I agree with Margaret Somerville's reasoned approach to some legal limits on abortion.
Dr. Somerville says:
To find some common ground, we have to stop allowing people with views at the far ends of either the pro-choice spectrum or the pro-life spectrum to dominate the debate, as they now do, especially in the mainstream media. For too long, the battles between those on each extreme have prevented the nuanced discussion with which most Canadians can identify. We need to work together and build on the existing consensus, rather than focus just on differences. In short, we need to start our discussions from where we agree, not where we disagree.
There are pro-choice people who are against third trimester abortions and or sex selection abortions and who would support such legal restrictions. But as Dr. Somerville points out, we have allowed ourselves, for far too long now, to be swayed by the extremes on either end of the abortion debate.
This has simply guaranteed that legal protection for pre-born children will never become a reality, because the majority of Canadians would never agree to a complete ban on abortion. We know this. It isn't going to change. We need to engage these other Canadians who consider themselves somewhere between these two endposts.
I also agree with Dr. Somerville that:
"we need to consider supportive, non-coercive abortion prevention programs. For instance, a woman with a crisis pregnancy should know that, if she decides against abortion, she will be offered fully adequate psychological and social support...we ensure there are facilities readily available for crisis pregnancy counseling, which are not abortion clinics"
Women need to be able to "be allowed" to say no to abortion and not coerced by whomever, including some "pro-choice" people. We need to help these women who want to say no, and support that choice.
Monday, November 26, 2012
Thursday, November 22, 2012
I think you're pulling my leg
Dear Mr. Clark,
I have to say that I found this editorial astoundingly rude, condescending, and disrespectful of Canadians in general and pro-lifers in particular. Since this was written as an editorial, I am assuming that you are speaking for your newspaper, which, I won't lie to you, is a scary thought indeed.
"The debate is over and lost" you say? I actually found that statement to be all of the above but also rip-roaring funny as well. Do you think that because you have made this proclamation we will now quietly leave the room with our tails between our legs? I don't think so.
I also see that you buy into that greatest myth of all time, the one that begins with "women" and ends with "the right to have control over their bodies". Earth to The Province: the unborn child is someone else's body and nobody has any right to kill it. Got it?
And "private choice"? Well as long as I and my fellow Canadians are paying for this non-medically-necessary "choice", that by the way, dismembers a defenceless, voiceless, tiny human being by forcefully removing it and ultimately killing it--well that "choice" isn't private anymore, so yes we will have our say, and we will have a role, and we will be that voice, for those who have no voice.
It's called standing up for human rights. It's a long and cherished human condition and preoccupation, look it up sometime. You might learn something new.
The debate is over you say? Not by a long shot. But if you choose, you can believe what you like.
Sincerely,
Patricia Maloney
I have to say that I found this editorial astoundingly rude, condescending, and disrespectful of Canadians in general and pro-lifers in particular. Since this was written as an editorial, I am assuming that you are speaking for your newspaper, which, I won't lie to you, is a scary thought indeed.
"The debate is over and lost" you say? I actually found that statement to be all of the above but also rip-roaring funny as well. Do you think that because you have made this proclamation we will now quietly leave the room with our tails between our legs? I don't think so.
I also see that you buy into that greatest myth of all time, the one that begins with "women" and ends with "the right to have control over their bodies". Earth to The Province: the unborn child is someone else's body and nobody has any right to kill it. Got it?
And "private choice"? Well as long as I and my fellow Canadians are paying for this non-medically-necessary "choice", that by the way, dismembers a defenceless, voiceless, tiny human being by forcefully removing it and ultimately killing it--well that "choice" isn't private anymore, so yes we will have our say, and we will have a role, and we will be that voice, for those who have no voice.
It's called standing up for human rights. It's a long and cherished human condition and preoccupation, look it up sometime. You might learn something new.
The debate is over you say? Not by a long shot. But if you choose, you can believe what you like.
Sincerely,
Patricia Maloney
Monday, November 19, 2012
"Anti-abortion laws are unjust, harmful, and useless"
Joyce Arthur is advising the United Kingdom on abortion law. She recently wrote Why the UK doesn’t need an abortion law at all for the "Abortion Review", a UK group that is an "educational service by bpas". bpas are the UK's "premier abortion provider" and stands for British Pregnancy Advisory Service. (Not sure I'd want an abortion provider advising me on my pregnancy though.)
