Demonstration Against Abortion at the University of Toronto

On Wednesday, we took the streets at St. George and Harbord with signs to raise the issue of abortion on campus. Abortion in Canada is legal through all 9 months of pregnancy. We believe it’s a lousy cop out to provide a woman in a crisis pregnancy situation with death for her unborn child rather than real assistance; killing is neither caring nor compassionate.

We had a great turn out from our members, and even a few non-members who stopped by to show support and even help out. One passerby stopped for over an hour to hold a sign saying, “Abortion Kills Children.” We were active for about 5 hours, longer than we’d planned, because support was just so great. We had at least 20-30 members show up at one point during the day, many staying for most of the afternoon.

Of course, our pro-choice friends had a small showing as well, helping to attract more attention to our event. Personally, I enjoyed the conversations I was able to share with a few of the counter-protesters, one of whom complimented us on the material we were handing out and agreed that it was important for us to raise the issue of personhood (while obviously still disagreeing with us on abortion). It’s nice to have relatively civil pro-choicers on the UofT campus.

Thanks to all the UTSFLers who made the event such a success! Photos are up on Flickr and our Facebook page, and I’ve got a few video clips to upload soon.

New Hampshire Committee Votes Against Assisted Suicide

LifeSiteNews.com reports that the New Hampshire House Judiciary Committee has rejected a bill to legalize assisted suicide in a 14-3 vote last week.

“This is a significant victory,” said the Alex Schadenberg, Chairman of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition. However, he added, “This does not mean that the bill is completely dead. The legislature might reject the recommendation of the committee and approve the bill. But considering the lopsided vote at the committee level, it is unlikely that the bill in New Hampshire will be approved.”

We’ll be hosting Alex Schadenberg at the University of Toronto shortly to speak about euthanasia and the law in Canada, particularly in light of Bill C-384 and Motion 388.

McGill Student Union Execs Go To Great Lengths To Protect Students From Scary Words

Last Thursday, the McGill student union (SSMU) voted to revoke suspend the club status of Choose Life, the pro-life group on campus. In light of that, I thought I’d revisit their “open letter” from the beginning of October (from just after that sing-a-long sit-in).

The SSMU Executive is incredibly concerned and upset about the response of McGill University to the recent “Echoes of the Holocaust” event, hosted by the SSMU club Choose Life. We feel that McGill University has not only disrespected the rights of the SSMU as the accredited representative body of all McGill undergraduate students, but also failed to protect students’ rights.

The university administration doesn’t share our willingness to impose our political views onto the student body! Shame!

McGill University has not respected SSMU Council and the SSMU Executives as representatives of the McGill undergraduate student population. When the SSMU Council passed a resolution officially and publically censuring the event “Echoes of the Holocaust”, the SSMU Council clearly stated that for Deputy Provost (Student Life and Learning) Morton Mendelson to permit it to go forward would disregard the desire of the Council. In response Professor Mendelson argued that this resolution is a tyranny of the majority. Firstly, this is an offensive misrepresentation of the purpose of SSMU Council. The SSMU Council was acting on behalf of all undergraduate students, both in its representative capacity and in reaction to many conversations with students. Secondly, it is worrisome that the Deputy Provost interprets a large percentage of students being outraged and appalled at an event to be a tyranny of the majority. The SSMU had hoped that he would consider the impact as well as content of the presentation instead of ignoring the formal intervention of students’ representative body by using the rhetoric of academic freedom.

How dare you not let us censor student groups! How dare you call our “censuring” a “tyranny!” Acamedic freedom is just rhetoric! If we don’t like something, we don’t want to anyone to hear it!

