Here are Canada’s 2009 abortion statistics published by the National Post in graph form – click on it for a full sized image.
As Peter Hitches noted:
Those who wonder what they would have done if they had lived at the time of some terrible injustice now know the answer. We do live in such a time. And we do nothing.
Nowhere does this apply more than Canada. Canada has no law limiting abortion no matter how well developed the baby or how flimsy the excuse. Abortion is used as birth control, girls are aborted because they are not boys, a twin is aborted because two babies are too many; babies are aborted because they cost money to bring up, because they interfere with careers and because they just get in the way.
All political parties are afraid to discuss abortion; other than the Roman Catholic church, mainline denominations are too dominated by feminists and their wimpish male sympathisers to protest and, apart from a few stalwart exceptions, Canada’s citizens follow the zeitgeist like mindless, bleating sheep.
It makes me ashamed to be a Canadian.
Abortion is a problem and no mistake. On the ground though, what are you going to do, force women to carry a pregnancy to term at gunpoint?
Simple. Make it illegal to have an abortion, and then they can deal with the charges, at the very least. It’s a start.
To presume that a woman who helped to create that morsel of life she is carrying cannot even give it “safe harbour” for nine months, and then offer the child for adoption if she will not keep it, reaches very near the height of human immorality.
And the tired old excuse about abortion being a personal matter, and a woman can do what she wants with her own body? Well, is it a personal matter, then, if someone, for instance, murders their spouse? Not society’s business?
And, unfortunately, a woman cannot do entirely as she pleases with her own body in pregnancy without interfering aplenty with someone else’s body — such as killing her own child. Makes a catchy slogan, but human biology just doesn’t work that way.
Vincent, the ACofC is not against abortion. Check out Kateherine Ragsdale of the Episcopal Church and you may be shocked at how far our American brethren go. Mennonites are no longer standing against abortion either, though they call themselves pacifists and respectors of life in every other way. United Church gives it the go-ahead too. The RC Church stands firmly against abortion, thank God, and I believe ANIC does as well. For me, this rather mitigates the “no female or married priest” business. The latter pales in comparison.
Friends?
I have five children and I’m really uncomfortable with abortion. Thing is though, so long as I can’t personally get pregnant, I don’t have it in me to force someone to undergo a nine-month invasive procedure that I’ll never have to deal with myself. It’s too easy.
I will however keep on trying to make people see abortion is not always as necessary as they might think.
What’s nine months compared to the rest of that woman’s life? She will have to carry that burden and guilt with her forever. It’s nine freakin’ months! If she’s old enough to have sex, she’s probably been alive for more than nine months. Have the baby, give it up for adoption.
Wish it was so. To quote my sister, Don’t tell dad I had another abortion. It was an inconvenient impediment of continuing indiscriminate sex.
It’s nine months more than you or I will ever have to give, is the point. _That’s_ why this issue is so difficult. And don’t kid yourself, it’s not nine normal months. It’s nine intense, complicated, life-altering months. Let’s not be too glib about it.
A very large percentage of women who abort, I fear, have no guilt whatsoever; it is a major mistake to believe that they do. Very many are simply put out that they have had to inconvenience themselves for the termination procedure.
In the absence of any laws prescribing abortion procedures, I fear that all we can do is witness to those we come into contact with.
Indeed.
There is no easy answer to the abortion issue. But the simple fact is that abortion ends the life of an innocent child. How disgusting it is that we have so many women who have so little respect for human life that they would kill their own child. And the reasons for justifying this mass killing make me sick.
I agree. It’s not as if these are all immaculate conceptions. The women who have abortions, by and large, chose to be a part of the activity that got them there. In rape cases? Well, why do we force an innocent unborn child to pay the ultimate price for its father’s immoral actions?
I think that most anyone over 12 these days understands how human life begins, and what gets it started. We cannot alter human biology (at least not yet, and not on a regular basis). The baby must come from the mother’s womb. By being a human female of reproductive age, engaging in life-conceiving activities (shall we say), that female knows what the outcome can be, and that she must then carry that child (barring a natural miscarriage). That is not glib; it is reality.
And Vincent, many, many pregnancies go quite well these days. It is not always such a huge burden. We have good pre-natal care in Canada. I think that inconvenience is more the issue.
I’m just saying it’s a little too easy to be intransigent about a moral question when, through an accident of birth, one will never have to test one’s position.
You are not quite clear in your meaning here. Do we need to test everything personally to know whether it is right or wrong, morally? Even the secular law of the land says otherwise.
There may well be another law that describes a crime that an entire portion of the population will not be able to commit because of basic biology, but I can’t think of one.