She says:
"For 25 years, Canada has had no legal restrictions on abortion whatsoever – not even any gestational limits. From my perspective as a Canadian, the UK’s current debate over the proposed reduction in its legal time limit for an abortion is way off-base.
Politicians and the media seem trapped by the assumption that some kind of abortion law is necessary and they just need to decide what the limits are. In reality, the best solution is full decriminalization, because all anti-abortion laws are unjust, harmful, and useless – including the UK’s 1967 Abortion Act."
Pretty much what we'd expect from Canada's premier abortion advocate.
But it's when she starts describing Canada's situation and rates of abortions, that my alarm bells go off. Her "information" has gone international:
"Despite the lack of a gestational limit law in Canada, 90 per cent of abortions occur during the first trimester, and less than half a percent after 20 weeks. The latter are all for compelling reasons, such as fetal abnormalities incompatible with life or a serious threat to the woman’s health or life."
Since Canada's abortion statistics are so woefully under-reported, it is impossible to draw such conclusions from them.
Once again, let me explain what we do know about Canadian abortion statistics based on the last year for which abortion data was published in Canada, 2010.
Here I did it for Canada's 2009 CIHI stats, and I'll now do it again for CIHI's 2010 stats.
That year CIHI reported 64,641 abortions, a number we know is grossly under-reported Why? Frist, because Quebec did not report any statistics in 2010; second, it is not mandatory for clinics to report data so clinic data is under-reported; and third, abortions performed in private physician's offices are not published or reported at all.
Of these 64,641 known abortions, the gestational age is only reported for 22,668 of them (8,300 performed on fetuses <=8 weeks, 11,191 on fetuses 9-12 weeks, 1,794 on fetuses 13-16 weeks, 846 on fetuses 17-20 weeks, 537 on fetuses 21+ weeks). These known gestational age abortions are reported for hospital abortions only--we have no gestational ages for those done in clinics or physician's offices.
Therefore there were at least 41,973 abortions performed in 2010 with an unknown gestational age. This means all of those 41,973 abortions, or most of them, or some of them, or none of them, could be late term abortions--we don't know. And we don’t know these gestational ages because most abortion providers don't report them.
If all of the unknown gestational age abortions were in fact late term, then the percentage could be as high as 65%. But we don't know. You must understand that the definition of "unknown" is--we don't know. To say that only .5% of abortions are late term is completely unknowable. It is also grossly misleading.
Next, Ms. Arthur says that 90% of all abortions are first trimester abortions. Again, this information is also unknowable. See explanation above.
In Canada there is no requirement to report or publish the reasons for late-term abortions, so Ms. Arthur can't know the reasons for them. She has no basis or knowledge to state that they:
"are all for compelling reasons, such as fetal abnormalities incompatible with life or a serious threat to the woman’s health or life".
So we don't know how many late-term abortions there are, to go along with not knowing the reasons for them. That's a lot of unknown information to be able to make such conclusions.
Finally, there is one other very disturbing statistic that Ms. Arthur doesn't divulge to the UK pro-abortions.
Statistics Canada reported that from 2000 to 2009 there were 491 late-term, born-alive abortions performed in Canada. These babies were "aborted" but resulted in live births: code name P96.4 or ‘Termination of pregnancy, affecting fetus and newborn’. The aborted child died after it was born.
I'm all for talking about abortion statistics. But let's base the discussion on what we do know, and not on what we don't know.
She says:
"For 25 years, Canada has had no legal restrictions on abortion whatsoever – not even any gestational limits. From my perspective as a Canadian, the UK’s current debate over the proposed reduction in its legal time limit for an abortion is way off-base.
Politicians and the media seem trapped by the assumption that some kind of abortion law is necessary and they just need to decide what the limits are. In reality, the best solution is full decriminalization, because all anti-abortion laws are unjust, harmful, and useless – including the UK’s 1967 Abortion Act."
Pretty much what we'd expect from Canada's premier abortion advocate.