By ignoring the SSMU Council’s decision, McGill acted as an enabler for a group attempting to violate the SSMU’s governing documents. The resolution regarding “Echoes of the Holocaust” was passed because the subject and format of the planned presentation violated the SSMU Constitution and Equity Policy. Council did not pass judgment based on individual opinions, but on the constitutionality of the event overall. The SSMU did not censor Choose Life’s opinions, but the offensive format within which those opinions were being presented. Moreover the SSMU Council, as the highest governing body of the SSMU, has ultimate authority over SSMU clubs. McGill University must respect the right of the SSMU to govern groups under its jurisdiction according to its Constitution, Bylaws, and Policies.

They put that in the past tense… as if the presentation actually happened. How can they punish Choose Life for the format of a presentation that was never delivered? McGill can respect the SSMU’s role without being complicit in idiocy and blatant abuse of that role through political activism masquerading as “governing.”

The SSMU is also disturbed by McGill’s calloused disregard of its need to protect its students.

Ah! Words! Run! Protect us!

Or maybe it’s the images they want to be “protected” from… lest students witness reality!

The Deputy Provost has argued that the behavior of the protestors was disappointing and appalling. The SSMU understands that the disruptive behavior of the protestors impeded on an event which the University had permitted to happen.

However, the University has failed to address the concern that all other formal avenues had been exhausted, but to no avail.

We’re allowed to break the rules, but no one else!

Vulnerable students tried to communicate their concerns to the University through the available channels: the SSMU Executive, SSMU Council, AUS Council, the McGill Tribune, and the McGill Daily. There were no other avenues through which to stop this event, which they deemed as victimizing, offensive, and stifling of educated debate, from happening.

“Vulnerable” students… vulnerable, I guess, because the no one is protecting them from words?

Furthermore it is unfair to expect these student protestors to calmly watch a presentation and engage with a speaker when such a presentation would make them feel violated, demonized, and silenced.

No one was forced to attend… It’s unfair to expect someone who goes out of their way to attend a talk to respect the speaker?

In his February 27, 2009 article in the McGill Reporter “Free and Open Expression on Campus”, Professor Mendelson said that free speech should be permitted as long as “we do not create a hostile environment for members of our diverse community”. This event created a hostile environment and should not have been permitted.

Watch the videos. The only thing remotely resembling hostility is the protest. Ruba didn’t even get to present! Simply stating something doesn’t make it true.

It is possibly most disappointing that when students’ peacefully engaged in a public response to this hostile environment, they were removed through a police intervention. Administrators did not intervene at all during the height of the event, even after requests from the SSMU Executive to do so. Students felt entirely abandoned by the McGill administration when seeing fellow students removed from the safety of the downtown campus and handed over to the Montreal police and the public media.

They choose to attend an event sanctioned by the university, ruined it, and got kicked out and handed over to the appropriate authorities, and have the audacity to claim that they were “abandoned?” That the source of any hostility was anyone but themselves? Does anyone actually believe this whining and self-victimization?

I thought they were pro-choice. “If you don’t want an abortion, don’t have one.” Hey, if you don’t want to hear the talk, don’t sit in the audience!

The SSMU has continually tried to serve and represent McGill undergraduate students in this situation, and will continue to do so.

Except if you’re pro-life…

We will continue to engage in a conversation with the McGill administration concerning their respect for the SSMU and our students’ rights.

And continue to disrespect the rules otherwise, since they don’t apply to us.

We will provide impartial information and guidance to any student defending any action to McGill or initiating a grievance with McGill.

Unless you’re protesting our callous actions…

Most importantly, as the representatives of all undergraduate students, we will hold ourselves to the highest standard of accountability to the SSMU Constitution, Bylaws, and Policies and to our students.

Except when we feel the need to impose our own personal, political stances onto the student body, at which point anything goes.

Seriously, these people are in charge?

McGill Student Union Revokes Pro-Life Group’s Club Status

McGill’s student union has indefinitely revoked suspended club status from Choose Life, the pro-life club on campus. (via Big Blue Wave, ProWomanProLife)

Student Equity Committee work with Choose Life to draft a document for Choose Life on how to abide by SSMU’s Constitution, By-laws, and Policies, which will be adopted by Choose Life.

