What is the objection of pro-life people to being called “anti-abortion?” After all, they are anti-abortion. R.P., Whitehorse, Yukon
True enough, but that is only half the story.
Pro-lifers are also against other evils: euthanasia; infanticide of handicapped new-borns by starvation and dehydration; the creation of human embryos (ex utero) to be vivisected in experimentation; fetal transplants and so on.
Anti-abortion is too narrow a description of the pro-life cause.
There is, moreover, a significant difference between the “anti” and the “pro” which was highlighted for me by a young mother during a pro-life march.
“I have always been anti-abortion, but I only become pro-life after I saw the Silent Scream [pro-life film produced by ex-abortionist, Dr. Bernard Nathanson]. It was at that point I knew that it wasn’t enough just to be anti-abortion, and do little or nothing to stop the killing. I had to do my part in the battle. That is really when I became ‘pro-life,’” she said. Since then I have discovered that behind most active pro-lifers there is a story of what compelled them to fight openly for life: a lawyer’s passion for justice; a mother’s miscarriage; Operation Rescue; the list is endless.
An article in a U.S. publication made a passing reference to the need for pro-lifers to be wary of dangers to the unborn child in laws forbidding payment for abortions. How can there be danger? T.T., Charlottetown, PEI
Everything depends on the wording of a Bill or Regulation.
Failing a careful scrutiny of a Bill by a number of legal and medical experts, pro-lifers could well find – too late – that, instead of having voted to ban paying for abortions, they have in fact voted in favour of paying for abortion on demand.
A Bill which bans payment for all abortions, without exception, would certainly save some, maybe many lives. In supporting it, pro-lifers make no concessions and do not abandon their principles. They abhor the killing of the unborn, and until they can stop it they will vote to stop paying the executioners.
However, a Bill which bans payment for abortion except in cases involving the health or life of a mother is a very different matter. Pro-lifers know, and the Law Reform Commission Report made it clear, that “health or life” exceptions mean abortion on demand.
The Commission Report allowed that health (physical, psychological, mental) can be used as excuses for abortion not only in rape, incest, ‘too many’ children in the family a handicapped baby, etc., but also where pregnancy impedes the “aspirations” of the mother. Such aspirations could include study abroad, competing in skiing, or a career as a model.
A Bill with health and life exceptions would save very few, if indeed any lives. Anyone voting for such a Bill is voting for paying for abortion on demand.
A third Bill could be one which bans abortions except to save the life of the mother. But today, thanks to modern medicine, this exception is not needed to protect a woman’s life. In February 1990, Dr. Bernard Nathanson stated in evidence: “The situation where the mother’s life is at stake, were she to continue a pregnancy, is no longer a clinical reality. We can now manage any pregnant woman with any medical affliction successfully, to the natural conclusion of the pregnancy – the birth of a healthy child.”
Experience has shown that abortionists have used this unnecessary exception as a loophole. There is ample evidence in the United States (where federal Medicaid funds can be used for abortion where the life of the mother would be endangered by carrying the baby to term) that abortionists interpret the exception as a reason for abortion on demand.
How do we answer pro-abortionists who talk sneeringly of “fertilized eggs”? M.N., Cornwall, Ontario
Recently I found a quotation that I liked. It is from Salvador Luria’s book, 36 Lectures in Biology (1975). He said: “A fertilized egg generates a baby in nine months; an adult in 15 years.” One person who I know answered: “We all began as fertilized eggs. Are you ashamed of your humble beginning?” It worked.
FCP gains 10% in Ontario by-election
Anthony Hawkins – The Interim
September 6, 1990 election results: March 5, 1992 results:
Vote %Vote% Vote %Vote%
Liberal 10, 740 (37.1) 9452 (47.0)
NDP 9,233 (31.9)2 2841 (14.1)
PC 6, 244 (21.6)4 4725 (23.5)
Family Coalition 1, 703 ( 5.9) 2038 (10.1)
Green Party 988 (3.5) 754 (3.7)
Independent – – 244 ( 1.2)
Total votes 28, 908 Total votes 20, 054
Some called it a wide-open election (Richard Macki, Globe and Mail); others predicted it would be a close race (Mike Trickey, Ottawa Citizen). Everyone noted that the Brant-Haldimand riding had been a Liberal kingdom since 1919.
On March 5, the Liberals held on to the riding with ease, while the NDP, a serious contender for the seat in 1990, fell below 15 per cent of the vote.
Family Coalition Party (FCP) candidate Don Pennell worked hard to be elected, though he had to be away from the riding on business quite often to earn a living. Despite this, the FCP, founded in 1986-7, gained ground, raising its percentage of the total vote from 5.9 per cent (in 1990) to 10.1 per cent.
In the throes of an election, victory frequently seems closer than it really is. This, too, was the case with FCP supporters in the Brant-Haldimand, some of whom had hoped that this time the FCP might enter the ranks of the top three. This did not happen.
However, the growth of the FCP is not less meaningful because it is slow.
As FCP President Louis Di Rocco explained, the chief purposes of the party remain twofold:
“First, it provides an alternative to people of principle who cannot bear the thought of having to vote for parties and candidates who favor or accept legalized violence against the unborn. In Brant-Haldimand, 2, 038 voters elected to do so.
“Second, the party introduces pro-life ideals as alternatives on issues ranging from agriculture and education to heath and social welfare. This is done in the context of political platforms, elections and parties.”
The weaning away of voters from the traditional parties through political and moral education must necessarily be slow, Mr. Di Rocco added. What counts in this process is patience and endurance.