But it's when she starts describing Canada's situation and rates of abortions, that my alarm bells go off. Her "information" has gone international:
"Despite the lack of a gestational limit law in Canada, 90 per cent of abortions occur during the first trimester, and less than half a percent after 20 weeks. The latter are all for compelling reasons, such as fetal abnormalities incompatible with life or a serious threat to the woman’s health or life."
Since Canada's abortion statistics are so woefully under-reported, it is impossible to draw such conclusions from them.
Once again, let me explain what we do know about Canadian abortion statistics based on the last year for which abortion data was published in Canada, 2010.
Here I did it for Canada's 2009 CIHI stats, and I'll now do it again for CIHI's 2010 stats.
That year CIHI reported 64,641 abortions, a number we know is grossly under-reported Why? Frist, because Quebec did not report any statistics in 2010; second, it is not mandatory for clinics to report data so clinic data is under-reported; and third, abortions performed in private physician's offices are not published or reported at all.
Of these 64,641 known abortions, the gestational age is only reported for 22,668 of them (8,300 performed on fetuses <=8 weeks, 11,191 on fetuses 9-12 weeks, 1,794 on fetuses 13-16 weeks, 846 on fetuses 17-20 weeks, 537 on fetuses 21+ weeks). These known gestational age abortions are reported for hospital abortions only--we have no gestational ages for those done in clinics or physician's offices.
Therefore there were at least 41,973 abortions performed in 2010 with an unknown gestational age. This means all of those 41,973 abortions, or most of them, or some of them, or none of them, could be late term abortions--we don't know. And we don’t know these gestational ages because most abortion providers don't report them.
If all of the unknown gestational age abortions were in fact late term, then the percentage could be as high as 65%. But we don't know. You must understand that the definition of "unknown" is--we don't know. To say that only .5% of abortions are late term is completely unknowable. It is also grossly misleading.
Next, Ms. Arthur says that 90% of all abortions are first trimester abortions. Again, this information is also unknowable. See explanation above.
In Canada there is no requirement to report or publish the reasons for late-term abortions, so Ms. Arthur can't know the reasons for them. She has no basis or knowledge to state that they:
"are all for compelling reasons, such as fetal abnormalities incompatible with life or a serious threat to the woman’s health or life".
So we don't know how many late-term abortions there are, to go along with not knowing the reasons for them. That's a lot of unknown information to be able to make such conclusions.
Finally, there is one other very disturbing statistic that Ms. Arthur doesn't divulge to the UK pro-abortions.
Statistics Canada reported that from 2000 to 2009 there were 491 late-term, born-alive abortions performed in Canada. These babies were "aborted" but resulted in live births: code name P96.4 or ‘Termination of pregnancy, affecting fetus and newborn’. The aborted child died after it was born.
I'm all for talking about abortion statistics. But let's base the discussion on what we do know, and not on what we don't know.
Thursday, November 15, 2012
Thank you Mr. Klees
Dear Mr. Klees,
Thank you. Thank you for being honest. Thank you for admitting you dropped the ball on Bill 122. The bill into which, Mr. McGgunty snuck the now infamous abortion exclusion clause.
Thank you for saying that: "we should all have the right to know what is happening in our hospitals whether it's knee operations, or whether its hip replacements or whether it's abortions. I think that the tax payer is footing the bill. I believe we have the right to know; there should be transparency and accountability."
While I hold Premier Dalton McGuinty and Heath Minister Deb Matthews responsible for this full frontal assault on free and open access to information in Ontario, with all due respect, your Leader Tim Hudak and Health critic Christine Elliott are not blameless. They did nothing to stop this attack on our access to information rights.
At least you had the courage to stand up, and while the camera was rolling, admit that you missed it. I like that. I like courage. I like honesty. These are very attractive qualities in a politician. Too bad more politicians don't hold these old-fashioned virtues.
And can you tell Mr. Hudak and Ms. Elliott for me, that if they're bored sometime, tell them to have a look at the video here and here. They might learn something about what this honesty and courage looks like. You know, it's never too late to admit when you dropped the ball.
Well that's it for now. Keep up the good work.
Sincerely,
Patricia Maloney
Thank you. Thank you for being honest. Thank you for admitting you dropped the ball on Bill 122. The bill into which, Mr. McGgunty snuck the now infamous abortion exclusion clause.