Let’s recall for a second who is trying to tell Choose Life how to behave: those reasonable, old-macdonald-had-a-farm-response-to-free-speech-on-a-university-campus pro-choicers.

Um… how is it that they have any credibility left?

It’s worth noting the the university administration refused to block the event, and disagreed with SSMU that it was somehow an assault on students (“ah! words! run!”). You don’t need to be pro-life to realize that people ought to be allowed to disagree with you. I’d love to see which part of the constitution, by-laws or policies stipulate that each campus club needs to adopt the particular political views of the student union representatives lest their status be revoked.

Planned Parenthood Gag Order On Abby Johnson Denied

Remember that Planned Parenthood Director who quit after seeing an ultrasound of abortion? Planned Parenthood can’t get her to shut up. More specifically, the gag order attempt failed:

According to the Bryan-College Station Eagle, District Judge J.D. Langley dissolved a temporary restraining order against Johnson after concluding that Planned Parenthood’s stated concerns over Johnson revealing security and business information was not enough to warrant the injunction.

The judge also denied a similar request Planned Parenthood directed at the Coalition for Life, the local pro-life organization that started the 40 Days for Life campaign five years ago at the same clinic where Johnson worked.

[...]

“When I saw that ultrasound, not only did I say, ‘This is wrong and I will never participate in this again,’ but there was a part of me that said, ‘Not only will I not participate in it again, but I will fight to make sure women don’t have to experience this, that women have better choices,’” she said.

Johnson encouraged the pro-lifers on the call to keep engaging clinic workers, even though their words appear to bear no fruit.

“You are in constant spiritual turmoil when you work in the abortion industry,” said Johnson, noting that, to a clinic worker, a pro-life vigil is “a constant reminder of the reality that you are doing.” “Sometimes the clinic workers may act like they don’t hear you, they may never speak to you … but they can’t turn a deaf ear to what you’re saying,” she continued. “You never know who you’re impacting.”

I’m betting Planned Parenthood doesn’t find this nearly as entertaining as I do. No wonder abortion “rights” supporters get all twisted up about graphic displays of abortion.

Warning to pro-choicers: Abortion is a brutal and violent assault on human life. Seeing it might turn people off.

Josh Kolic’s Beef with Free Speech

Wow. Josh Kolic, Lakehead University Student Union’s VP Finance, really has it in for pro-life clubs. Clarissa posted the NCLN press release on Friday, and Josh appeared in the comments calling the Lakehead pro-life group an “extremist” organization.

You know your argument is solid when all you can do is call your opponents “extremists.”

That same day, Kolic wrote an open letter to Lakehead students trying to garner support for his crusade. It’s hard to know where to begin, so we’ll take it from the start.

In a great victory for human rights on this campus, Life Support was denied club status in our first board meeting this year.

In other words, assuming what needs to be proven and glossing over the very centre of the debate — are the unborn human? Kolic clearly isn’t studying biology.

Sadly, a contingent of board members has continued to openly meet with Life Support members and is attempting to have that decision overturned. It is believed that these members are acting in the interest of an interest group and not in the interests of the student body as a whole.

It is believed… by whom?

I believe that Lakehead University is a campus that values human rights.

Oh, by Josh. Right. So, only board members who agree with Kolic are acting in the interest of the student body as a whole. Other board members, other student representatives, don’t represent students. Only Josh does. Because students value human rights, as Kolic selectively defines them — not including the right to life of unborn human beings, or a right to free speech of Lakehead students (or board members…).

Nice use of the passive voice. Almost had me there.

As your Vice President Finance, I met with members of Life Support in early October and suggested to them that if they truly wanted to represent “pro-life” values that they would perhaps be better served advocating for increased programs for expectant mothers on this campus or increased funding for child care services on campus rather than simply maintain an anti-choice stance by denigrating those who believe in a woman’s right to choose. The group turned down my proposal. Almost immediately.

