Freedom of conscience is for everyone including doctors

I'm always dumbfounded by the inane and gloriously off-the-wall-and-off-topic-comments I often read on articles posted online on anything that could be even remotely associated with pro-life viewpoints.

To see what I mean check out Andrea Mrozek's thoughtful and coherant article posted on Huffington Post about doctor's freedom of conscience rights.

I think some of these commentors might want to stop talking about their disdain at doctors practicing freedom of conscience rights--which I might add are actual rights and not make-believe rights like "abortion rights"--and instead educate themselves on the subject.

But no. They'd prefer to hear themselves blather on instead. I think they just like to see their name in print. I guess it makes them feel important.

So here's the thing. Freedom of conscience is a right guaranteed under our Canadian Charter. That means everyone, including doctors have this right. It's not a right for the few, it is a right for all.

If you don't like the fact that a doctor won't provide you with your contraception, then you are free to go elsewhere for it. Nobody's forcing you to go to that doctor. The choice crowd is in love with the word "choice". So use it. Because I'd prefer to know my doctor bases his medical expertise in concert with his conscience, and doesn't ignore it. I imagine there were doctors who went against their conscience in the concentration camps in Auschwitz. Not something (I hope) we would ever want from our own doctors.

Here's something else to ponder for those who who like to hear themselves talk and say nothing. Joyce Arthur also thinks conscientious objection for doctors shouldn't be allowed. But surprisingly, not all of her compatriots agree with her: Global Doctors for Choice, bpas (The British pregnancy Advisory Service), and the International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics (IJGO), all believe that conscientious objection should be allowed.

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.

Human beings have human rights

By Jonathon Van Maren

“As soon as he grows his own uterus, he can have an opinion.”

That was a comment left on The Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada’s Facebook page by a woman who presumably opposes men speaking out against misogyny, domestic abuse, rape culture, and female genital mutilation as well. Apparently, you see, male genitals disqualify people from speaking out on various human rights issues deemed by women who define themselves by their uteruses while protesting angrily against being defined by their uteruses as “women’s issues.”

Which abortion isn’t, by the way. It’s a human rights issue.

To break it down really simply for our confused “feminist” friends: Human beings have human rights. Human rights begin when the human being begins, or we are simply choosing some random and arbitrary point at which human beings get their human rights. If we do not grant human rights to all human beings, inevitably some sub-set of human beings gets denied protection by another group with conflicting interests. In this case, of course, it is the abortion crowd, who want to be able to kill pre-born children in the womb whenever they want, for any reason they want.

Science tells us when human life begins. Pro-abortion dogma is at worst a cynical manoeuvre to sacrifice the lives of pre-born human beings for self-interest, and at best an outdated view that collapsed feebly under the weight of new discoveries in science and embryology. But the abortion cabal wants to preserve their bloody status quo at all costs, and so they make ludicrous claims about needing a uterus to qualify for a discussion on science and human rights.

In fact, feminists love it when men speak up on abortion, as long as we’re reading from their script, which is why the carnivorous feminists have such a support system among the Deadbeat Dads for Dead Babies set and the No Strings Attached Club.

Male abortion activists have even begun to complain about “forced fatherhood,” a new cultural injustice in which they are expected to bear some responsibility for fathering children with women they didn’t love enough to want to father children with, but did appreciate enough to use for sex. Casual fluid swaps, they whine, should not result in custody hearings.

This is not to mention a genuine social tragedy that has men forcing or pressuring women to have abortions or abandoning them when they discover that the woman is, indeed, pregnant.

Or the fact that abortion has assisted pimps, rapists, and misogynists in continuing the crimes of sex trafficking, sexual abuse, and sex-selection abortion.

And coming against these disgusting trends are thousands of men in the pro-life movement who believe that shared humanity means shared responsibility, and that when the weak and vulnerable are robbed of their rights, we have to stand up and speak out.

We are not at all convinced by the feminist argument that people should think with their reproductive organs or genitals. We think that the number of people currently doing that has perhaps contributed to the problems we face. And we refuse to be told that protecting the human rights of all human beings is “none of our business” and “outside of our interests.”

Arguments don’t have genitals, feminists. It’s a stupid argument trying to protect a bloody ideology.

Reprinted with permission