Challenging the extremes

Thank goodness we have a national pro-life group (weneedaLAW.ca) that is always active, on the move, stirring things up, and telling us what they're doing while they're at it.

For instance check out Faye Sonier's legal perspective on the closing of the Morgentaler clinic in New Brunswick.

At the end of the piece Faye has a line that should make the pro-abortions flinch:

"Those who lament the closing of this abortion clinic call themselves "pro-choice." Indeed, "choice" is the governing principle of their movement. "My body, my choice" is the best known slogan. Perhaps they do not realize the conundrum. For if abortion is truly a personal choice, how on earth can it also be medically necessary?"

Indeed. So how do the pro-abortions reconcile "choice" with "medical necessity"? They don't. Because if you choose to have an abortion, then what could be medically necessary about it? And if an abortion is medically necessary, there isn't really a choice at all, is there? Just don't confuse the pro-abortions with the facts, I guess. They might get a headache.

Take action by sending this email to government officials in New Brunswick and Ottawa.

And We Need a Law has also done a great position paper on gestational abortion legislation. It is a logical, coherent and moral analysis on the state of abortion legislation in Canada:

The difference between Legal, Decriminalized and Regulated abortion, & why we support Gestational Limits

The paper ends with a challenge to those who don't agree with gestational legislation, inviting them to explain why:

"...gestational limits would not legalize abortion because it already is legal. We've also argued that saving some does not condone the death of those we cannot yet save. And we've tried to show that all pro-lifers already support legislative efforts that will protect only some children (in this case, the children of poor mothers). 

We want to conclude with a challenge. If you think we are wrong, please address these points one by one and explain why. Be specific. Please show how abortion in Canada is, in any sense, not already completely legal right now. Show how a gestational limit that will protect only some differs morally from a defunding effort that will protect only some. And explain why those who saved Jewish children weren't condoning the death of their parents (who they couldn't save), but today when we try to save some pre-born children (via a gestational limit) we are supposedly condoning the death of the children we aren't able to save.