The Calgary Herald reports Canada women's groups feel chill over abortion policies, that some women's groups aren't happy that their 24/7 any-time, any-reason, no-reason, abortion "rights" are under threat. They aren't happy that people are finally getting to debate abortion in Canada.
It's about time.
The Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada (ARCC) isn't very happy with Rod Bruinooge's private member bill C-510 which would make it a criminal offence to coerce a woman into having an abortion. ARCC says the problem of coercion does not occur on a grand scale, and that bill C-510 "should be scuttled in favour of a bill prohibiting the much more common practice of coercing a women into childbirth."
(How does ARCC know coerced abortion doesn't happen on a grand scale and that it is much more common practice that women are coerced into giving birth? This falls under the category of: if an abortion advocate says its true, then by golly, it must be true.)
There is a huge difference between coercing a woman into having an abortion and coercing a woman into giving birth. The first destroys life, the second doesn't. The two choices are not morally equivalent. The choice to destroy life should never warrant the same protection as the choice to protect life.
What ARCC doesn't seem to comprehend is that the Supreme Court Justices unanimously agreed in their, abortion advocates' oft-quoted, much-loved, 1988 Morgentaler decision, that the state has an interest in the protection of the fetus. The Justices said this because they understood that the fetus is not worthless, that it has value.
Oh and one more thing. Bill C-510 would protect the mother and her unborn child. You know, the child the woman has chosen to keep? But that's not good enough. Abortion advocates like ARCC only support choice when the choice is abortion.