Argh, the rest of this post should have gone further down the thread! Oh well:
Any way you look at it, you can’t look at an individual and see statistics.
What you’re describing is a structure in which it is the woman’s job to take a decision and have to live with the consequences. Men stand outside of the decision, but they apparently _can_ sit in judgement. They can talk, they can indeed hector, but they’ll never have to back up their talk. I find that a bit too convenient.
Of course the reverse situation is fascinating as well: men being upset that a woman deciding to keep an unplanned baby is keeping them on the hook for support.
Anonymous, I’ve followed five pregnancies and was present at six deliveries. The idea that my wife and I could have contemplated terminating any one of our pregnancies is profoundly alien to me.
But.
Even when the pregnancy is going well, it’s still nine complex, nerve-wracking months culminating in an intense, often protracted event. Just asserting that the mother should go through it and then let the child go is too simple: it takes considerable courage to give up a child you’ve carried to term. It often screws you up to some remarkable extent. And if you change your mind, well, that may work out, but it may very well not.
This issue is a messy, messy thing. No easy solution. That’s the bottom line.
You could blame this whole mess on one person. Henry Morgentaler I doubt if he had not been so relentless and willing to flaunt the law the practice might not have become so widespread. At least not approaching a Walmart business model.
And they gave him the Order of Canada, will probably get a good buck on eBay when he goes.
Vincent,
I have three daughters under 16. Our discussions center on abstinence and responsibility.
In the first instance we tell them to never put themselves in a position that they would be embarrassed to tell us about.
In the second, the best we can do is make very clear to them God’s great gift of life to which they are capable of and responsible for.
“A very large percentage of women who abort, I fear, have no guilt whatsoever; it is a major mistake to believe that they do. Very many are simply put out that they have had to inconvenience themselves for the termination procedure”
And you know that how, exactly?
“A very large percentage of women who abort, I fear, have no guilt whatsoever; it is a major mistake to believe that they do. Very many are simply put out that they have had to inconvenience themselves for the termination procedure”
And you know that how, exactly?
Kate, and how, exactly, do you know (or seem to imply that you do) that my statement is not true?
And here I thought you might perhaps have been anti-abortion yourself, given other things you have written on this site. Actually, I think you simply relish finding a way to get some digs back at me because I have disagreed with you in the past. I am convinced that much of what you reply is meant to “put me in my place.” You are quite free to do so, but I may answer in ways that do not suit you.
To answer your question, I have a great deal of life experience in areas and realms which have allowed me to be privy to situations that reflect what I have written here. Also, I read very, very widely and prolificly, and I do try to make sure it is worthwhile reading. There is a great deal of information out there on this topic, Kate — both in particular, and in the context of the rise of the counterculture in the 1960s and onwards to the foisting on us of the welfare state and the astonsishing breakdown of traditional values. You, too, can read the statistics, the social commentary, the policy analysis, and so on. I even recommend titles on here from time to time. American social commentator/statistician Charles Murray might be a good place for you to start if you wish to pursue this subject.
There are and have been frank discussions and comments published from many women who have undergone abortions, not only in Canada, but in other places. Simply having read a good weekend newspaper over the past 30 years or so would have provided you with many of these first-person stories. Ever work in a university setting, with many young people putting themselves in situations where abortion might suddenly seem an option to them? You must have some sort of ESP, to know the sum total of my life experience and reading, on which I based my comment.
Do some homework, Kate. How in blazes do you know how I might or might not have come up with this concept of abortion, and that it cannot possibly meet your own supposedly strict moral and academic standards for truth and relevancy?
On a somewhat related topic… Why do Anglican seem to have so few children. I was raised RC – and in many ways am still culturally so (though I now practice in the Anglican Church). One of the values embued in me was the respect for life.
To this day, normatively I encouranter that my RC friends have at least 2 kids, some three and occasionally 4. Among my Anglican friends, most have one, some two and almost none beyond that – unless they are evangelical Anglican and then they have birth rates closer to that of RC’s.
What I deduce is that Anglicans are so mainstream that their family values are virtually inseperable from society at large.
I also note that I almost never hear a sermon on personal morality at church – yet such is normative in the RC church. In the Anglican church, morality is expressed in social terms – rarely is the idea of personal responsibility brought to the forefront.
Finally, on abortion…. I still delight in the firm stand that the RC church takes on this matter. What saddens me is where are all the other conservative churches? The RC’s seem to be THE VOICE crying out in the wilderness. Are the other churches too disorganized or inward looking that they can’t must a concerted opinion on the matter? Where are the Pentecostals? Adventists? Mormons? Baptists? Missouri Synod Lutherans? Jews and Moslems? Why are they so silent?