Thank you for saying that: "we should all have the right to know what is happening in our hospitals whether it's knee operations, or whether its hip replacements or whether it's abortions. I think that the tax payer is footing the bill. I believe we have the right to know; there should be transparency and accountability."
While I hold Premier Dalton McGuinty and Heath Minister Deb Matthews responsible for this full frontal assault on free and open access to information in Ontario, with all due respect, your Leader Tim Hudak and Health critic Christine Elliott are not blameless. They did nothing to stop this attack on our access to information rights.
At least you had the courage to stand up, and while the camera was rolling, admit that you missed it. I like that. I like courage. I like honesty. These are very attractive qualities in a politician. Too bad more politicians don't hold these old-fashioned virtues.
And can you tell Mr. Hudak and Ms. Elliott for me, that if they're bored sometime, tell them to have a look at the video here and here. They might learn something about what this honesty and courage looks like. You know, it's never too late to admit when you dropped the ball.
Well that's it for now. Keep up the good work.
Sincerely,
Patricia Maloney
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
We're staying
What is wrong with the majority of MPs in this country? Some are brave. And the rest? Well, I'll leave you to answer that question for yourself.
I just received a press release from MP Maurice Vellacott. He forwarded on an email he received from a Debbie Fisher who was shall I say, less than pleased with MP Bob Rae's comments regarding Mr. Vellacott nominating Linda Gibbons and Mary Wagner for the Queen's Jubilee medals. Mr. Rae had said:
"By encouraging others, this could clearly be interpreted as inciting others to break the law, which in itself is a criminal offence.”
Ms. Fisher replied:
"If memory serves me correctly it was the irresponsible Bob Rae government that caused this illegal temporary injunction in the first place and as a result of your disregard for women, thousands have now suffered the trauma of abortion without being fully informed of the consequences. I held a young girl in my arms yesterday who underwent an abortion 14 months ago at the Bloor clinic where Mary Wagner has been arrested. She told me they told her it was a short procedure to remove the "contents of the uterus" and she would be fine. Her marks have dropped, she has lived with guilt and remorse for over a year and she said she couldn't look at her boyfriend anymore because he reminded her of that day. Where is the counselling for this child who misses her child? Where are the resources for thousands like her? By the way Mr Rae, her child's name is Kaysen. My dead child's name is Noelle Marie. I was told to shut up when I started screaming for my child after my abortion because I was upsetting other people in the recovery room. I know better today that my child was not a blob of tissue and a mass of cells."
Then of course there was MP Stephen Woodworth's motion 312 that was defeated in in the House recently, a motion that simply asked to have a discussion on when a child becomes a human being.
Nope can't have that discussion.
And we can't discuss these things because some MPs are absolutely enthralled with that word "abortion", and its first cousin, "Women's rights". Can't talk about it. Can't think about it. Can't debate it. And please don't ask us to even talk about what a pre-born child is. No no no.
It has become so riduculous that even the Supreme Court has no idea what to even call a pre-born child:
"The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada is seldom at a loss for words. But even Beverley McLachlin stopped in her verbal tracks last month while hearing arguments in the matter of Regina v. Ivana Levkovic. The facts were enough to make you glad you’re not a judge: Levkovic, a former stripper from Mississauga, Ont., was accused of leaving the body of her newborn daughter on her apartment balcony, to be found—badly decomposed in a plastic bag—by her landlord when she vacated.
Levkovic was charged under Section 243 of the Criminal Code, which forbids concealing the body of an infant “whether the child died before, during or after birth.” But pathologists were unable to determine whether Levkovic’s baby was born alive or dead, and under Canadian case law, a child has no legal rights before it has emerged from the womb. By using words like “child,” “baby” or “girl,” therefore, the judges could be implying humanity on the part of the deceased. They’d also be undermining Levkovic’s defence: if an unborn child has no right to legal protection, her lawyers had reasoned, how could the law stand?
Thus began a kind of linguistic minuet, as the judges reached for acceptable nomenclature for a hypothetical baby that the law might not regard as a person. McLachlin tried “object” and “being” and, at one cringeworthy point, referred to it as “this, um, dead, um, whatever.” Her colleagues didn’t fare much better. During a discussion of the applicability of mens rea, Justice Michael Moldaver, a former criminal lawyer who joined the court one year ago, referred to the infant in such cases as “the thing.”
