After my initial reaction to the post, I decided that I should tackle some of her objections to the Luc sign because these are reiterated by pro-choice people ad nauseum. I tried several times to put a comment on Angela's post, but it never gets published. Computer glitch or selective editing, I can't say.
First the link to the post:
And the sign to which she objects:
"I am living in a province where women are still being shamed for making a decision that might be in their personal interest."
As a person wrote who commented on my previous post, does she mean shame or guilt? Shame is "feeling bad about who or what you are" while guilt is "feeling bad about something that you have done". It is important to point out the difference here in reactions to this sign. If people are reacting negatively and feeling "shamed", are they in fact feeling guilty at something they have done or something they are about to do? Let's be honest. If someone is feeling guilty at seeing this sign, they need to deal with their conscience and not point the finger at someone who simply made an obvious statement of fact.
"What if I was raped and became pregnant; as a result I wouldn't be able to bear seeing my rapist's face in a child? Or maybe, I would be terrified that the cops would attempt to criminalize me, not take action, or maybe the rapist would claim consent and try to gain custody of my child.
The old rape/incest objection being raised yet again. Okay, Angela, for the sake of argument, I will give you the 1 or perhaps even 2% of all pregnancies that result from rape or incest. For the sake of argument, I will say okay let's allow abortion in those cases but let's try to reduce the rest of the abortions. I would bet that Angela would not be happy with that negotiation. Why? I have never met a pro-choice advocate who is against any abortion (even feminists won't speak up about abortion on the basis of sexual preference). In every single case, they will argue that there is some extenuating circumstance and that we shouldn't judge, in every case the woman's rights trump every other right, including any that might belong to the new life she is carrying. In the end, there is not a single case of abortion that pro-choicers will not defend, giving the lie to the statement that they want to reduce abortions.
Here in this little province of Nova Scotia, there are over 1700 abortions performed each year. Let's allow for the 34 abortions that might be the result of rape or incest; Angela, will you work with me to reduce the remaining 1666 abortions? .......... I thought not.
It's even possible I might be two months into my term and I find out that my fetus, the size of a kidney bean, is growing in my fallopian tube and it will kill me if I do not make a life-saving decision -- will I be condemned for choosing my life versus both of us dying?
I have never heard of any case of an ectopic pregnancy where the mother's life was sacrificed for the child. Even the Catholic Church, which holds the most extreme pro-life position of any Christian denomination, allows for the removal of the fallopian tube in these cases. What they do not allow is the direct killing of the fetus; in saving the mother's life by removing the fallopian tube, the fetus dies but it is not killed directly. Do some further reading on this Angela, because you are not adequately informed.
What if I was a 17-year-old woman who grew up in poverty and has had every social system reject me instead of aiding me toward a better life? Maybe I had to quit school three years earlier to support my family, thought I found love but instead ended up with a deadbeat father and had no means of supporting another body.
Now, Angela resorts to the poverty argument. Let's apply that argument to other "born" children that women may have. Is a woman allowed to kill her two-year-old because she can't afford to look after him/her? If we don't allow women to kill their "born" children because of poverty, why do we allow them to kill their "unborn" children for that reason? Many a great person has been born into poverty; poverty is not a death sentence; abortion is.
These organizations should be practicing what they are preaching by opening up funds for the few mothers who change their minds about having abortion when poverty is the main reason behind the contemplation, leading rallies promoting adequate care for those who are vulnerable, or adopting and raising every child that was "saved" from abortion.
There are countless pro-life people who do just that, Angela. But I imagine that you aren't meeting them because they are not in your circle of acquaintances. As for adopting and raising the children saved from abortion, the waiting list to adopt an infant in Canada is now 8 years. That is how few infants are being born and being adopted. Young women are either keeping their babies and trying to survive as single moms, or they prefer to terminate the baby's life rather than entrust it to someone else to raise. And I have heard that very statement and not infrequently. Girls would rather abort their babies than give them to someone else to raise. They would rather resort to the violence of abortion than to the risk of adoption. Surely this is a strange twist on being caring.
The real problem is that we think babies should be planned. When a pregnancy comes as a surprise, we think that something has gone wrong and abortion is the solution. The real dilemma is that people are behaving sexually as if there should be no consequences. We don't allow people to drive cars without consequences. If you get into a car and have an accident, you take the consequences even if it was not your fault. But somehow babies don't get the same logic applied to them. If people engage in sexual activity, and a baby results, then the baby has got to go. It wasn't supposed to happen.
However, there is no birth control that is foolproof. And anyone who engages in sexual activity should realise that there might be a pregnancy that occurs and they should be prepared to take responsibility for that life, not just eliminate it. There is an extremely high price to be paid for our sexually liberated lifestyle and it is the children who are paying the price (to paraphrase PD James, author of The Chidren of Men).
Every pro-choice position is in reality a pro-abortion position. Because unless you are actively trying to deter abortions, you are agreeing with the cultural climate that promotes abortion. What we are seeing in our society are people so willing to defend their right to unlimited sexual activity, that they are prepared to pay any price for that - even if the price is someone else's life.