As VP Finance, Kolic believes that he has the right to set the agenda of student clubs, and ignore the fact that many of the pro-life organizations that Life Support is connected with are doing those very things.

Kolic: If I can’t run your group, then you won’t be recognized.

I find it interesting that while Life Support refuses to change its aggressive and exclusive focus, not a single group that favours the pro-choice option ever advocates exclusively for women to have abortions. This statement might seem somewhat ridiculous in that I’m simply pointing out the obvious, but it is very telling in terms of the tactics that Life Support continues to employ. In fact, the neutral stance is simply one that allows the individual woman herself to choose. This stance is the one that I believe LUSU should advocate and certainly the one that I believe that you as a student body would advocate for as well.

At least he’s not shy about it. This isn’t about being “neutral” or even about respecting the LUSU constitution. It’s about pushing a pro-choice perspective onto the entire university through the student union. Board members and students who disagree? Well, they don’t count — Josh knows what the student body believes.

What an exemplary representative of the student body.

As your elected representative, I believe that you as a student body agree that a woman has a right to make decisions regarding her body. I believe that we as a student body agree with the BC Supreme Court that the existence of groups such as Life Support violate the rights of students on campus. It was once said in this country that the state has no place in the bedrooms of this nation. I also contend that the state has no place within a woman’s body. Neither does a student union club.

The state has no place in the bedroom… except when it involves tax dollars. The state has no place within a woman’s body, yet it’s apparently not okay to talk about the body inside a woman’s body that the state routinely facilitates the destruction of. The student union club should agree with Kolic’s politics if it wants to be recognized.

This isn’t the voice of a responsible representative of the student body, seeking to respect the LUSU constitution and treat all students justly. This is a renegade activist abusing his position of responsibility to force his own political views and sense of morality on the student body.

“Don’t impose your morality on others!” Oh, wait…

I would ask all of you who support a woman’s right to choose [choose what?] to come to our next board meeting and – as the Life Support group has done – give a deputation to the board as to why a woman’s right to choose [choose what?] is important to you.

It’s not about whether or not the group has a right to exist. It’s about whether or not people who don’t like the group can be loud enough to abuse the LUSU and shut Life Support out.

I implore you to help restore democracy and the spirit of human rights to the Lakehead University Student Union.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Sorry. Lost it for a second.

Someone want to send Kolic a treatise on freedom of speech and democracy? Or a biology textbook? According to NCLN, Josh admitted at the Nov 5th meeting that they were in violation of their own constitution. He’s using his position of responsibility as a student representative and his ignorance of the pro-life position to hijack the LUSU and force his own political views onto the campus. Now, he has the gall to invoke ideals of democracy?

Seriously, Josh, I’m sure you’re a nice guy. Please, stop embarrassing yourself.

Stupak Amendment — If “Reproductive Health” Folks Are Mad, It’s Gotta Be Good

I haven’t been able to keep up with the latest developments in American Health Care reform. I know the bill passed through congress the House of Representatives, which is the furthest that American health care reform has even gotten, but it still needs to go through the Senate.

But I also know that the Stupak amendment passed. It must be a great thing for us anti-choicers, because the folks at feministing.com are pissed (and using lots of colourful language). Ann writes:

I’m sure you’ve heard by now that, last night, the House passed a health-care reform bill. I got this lovely email from Barack Obama telling me what a victory this is.
[...]
I think I made pretty damn clear (as did Obama, in several speeches during the campaign) that reproductive health care is essential health care.

So what the FUCK is this Stupak amendment doing attached to the health-reform bill? You know, that amendment that takes away women’s access to health care?

What?! Removing women’s access to health care?! That’s horrible! What kind of health care are women being denied?!

