and this has been Canadian law since 1988. Check it out.

The incidents of a mother and/or baby being endangered by a pregnancy being brought to full term is just about nil. With medical science being as sophisticated as it is, there are hardly any cases which would warrant an abortion to save the life of mother and child. Check it out.

"It [the pregnancy] is the product of incest or rape."

There is some legitmacy to this argument, HOWEVER, an abortion, if you investigate how they are performed, is a rather violent invasion of a female's womb--not to mention the taking of an innocent life, as the child had no control over its conception. Many argue that an abortion after rape or incest is double jeopardy for the female in question, and there is good reason to support this view.

Abortion has a number of very negative physical and emotionalside effects for females. Check it out.

"If it [meaning the child in the womb, I presume?) had a significant defect (heart outside of body)."

First, the child in the womb is not an "it." The child in the womb is either a he or a she.

Second, there are an amazing number of medical procedures that can now be performed in utero to fix all sorts of defects in a fetus with medical problems. If the fetus, however, cannot be operated on in utero, is it OK to simply consign him or her to the dust bin because s/he is not perfect?

See http://www.snopes.com/photos/medical/thehand.asp

This surgery actually took place on 21-week unborn baby Samuel Alexander Arams by Dr. Joseph Bruner, who successfully operated on Samuel Alexander for spina bifida. Though what the doctor actually thought about the tiny hand emerging from his mother's uterus is in dispute, the surgery is not.

Please, CA, do your homework. You have made inaccurate statements here to bolster your argument. Because they are not factual, your argument is badly eroded.

You certainly have "the right" to your opinion, though your opinion is greatly compromised by its inaccuracies, as do pro-life advocates have the right to their opinion.

End of post

Thanks.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home