A small pamphlet published by the Canadian Action Rights Abortion League (CARAL) lists seven points which attempt to defend the “freedom of choice” to kill tiny human beings.

 

The pamphlet reader is asked to “consider … “the following points.

An overwhelming majority of Canadians support freedom of choice – 72%, according to a recent Gallup Poll.  Even if this were not the case, a majority should not have the power to force any woman into motherhood against her will.

 

1

 

 

The poll noted here was fraudulent because the “question” dictates a pro-abortion response.  The results of the poll were pre-determined as the question asked was:-

 

The decision whether or not to perform abortion should rest with the consenting patient, and should be performed by a licensed physician in conforming with good medical practice.

 

2

 

This ambiguous, but clearly pro-abortion, question presupposes that an abortion is to be performed “for medical reasons.”  The only issue raised is who should make the decision, mother or doctor.  Even Norma Scarborough, CARAL’s president, admitted that this was indeed a “double-barreled” question and said they would not use it again.

 

In 1983 the Gallup organization took a poll of its own.  The results were:

 

                     Valid abortion poll                                                     Newsweek

                                                                                                       American Poll

                                                                   National Results                Jan. 14

                                                                 1983   1978   1975                 1985   

 

Legal under any circumstances                23%   16%    23%                   21%

Legal only under certain circumstances   59%   69%   60%                    58%

Illegal in all circumstances                       17%    14%   16%                   21%                

No opinion                                                  1%      1%     1%

 

 

 

 

                 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Consequently, 76 percent (17 plus 59) of the population opposes abortion on demand.

 

 

 

The Canadian abortion law has been shown to be unworkable, unevenly and unfairly applied.  The Government’s own report on the operation of the current legislation found that “… the procedure provided in the Criminal Code for obtaining therapeutic abortion is in practice illusory for many Canadian women.”

 

3

 

The “unworkable” law referred to (Section 251 of the Criminal Code) is not “illusory” but quite real to the 65,000 babies killed each year in Canadian hospitals.

Harsh and repressive legislation may reduce the number of abortions but has never stopped them.  Such laws inevitably lead to a drastic increase in death and injury to women who seek illegal abortion.

4

 

 

On the contrary, until the 1960s abortion was unheard of for all practical purposes.  Dr. Bernard Nathanson, in his book Aborting America, relates how he and fellow founders of NARAL in the USA deliberately fabricated statistics about deaths and injuries in order to promote legalized abortion.

 

At present there is no contraceptive that is 100% safe and 100% effective.  Human beings are not infallible.  Safe, legal abortion is essentially as a back-up for contraceptive failure and human error.

5

 

Number four is the usually-unspoken CARAL party line – abortion is a method of birth control.  This is absolute proof, in print, that CARAL supports abortion as a form of birth control.

 

Abortion by a qualified practitioner is a safe medical procedure.  In the first three months it is at least 7 times safer than childbirth.

6

 

The absurd premise here is that abortion should or could be compared to childbirth, death to life, nothing to something.  It is certainly not “safe” for the growing new life in the womb.

 

As for the mother, is abortion so safe?

 

Typically, an abortionist will not perform an abortion until at least seven weeks after the woman’s last menstrual period because the cervix is too hard and the womb may be at a difficult angle.  Most importantly, the baby at this point is so tiny that it could easily be missed by the abortionist’s tools.  The chance of an incomplete abortion are great prior to the eight week.

 

…The Canadian Medical Association has recommended the elimination of therapeutic abortion committees because they lead to delays causing risk to a woman’s health.

 

For some members of the CMA, respect for money had become more important than the respect for life as stated in the Hippocratic Oath which says, among other things, that a doctor shall not aid a woman in procuring an abortion.  This oath stood the test of time for 2,500 years.  In 1975 the CMA decided to drop the abortion clause.

 

Today, according to expert testimony given in the Regina trial of 1983, there is no medical necessity for an abortion – ever.

 

 

In general, those who would not allow abortion have also opposed the right of men and women to contraception.  This opposition to abortion and contraception stems from a religious tenet that sex must be solely for the purpose of procreation.

7

 

 

Camouflaged in this last point is the expression of one of CARAL’s greatest fears; they fear that the abortion issue might yet be popularly seen for what it is, namely a human rights issue.  The implication is that opposition to abortion comes only from specific rules about sex.  CARAL tries to promote a religious connection to the abortion issue whenever it can, in an attempt to put a smokescreen over the fact that abortion is a human rights issue.

 

At a CARAL-sponsored press conference on Thursday February 21, 1985, at the Toronto Press Club, pro-abortion Unitarian Minister Mark de Wolf added a satanic twist to this CARAL-sponsored tie-in of religion and the abortion issue by suggesting that to have an abortion was a “religious decision.”  This statement was made in the presence of ordained Anglican deacon’s assistant Alison Karpen and United Church representative Ruth Evans, both members of CARAL’s pro-abortion “religious” panel.

 

Abortion is a human-rights issue and those who support abortion attack the rights of the unborn and weaken the protection of all other human rights.

 

The following are CARAL’s “Honourary Directors,” present and past:

 

Doris Anderson, Toronto, Ont.

Rabbi Bernard Baskin, Hamilton, Ont.

Pierre Berton, Kleinburg, Ont.

Rosemary Brown, MLA, Burnaby-Edmonds, B.C.

June Callwood, Islington, Ont.

Hon. Iona Campagnolo, Vancouver, B.C.

Lorenne Clark, Sandy Cove, N.S.

Adrienne Clarkson, Toronto, Ont.

May Cohen, M.D., Victoria, B.C.

Eileen Dailly, MLA, Burnaby North, B.C.

Rev. Dr. George Goth, London, Ont.

Dr, Esther Greenglass, Toronto, Ont.

Grace Hartman. Ottawa, Ont.

Margaret Laurence, Lakefield, Ont.

Marilyn Lightstone, Toronto, Ont.

Grace McInnis, Vancouver, B.C.

Kay MacPherson, Toronto, Ont.

Henry Morgentaler, M.D., Montreal, P.Q.

Eleanor Wright Pelrine, Toronto, Ont.

Norman Perry, Toronto, Ont.

Svend Robinson, M.P., Burnaby, B.C.

Clayton C. Ruby, Toronto, Ont.

Laura Sabia, Toronto, Ont.

Monica Townson, Ottawa, Ont.

Wendell W. Watters, M.D., Hamilton, Ont.

 

 

 

Former Honourary Directors now deceased:

 

Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh

Elsie Gregory MacGill, P. Eng.

Marian Engle, Toronto

 

 

Former Honourary Director, now on B.C. Bench:

 

Stuart Leggatt, former MLA

Coquitlam Moody, B.C.

 

CAS