Eph 3:20,
As far as the number of children between RCs and Anglicans, it has always been a tenet of the RC Church to welcome as many children “as God sends.” Birth control is frowned upon. Historically, Catholic cultures had families that ranged anywhere from five or so children, to 17 or 18. The Quebec population grew on that premise, over the centuries, just to name a culture close at hand. These days, many Catholic couples do use birth control, but there is still often that pride in and welcoming of large families. This stance did not seem to stay with the Anglican Church after the Reformation, though until readily-available birth control could be had in the 20th century, you may not have had the choice even if you wanted it.
I have attended both Roman Catholic and Anglican services over the years, and I have noticed the same thing as you about the Anglicans seeming to have little sense of the moral importance of personal responsibility, veering instead towards what might be called “social responsibility.” It is always a group morality with the Anglicans. I find Anglicans (in general) very self-indulgent, in fact, in comparison to real practicing Catholics (not that there are not poorly behaving Catholics, too). Self-sacrifice…..what’s that? Any good Catholic knows the concept well, whereas most Anglicans I know think of it as a psychological problem in your self-esteem. Catholicism, well practiced, demands far more of the individual than Anglicanism does.
I have looked into the abortion stance of the various Christian churches. Many of them have quietly slid into the left-wing view over the past few decades, saying that they are espousing women’s rights instead (and they thump their chests for doing so). I think it is foul. They are traitors to their faith, all for the sake of looking politically fashionable.
The acceptance and practice of abortion is, (obviously), directly related to society’s ignorance and disobedience to God’s laws, ESPESCIALLY amoung those of us who say we are Christians.
Obama was the pro-abortion canditate, (and pro-gay marraige), and yet exit voting polls revealed:
50% – All (“Christians”) voted for Obama
41% – Catholics voted for Obama (75 % in Latino grouping)
20% – Evangelical voted for Obama. (20%!!!)
So the shame is on we Christians who fail to understand, and obey God’s laws for our lives, How different a world we would live in if only we Christians obeyed and lived and obeyed their God.
Eph. 3:20 asks; “Why are they so silent?”
To which I add; “Why are they so disobedient?”
My answer is the flesh seeks ease and comfort without consequences, or judgement, and given the absence of God controlling your heart, the easy way, the wrong way, is most often chosen.
The cows are out of the barn, I’m afraid.
Terry,
I don’t think it is so black and white in voting for Obama.
As pro-choice as Obama is, he is not the one having the abortion. As pro-life as Romney wishes he was, ruthless Republican welfare policy leaves many people behind.
I understand why so many RCs voted for Obama – I would be one of them. His commitment to universal health insurance and redistributive wealth are strong selling points that cannot be understated.
The problem in the US is the same problem in Canada, parties and leaders represent a basket of goods/priorities seldom of which we agree 100% with – so we pick the best of a bad lot. If life were the only issue then voting would be simple – I’d vote for the Christian Heritage Party.
The flip side is, we have to work within the parliamentary system we have so abandoning the mainstream parties is foolhardy because you can only influence change from within.
Eph 3:20, I can’t help but notice that you are making the assumption here that socialism is the best thing for all people. There are other strong arguments out there that it is not, and that in the long-term, socialism only weakens not only the individual but the society as a whole, causing even further troubles.
I have no right to vote in a U.S. election (though Canadians who until a few years ago were happily mocking Americans, suddenly cast themselves as Obama-ites and pseudo-yanks in the 2008 run-ups). However, given the poor choice on both sides in the 2012 election, I would have chosen the lesser of two evils and gone with Romney. The point is not that welfare policy leaves many behind — the point should be that encouraging a welfare state is a terrible way to run a country. The whole “American Project” has always been based upon unfettered initiative, with a people having been given enormous freedoms while the governement steps aside to allow them to use such freedoms advantageously. It has been enormously successful in the past. The welfare state has been a disaster for Americans, and a tragedy. You need to understand what socialism leads to, not lament that more have not been able to jump on the bandwagon.
I find that many of the contributors on this site seem to have no idea that there is another side to the left-wing cant, both in terms of morals and in terms of politics and the economy. I would recommend — for starters — reading the works of Charles Murray, Theodore Dalrymple, Mark Steyn, Ezra Levant, Kay Hymowitz, Myron Magnet, Harry Stein, Sol Stern, Heather MacDonald, Barbara Kay, David Warren, Melanie Phillips, Margaret Somerville and Roger Kimball.
Easy abortion, and the wish to minimalize the consequences of it to both the unborn child and to society, is but one sign of certain foundational attitudes. Hoping for an increased welfare state is part of the same attitudes. That is what makes me scratch my head over your last post.