It reads:

The amendment will prohibit federal funds for abortion services in the public option. It also prohibits individuals who receive affordability credits from purchasing a plan that provides elective abortions. However, it allows individuals, both who receive affordability credits and who do not, to separately purchase with their own funds plans that cover elective abortions. It also clarifies that private plans may still offer elective abortions.

THIS IS FUCKED.

By health care she meant… abortion. Sounds healthy.

This has me so incredibly infuriated because it further segregates abortion as something different, off the menu of regular health care. It is a huge backward step in the battle to convey — not just politically, but to women in their everyday lives — that reproductive health care is normal and necessary, and must be there if (or, more accurately, when) you need it.

Abortion, different from regular health care? Yeah, that sounds like a terrible mistake, because other regular health care routinely involves the intentional killing of innocent human life. Oh, wait…

Sarcasm aside, this is the absolute centre of the cultural divide: is it health care to provide someone with death?

To use the euphemism of “reproductive health” to refer to abortion is profoundly deceptive. Not surprisingly, it’s controversial to refer to killing as healthy.

I think killing is a pretty lousy way of caring.

Now, I’ve read elsewhere (glancing at headlines and skimming posts, can’t remember where) that the U.S. Catholic Bishops welcome the Stupak amendment and are quite happy with it, but still may not be satisfied with the state of the bill in general (don’t quote me on that, check it out yourself if you want to be sure!). I mention them only because, unlike many pro-life Republicans, the Bishops tend to want universal health care while still being strongly opposed to taxpayer funding of abortions. If they’re not satisfied, it’s because of abortion.

I was going to end the post here. But in reviewing it, I noticed an astounding line I glazed over at first:

Reproductive health care is normal and necessary, and must be there if (or, more accurately, when) you need it.

Wow. Is Ann trying to say that unwanted pregnancies and abortion are inevitable for women? I’d love to hear that explained…

Press Release: Lakehead University Student Union Votes to Ban Pro-Life Club

Press Release

November 3rd 2009

Lakehead University Student Union Votes to Ban Pro-Life Club

On October 29th the Lakehead University Student Union (LUSU) voted 7:6 in favour of banning the campus club, Lakehead University Life Support (LULS). This development occurred after the club had battled with LUSU for over two years and was finally granted club status in March.

Fair treatment of LULS was short lived however as their club status was called into question after a false complaint was made against the club after a clubs day display table event. LUSU never proved that this accusation was true nor did they even attempt to verify its veracity but it played a significant role during the discussion at the meeting.

LULS was denied club status with a motion brought forward by Josh Kolic, LUSU’s VP Finance. Kolic’s justification for taking away their status was that LULS is an “exclusive” club with “extremist views on abortion”.

Maggie Ten Hoeve, LULS President, explains, “We are disappointed yet again in our student union. It is understood that on a university campus ideologies and beliefs will be expressed that may be opposite to others. Instead our student union is anxious to shut down these discussions at the first mention of a false accusation without any investigation.”

The club will be appealing this decision.

Contact Information:
Maggie Ten Hoeve, President Lakehead University Life Support, 807-620-5926 / mjtenhoe@lakeheadu.ca
Emil Booyink, Lakehead University Life Support Executive, 807-251-5710 / ebooyink@lakeheadu.ca

Planned Parenthood Director Quits After Seeing Abortion Ultrasound

Ouch.

(For Planned Parenthood, that is.)

Abortion debate in the Varsity… 21 months ago

In clearing out old draft posts, I found this one which for some reason I never published. It was originally written on February 8th… 2008. I offer it to you now, better late than never — it’s not like the pro-choice arguments have changed much.

---

For those of you that missed this week’s edition of the Varisty, Peter O’Hagan had an excellent article published defending the pro-life view. Morgan Snook’s article, on the other hand, seemed a little off the mark.

Hey, of course I’m going to be biased. But let’s examine!

