Abortion issue is a long way from settled

I was surprised to read this letter from the Guelph Mercury. I was surprised that it was even published. Don't they have editors over there to screen such hateful letters? And the irony is, that the letter writer uses the word hate five times, yet not one use is warranted, or even makes any sense.

"The abortion issue was decided in the 1970s."

Well no, it wasn't. In a democracy issues aren't "decided". If they were decided, it wouldn't be a democracy.

"...these right-to-life ads on city buses are...offensive". 

How are these ads offensive? The writer doesn't tell us, we must simply take his word for it. Here they are again in case you haven't seen them. You can decide for yourself.

"It's hate literature, saying basically we hate you because you are killing people."

So what part of: "Simply human. I'm not a potential person I'm a person with potential." And, "This is a child. Not a choice." says "we hate you"? I can't read hate into the signs and neither can the letter writer. He's making that up.

"You are terrorizing a vulnerable minority of our population with your ads because of your religious belief."

Terrorizing? Hamas terrorizes people. Al Qaeda terrorizes people. Pro-life people do not terrorize people. And there is no religion raised in the ad at all. Some pro-life people are religious, some have no religion and some are atheists. Remember Christopher Hitchens? He was a rabid atheist and pro-life. And I can never understand it, when people conclude that pro-life people are religious, and use that specious "argument" to try and justify their point of view.

"Stop it. You don't have that right."

Yes we do. It's called free speech. In Canada this is a constitutional right.

"Abortion was decided a long time ago by the majority." 

Abortion is not decided as long as people say it's not decided. Full stop.

"When abortion is legal, the crime rate drops quite noticeably."

Wrong. Read this: Did Steven Levitt, author of “Freakonomics”, get his most notorious paper wrong from the Economist.

"Every child should be a wanted child." 

What about "unwanted" toddlers. Or "unwanted" teenagers. Should we get rid of them too?

"You aren't alive until you can breathe on your own." 

You are alive at conception. You are growing. You are not dead.

"I bet you hate me".

I don't hate you. I feel sorry for you. I really, really do.

Offensive and despicable bus ads--not

This person doesn't like the ads on Guelph's buses. She thinks they are "offensive and despicable".

So I went looking for the offending ads. This is what I found.

I thought I was looking for something offensive and despicable?

The woman goes on quite the rant about these ads, most of which doesn't make a lot of sense.

"First, there's no such thing as "unborn children." A fetus becomes a child only at birth and beyond. A fetus becomes a child only at birth and beyond."

What's she talking about? A member of the human species is an unborn child. It's certainly not an "unborn cat" or an "unborn gorilla". This is basic science.

"...for me, it's hard to fathom the gall of any man holding a strong anti-abortion view and expressing it publicly. He is not pregnant, and will not become pregnant, nor will he suffer the pain of childbirth."

All of this has absolutely nothing to do with allowing a man to join the abortion discussion, nor should it. To exclude a group (men) in participating in this discussion, or any discussion, is called discrimination based on gender.

"Thankfully, in 2014 in this democracy, accidentally pregnant women are offered early abortion...accidental pregnancies in this province are treated quickly in hospitals or clinics, as are other accidents."

The ads don't change this "thankful" solution to "accidental pregnancies" so what's her problem?

"Accidentally pregnant women/girls will not be cowed or controlled by uninformed busybodies who call themselves pro-life. There are more serious social problems to deal with, such as the tragedy of unwanted children — five-year-old Jeffrey Baldwin, who was starved to death by his grandparents in 2002, being one. Give him some thought."

Doesn't she comprehend the irony of her statement? These ads are trying to educate us on the tragedy of unwanted children. Apparently its message is lost on the letter writer. Too bad. She could use some educating on pre-born children.

"women/girls who chose abortion will feel no shame or guilt — the feeling will be relief."

I can't imagine how she knows the feelings of the literally millions of women who have had abortions.

"As well as personal reasons, many young people know we live in a greatly overpopulated world — one that cannot or does not sustain us adequately in food, health, and harmony." 

This sentiment always scares me to death--when people think that abortion is a solution to a supposedly overpopulated world. We can just kill them off. So disposable. So unwanted. So pathetic.

Will this be Harper's legacy?

In response to Local organization wants national debate on abortion and Alliance For Life Ontario's We Want the Debate campaign, I wrote the following letter to the Guelph Mercury:

Canada needs an abortion debate

October 31, 2011

We need a national debate on abortion. The reality is that if we shut down this debate, we shut down freedom of speech and we harm our democracy.

When our political leaders refuse to debate an issue that 52 per cent of Canadians want to have we, wittingly or unwittingly, are causing harm to our country. That the subject matter is abortion should make no difference. If the subject matter were murder, rape, women’s rights or what we teach our children in school, would we censure those debates? Of course not. Then why are we not allowed to debate abortion?

If Stephen Harper does not allow Canadians to have the abortion debate that we want to have, he is complicit in jeopardizing our democracy. This, in fact, may result in the law of unintended consequences and Harper may end up as being known as the prime minister who shut down democracy in Canada.

Somehow I don’t think Harper would be very pleased with a legacy such as this.

Patricia Maloney, Ottawa