Our Supreme Court Justices. Don't know. What to call. An unborn child. A pre-born child. A human being. What. Is. Their. Problem.
So...we can only leave it up to some MPs who do some thing.
Like Mark Warawa's recent motion M-408 "That the House condemn discrimination against females occurring through sex-selective pregnancy termination."
I wonder if those naysayer MPs like Mr. Rae and Mr. Harper, and all the rest of them, think we are going away? I hope not, because we aren't. Nope. We're here to stay.
I just received a press release from MP Maurice Vellacott. He forwarded on an email he received from a Debbie Fisher who was shall I say, less than pleased with MP Bob Rae's comments regarding Mr. Vellacott nominating Linda Gibbons and Mary Wagner for the Queen's Jubilee medals. Mr. Rae had said:
"By encouraging others, this could clearly be interpreted as inciting others to break the law, which in itself is a criminal offence.”
Ms. Fisher replied:
"If memory serves me correctly it was the irresponsible Bob Rae government that caused this illegal temporary injunction in the first place and as a result of your disregard for women, thousands have now suffered the trauma of abortion without being fully informed of the consequences. I held a young girl in my arms yesterday who underwent an abortion 14 months ago at the Bloor clinic where Mary Wagner has been arrested. She told me they told her it was a short procedure to remove the "contents of the uterus" and she would be fine. Her marks have dropped, she has lived with guilt and remorse for over a year and she said she couldn't look at her boyfriend anymore because he reminded her of that day. Where is the counselling for this child who misses her child? Where are the resources for thousands like her? By the way Mr Rae, her child's name is Kaysen. My dead child's name is Noelle Marie. I was told to shut up when I started screaming for my child after my abortion because I was upsetting other people in the recovery room. I know better today that my child was not a blob of tissue and a mass of cells."
Then of course there was MP Stephen Woodworth's motion 312 that was defeated in in the House recently, a motion that simply asked to have a discussion on when a child becomes a human being.
Nope can't have that discussion.
And we can't discuss these things because some MPs are absolutely enthralled with that word "abortion", and its first cousin, "Women's rights". Can't talk about it. Can't think about it. Can't debate it. And please don't ask us to even talk about what a pre-born child is. No no no.
It has become so riduculous that even the Supreme Court has no idea what to even call a pre-born child:
"The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada is seldom at a loss for words. But even Beverley McLachlin stopped in her verbal tracks last month while hearing arguments in the matter of Regina v. Ivana Levkovic. The facts were enough to make you glad you’re not a judge: Levkovic, a former stripper from Mississauga, Ont., was accused of leaving the body of her newborn daughter on her apartment balcony, to be found—badly decomposed in a plastic bag—by her landlord when she vacated.
Levkovic was charged under Section 243 of the Criminal Code, which forbids concealing the body of an infant “whether the child died before, during or after birth.” But pathologists were unable to determine whether Levkovic’s baby was born alive or dead, and under Canadian case law, a child has no legal rights before it has emerged from the womb. By using words like “child,” “baby” or “girl,” therefore, the judges could be implying humanity on the part of the deceased. They’d also be undermining Levkovic’s defence: if an unborn child has no right to legal protection, her lawyers had reasoned, how could the law stand?
Thus began a kind of linguistic minuet, as the judges reached for acceptable nomenclature for a hypothetical baby that the law might not regard as a person. McLachlin tried “object” and “being” and, at one cringeworthy point, referred to it as “this, um, dead, um, whatever.” Her colleagues didn’t fare much better. During a discussion of the applicability of mens rea, Justice Michael Moldaver, a former criminal lawyer who joined the court one year ago, referred to the infant in such cases as “the thing.”
Our Supreme Court Justices. Don't know. What to call. An unborn child. A pre-born child. A human being. What. Is. Their. Problem.
So...we can only leave it up to some MPs who do some thing.
Like Mark Warawa's recent motion M-408 "That the House condemn discrimination against females occurring through sex-selective pregnancy termination."
I wonder if those naysayer MPs like Mr. Rae and Mr. Harper, and all the rest of them, think we are going away? I hope not, because we aren't. Nope. We're here to stay.