Anti-abortion advocates claim that abortion is murder. They say that from the moment of conception, the fetus is a living human being. What they don’t know, or at least don’t say, that is that any fetus will not be sufficiently developed to feel real pain until after 30 weeks, well after the threshold where most abortions are carried out.

The argument here seems to be that abortion isn’t murder because the fetus won’t feel “real” pain when most abortions are carried out. I’m not sure what “real” pain is, as opposed to another type of pain, but let’s take this claim at face value. Is painless killing still killing? Would abortion be okay after the alleged 30 week threshold (or after birth for that matter) if it were through some sort of lethal injection? Also, last I checked pro-lifers were quite eager to point out the issue of the fetal pain. Thanks for bringing it up Morgan! Will you stand with us then and, at least, denounce any abortions that take place after the fetus can feel pain? [Edit: And as we learned that fall, it's more like 20 weeks, and the pain experience might be worse than adult pain.]

According to the United Nations, reproductive rights of individuals consist of being able to “decide freely and responsibly the number and spacing and timing of [one’s] children and to have the information and means to do so, and the right to attain the highest standard of sexual and reproductive health.” Furthermore, everyone should have the right to make decisions regarding reproduction “free of discrimination, coercion and violence.”

Is that a euphemism for abortion? In that case, it would also be wise to quote passages pertaining to the human rights regarding security of the person, if the unborn is human. Otherwise, you’re assuming what needs to be proven for your argument. In other words, you’ve dodged the fundamental point of the pro-life argument: the unborn is a human being and therefore also deserves human rights. But, yes, outside of killing another human being, spot on. There’s nothing wrong with sexual or reproductive health or “making decisions regarding reproduction”, unless they’re euphemisms for abortion. In which case, your statements seem crafted to avoid the question of the humanity of the unborn entirely.

The motive of pro-life groups is to make women feel guilty for having sex, forcing them to give birth to unwanted children. The Roman Catholic Church views abortion as a sin. Pope John Paul II compared abortion to a mass genocide similar to the Holocaust.

Instead of enforced shame, we should show tolerance and empathy for a difficult situation. Providing support and unbiased information to aid women in their decision-making process would obtain better results than shaming them.

Woah, woah. First of all, just because the Catholic Church is pro-life doesn’t mean that one needs to be Catholic to be pro-life. And if you’re suggesting the Church’s motive is to make women feel guilty for having sex, you need to better inform your views. [Edit: start here or here or here] More importantly, that’s just plain false. We’re not trying to make people feel guilty for having sex. We’re trying to defend the rights of human beings who are losing their lives because our society doesn’t want to take responsibility for the consequences of having sex. These aren’t cultural, ethical or moral consequences; they are biological consequences! The link between sex and pregancy isn’t some invention of the Church or the pro-life movement. It’s a scientific fact.

Also, I suggest you check out some feminist view points within the pro-life movement. To suggest pro-lifers are intent on guilt-tripping woman is dishonest.

The point is, the pro-life movement’s motive is not to shame people, but rather to protect the rights of the unborn who are marginalized when convenience trumps human rights. Your comments fall into the category of “assuming what needs to be proven” again. If the unborn is human – we claim it is – unplanned pregnancies involve a third human life.

Each year 70,000 women die because of illegal abortions and slightly fewer suffer serious injuries. A grown woman should not have to risk her life to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.

Of course, there are also teenage pregnancies. Every year approximately 15 million girls under the age of 18 give birth. These girls are five times more likely to die in childbirth than a woman between the ages of 18 and 25. Not only is a pregnant teen’s life at risk, but also her future. Many schools with pregnant students offer them little choice. Without an abortion, they will be forced to drop out of school.

Illegal abortions and the horrors of unplanned pregnancies are terrible. The pro-life view, however, states that while elective abortion may be psychologically and even practically complex, it is not morally complex. The trend in the article to assume what needs to be proven continues. “Unless you begin with the assumption that the unborn are not human, you are making the highly questionable claim that because some people die attempting to kill others, the state should make it safe and legal for them to do so. Should we legalize bank robbery so it is safer for felons?” (source) If the unborn is human, making abortion safe and legal is hardly an adequate answer to the problem of illegal abortions.

