I agree with Jakki Jeffs that:
"The Canadian pro-life community has worked since 1969 to promote respect and protection for every innocent human life."
But I disagree with Ms. Jeffs when it comes to the most effective strategy for achieving legal protection for preborn children.
Those who believe in what some call the "all or nothing" approach, will only accept a complete abortion ban, and will never accept restrictive abortion legislation as a means towards this ultimate goal of full protection.
But given the current political, social and legal reality we Canadians find ourselves in today, a complete abortion ban would be impossible to achieve. However, fully 72% of Canadians believe children should be protected at some point prior to birth. This means most Canadians today would support some restrictions on abortion.
Imagine the following situation:
Two firemen arrive at the scene of a burning nursing home. Hundreds of elderly residents will soon die as the building is completely engulfed in flames.
One fireman looks at the building and says:
"This is horrible. Everyone will perish in this building very soon. I know I can't save all of those people because I simply do not have the means to save them all. This is so tragic but what can I do? I can't do anything."
The second fireman looks upon the same scene. He also realizes that all the residents are about to die. He says to himself:
"I think if I go in there right now, I can save one person."
The second fireman rushes inside, grabs a resident and is able to carry an elderly woman to safety. The building collapses and everyone else perishes. One person is saved.
I am fireman number two.
The pro-life community wants full protection for every human being, yes. But if we will only ever accept full and total legal protection in one fell swoop, babies that otherwise could have been saved, will die.
I prefer some protection against abortion, rather than no protection. Then as hearts and minds continue to change, further protective laws will become possible and more lives will be saved.
Ponder this if you will. The pro-abortions want complete non-restrictive access to abortion. Some pro-lifers will accept nothing but a complete and total ban on abortion. As I see it, both strategies achieve the same results.
This is why, in good conscience, I and many Canadians I know, support a new pro-life initiative called "We need a Law" (www.weneedalaw.ca) which advocates for:
"legislation that restricts abortion to the greatest extent possible.”
I agree with you. I think that incremental laws would promote further legislation. I know that some say they can't support restrictions based on the age of the fetus, because it means you are saying that not all fetuses are human beings. I don't think that is true. Having laws that prohibit some abortions will bring about further laws.
ReplyDeleteAgreed. Any restrictions we can get would surely be more desirable than the status quo! And as Julie says, having a law prohibiting some abortions will probably bring about further laws ... that's why the pro-choice side is fighting it tooth and nail.
ReplyDeleteI agree too. It seems to me that a law that would put some restrictions on abortion would be preferable to what we have now which is diddly squat. How can anybody dispute this? It is just common sense. Thank you Patricia for your very insightful article. Excellent work as usual.
ReplyDelete