Monday, November 12, 2012
The road to Hell
Have a look at the World Health Organization document Safe abortion: technical and policy guidance for health systems
This document gave me goosebumps. It's a how-to manual for killing children.
You see, safe abortion, contrary to its name, isn't very safe for babies.
Check out page 40 and 41 in the document, section 2.2.3 “Induction of pre-procedure fetal demise”. In other words “this is how to ensure you kill the baby first so that she/he is not born alive.” Because we don't want any of those nasty little born-alives.
Then there is “Fetal demise” instead of "child’s death". And “Feticidal” instead of “fatal to the baby”. And ”fetal cardiac chambers” instead of “baby’s heart.”
There's more. A full 134 pages more.
And this: "The completion of abortion is verified by examination of the aspirated tissue" instead of
"The completion of the killing of the offspring is verified by examination of all the removed bits and pieces like the head, limbs, bowels, blood and broken bones of the dead baby. Yep it's all there. The death of the child was a complete success."
So how does WHO define "Health"? Well according to Wikipedia:
"The World Health Organization (WHO) defined health in its broader sense in 1946 as "a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity".
What they they forgot to add was "...as long as you are not a pre-born member of the human species in which case none of the above applies."
What would someone arriving from outer space think, when they took a wrong turn and arrived at Planet Earth, to discover a species of "civilized" beings, where an organization who supposedly takes care of the species there, by "directing and coordinating authority for health within the United Nations system", and with a straight face, can write a book on how to dismember, disembowel and decapitate the offspring of said species, by vacuuming its pre-born offspring out of the female members of the planet's inhabitants?
Would they think they had arrived in Hell and had simply missed the signs?
Sunday, November 11, 2012
I'm here to stay, plant me
From TEDTalks: Alexander Tsiaras: Conception to birth -- visualized:
Tsiaras says:
"...and at nine weeks is this little human being...and 60,000 miles of blood vessels by nine months...even though I am a mathematician, I look at [fetal development] with marvel: How do these instruction sets not make mistakes as they build what is us?...it's mystery, it's magic, it's divinity...."
Isn't Science fantastic? It can show us in minute detail how we are formed in our mother's womb.
Tsiaras says:
"...and at nine weeks is this little human being...and 60,000 miles of blood vessels by nine months...even though I am a mathematician, I look at [fetal development] with marvel: How do these instruction sets not make mistakes as they build what is us?...it's mystery, it's magic, it's divinity...."
Isn't Science fantastic? It can show us in minute detail how we are formed in our mother's womb.
Thursday, November 1, 2012
Joyce Arthur sued
Joyce Arthur is being sued:
"The Christian Advocacy Society of Greater Vancouver and the Crisis Pregnancy Centre of Vancouver Society sued Joyce Arthur and the Pro-Choice Action Network, in B.C. Supreme Court.
They claims defendants defamed them in a 2009 report, "Exposing Crisis Pregnancy Centres in British Columbia...
...The report has been widely read and disseminated online and republished by other organizations and used in media coverage, including a three-part investigative series by CTV News in Vancouver...
..."The results of the harm done to the plaintiffs' reputation have included, inter alia, adverse impacts on the plaintiffs' relationships with, and ability to engage in its non-profit and funding activities in respect of, prospective clients, donors, and community partners," the complaint states."
I wrote about that report in LifeNews and here and here after I learned through an Access to Information request that Pro-Can had received $27,400 to write that so-called report.
Should be interesting.
"The Christian Advocacy Society of Greater Vancouver and the Crisis Pregnancy Centre of Vancouver Society sued Joyce Arthur and the Pro-Choice Action Network, in B.C. Supreme Court.
They claims defendants defamed them in a 2009 report, "Exposing Crisis Pregnancy Centres in British Columbia...
...The report has been widely read and disseminated online and republished by other organizations and used in media coverage, including a three-part investigative series by CTV News in Vancouver...
..."The results of the harm done to the plaintiffs' reputation have included, inter alia, adverse impacts on the plaintiffs' relationships with, and ability to engage in its non-profit and funding activities in respect of, prospective clients, donors, and community partners," the complaint states."
I wrote about that report in LifeNews and here and here after I learned through an Access to Information request that Pro-Can had received $27,400 to write that so-called report.
Should be interesting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)