Teenage pregnancies are obviously difficult as well. But, the question needs to be asked: would you kill to get out of that situation? If the unborn is human, that’s what the abortion option is. The answer, then, would be to address schools that offer pregnant teenagers little choice, to make a change there, rather than to encourage a pregnant teenager to end the life of an innocent human being, not matter how difficult her situation may be.

And what about women who have become pregnant after being raped? Can they be expected to carry a child for nine months, a reminder of the sexual assault they were forced to endure? According to Status of Women Canada, over half of Canadian women have been the victims of at least one act of physical or sexual violence since the age of 16. With such a high degree of sexual assault in our own society, can we realistically expect rape victims to deal with the results of an attack for the rest of their lives?

Rape is profoundly evil. But, we claim, so is abortion. This falls into the category of assuming what needs to be proven and appealing to the hard cases. Morgan, if you use rape to justify abortion, then will you stand with us and denounce elective abortion in all other cases? Otherwise, how do cases of rape pertain to the other 99% of abortions?

Rape victims deserve our care. But how does the case of rape justify the vast majority of abortions?

Women carrying a disabled child should also be considered. Children born with a mental or physical disability require a significantly greater amount of care and place financial strain on their parents. An illequipped mother giving birth to a child with special needs can only choose adoption or abortion. This child is much more likely, if adopted, to receive inferior care. Therefore, her choice is likely to be an abortion.

I froze when I read this. Morgan, you questioned analogies between abortion and genocide, yet a few paragraphs later you yourself provide an example of how we systematically discriminate against segments of the human population through abortion. First of all, as expected, this statement assumes what needs to be proven. But more importantly, even if the humanity of the unborn were considered to be in question, systematic discrimination against the disabled is not tolerated in other places in our society. Why would we allow it in the case of abortion, when it’s a matter of life and death?

Why do many women choose abortion over adoption? One-third of all abortions are performed on unmarried women who not only wish to avoid becoming attached to a child, but also to escape judgment as they carry the child they will be giving up. Most of all, many women do not choose adoption because of the uncertainty of their child’s future. How will they know their child is being cared for?

Is the unborn human? Again, assuming what needs to be proven. Also, how is abortion a better option than adoption in terms of knowing the child is being cared for? Is it more comfort to a mother to know that her child is mutilated in a trash can somewhere? There’s a multi-year wait list for parents to adopt in Canada (which means there are way more would-be parents than children). Obviously, caring for these children is a serious matter. Which is why we shouldn’t kill them, since that would be worse than any attempt at care.

Then there is the issue of contraception. In some places, contraception is not available to the majority of the population, or is too expensive for most to afford. In Canada, youth in rural areas cannot acquire contraceptives or information due to a shortage of sexual health centres. Sexual education in the school curriculum has become a joke, as many teachers are not qualified while some schools lack sex-ed programs entirely.

Rather than opposing abortion, we should be supporting contraception and sexual education. We should improve the lives of the children who are brought into the world, often abandoned or abused.

Students for Life has no position on contraception. Ultimately, no form of contraception is perfect though. Unplanned pregnancies still happen. If we’re only throwing contraception at the problem, what happens in the cases where contraception fails?

Put simply by Michael Jay Tucker, editorial advisor for OBGYN.net, “If the anti-abortion movement took a tenth of the energy they put into noisy theatrics and devoted it to improving the lives of children who have been born into lives of poverty, violence, and neglect, they could make a world shine.”

Improving the lives of children who have been born into difficult circumstances is extremely important, and most pro-lifers I know are involved in other charity organizations. But, as a pro-life organization and movement, we also focus on the thousands of children who lose their lives daily, before they are even given a chance for their circumstances to be improved.