Wednesday, April 1, 2015

Trudeau's False Assumption

Justin Trudeau, in a speech at a McGill institute March 2015 said the following:

The instructive point here is obvious, but often overlooked. One set of policies in post-war Canada generated more liberty for more people than any other. It was the decades-long effort of the women’s movement to gain control over reproductive health and rights.

Whenever we hear the phrase "reproductive rights", it means abortion. The unfettered ability to choose abortion to end an unwanted pregnancy and plenty of access to that abortion.

Trudeau's logic is based on the assumption that women have a right to get rid of an unwanted baby. Let's not call this an "unwanted pregnancy"; if there wasn't a baby in there, it wouldn't be a problem. What women want to get rid of is that baby. Let's at least be honest in this debate.

As Stephanie Gray once said in a debate with a philosophy professor at Ottawa University: every month, a woman's uterus prepares to receive a fertilized egg. Her body prepares the lining of the uterus to receive that fertilized egg. If there isn't a fertilized egg, it then sheds that lining and repeats the process again the next month. This biological process serves no purpose in the woman's body; it doesn't do anything for her; its sole purpose is for another biological entity. Simply put, a woman's uterus exists for the sole purpose of providing a place for another human being to grow.

As Stephanie then said "does the fetus then not have a right to that place which exists only for it?"  The professor was baffled and later said that her argument caused him a few sleepless nights.

The statement that women have these bodily rights and that the baby within her has none has been put out there uncontested. The pro-abortion supporters think that is all they have to say. But it is simply not proven. And that statement is used by every pro-choice person to argue for unlimited access to abortion.

 Prove it, Mr. Trudeau, prove that women have such rights. Your position on abortion is based on the belief that there is a right to abortion, but that right does not exist other than in the minds of pro-choice supporters.

Indeed, let me be perfectly clear on this point. The Canada we know today is unimaginable without widely available birth-control and the legalization of choice.
That statement is true. Yes, indeed, Canada today has been formed by birth control and choice. But many of us would say that the Canada of today is not the Canada we want. Again, Mr. Trudeau assumes that the existing society of Canada is the preferable one. That is not proven; in fact, many say we have lost important values in present-day Canada.

And this, I think, is the crucial statement that Trudeau made. We have come down to a war of words and a clash of world-views.
Their argument went like this: forcing a Liberal MP to vote against their conscience on a matter of morality is an unjust restriction of their liberty. It sounds like a reasonable argument. However, it is easily dismissed when you realize it is based on a value judgment about whose freedom is more important: that of an MP elected as a Liberal, or that of Canadian women.

It is hard to argue against his statement because freedom is always hailed as the ultimate value. And here he has equated "freedom of choice" with "freedom of conscience" as if the two are equivalent. They are not. Not all choices are good choices, and that means that we should really object to some choices.

Underlying this statement is the belief that what has been legislated as lawful in our country is also moral and right. That is simply not true. Because abortion is legal in Canada, a woman can choose to have an abortion but that in no way implies that I do not have the right to object to her choice. I think her choice is wrong, not just wrong for her, but wrong in an absolute sense, wrong for anyone.

Objections to abortion on the basis of one's conscience cannot be dismissed as simply one person's disagreement with another person's choice. The objection goes much deeper than that. The objection is based on the fact that a life is terminated and that is wrong. You can't just relegate that to relative belief systems. The belief that life should be protected is at the root of our country's constitution. We send people to jail for a long time if they disagree with that in a violent way. The protection of life is a primary building block of our Canadian society.

It always comes back to the question of what is the fetus? Because we have given it no value in our society, unless it is wanted, we have the terrible standoff between those who are pro-life and those who are pro-choice. The latter do not give that life a value equivalent to anyone else. And therefore that life is secondary to the desire of the mother.

Justin Trudeau's mother Margaret had an abortion when she was seventeen years old. I wonder what she really thinks about all of this. Does she support her son's statements? Does she support choice for women? Does Justin ever think that the only reason he can say anything is because his mother didn't abort him?

I know, I know, pro-choicers say well he wouldn't have known anything if he had been aborted so it wouldn't matter anyway. But there are plenty of people walking around who have found out that their brother or sister was aborted and they are not at peace with that. I wonder if Justin Trudeau is truly at peace with his position on abortion?  Or could there be some possibility that he is justifying his mother's choice? And that he carries the guilt of being a lucky survivor of a generation that was aborted.

No comments: