The Canadian Centre for Bioethical Reform posted a video on YouTube a couple months back about their Reproductive “Choice” Campaign. We tried to blog about it, but YouTube had taken the video down by the time our post went live.
The CCBR has it up on Vimeo now.
Stephanie Gray is pretty awesome.
Andrea Mrozek from ProWomanProLife has a great post up that involves a brief reflection on Teresa Hartnett’s talk at the de Veber conference at UofT (both were speakers):
Yesterday I heard a very wonderful woman speak at the de Veber conference. Her name was Teresa Hartnett, and wow, I just found her captivating and inspiring for her strong compassionate presence, her words, her expertise in counselling women considering abortion. She’s been doing it for over 20 years at Birthright Pregnancy Services in Hamilton.
She spoke of her work as making a bridge between that catastrophic moment for a woman when she realizes she is pregnant and considers it truly to be the end of her own life and later on, to a future she can’t yet see. She can’t see it in her fear and concern. But Teresa spoke of making this bridge–to the point where she could see that her life will not end, that there is support, that there are true and meaningful choices.
I’m not sure whether to be delighted or horrified.
And, what do you know… yet another YouTube sub-genre: babies and kids imitating Beyonce.
Ok. Horrified.
Alex Schadenberg, President of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, highlights all sorts of problems with recent polls in Quebec suggesting that a majority of Canadians support legalizing euthanasia.
The problem is that the issue is often presented in polls as a simple “right to die,” ignoring the difference between euthanasia and a right to refuse medical treatment (which already exists), and glazing over potential concerns about abuse and pressure that come all too naturally with such a system.
In March 2005 EPC participated in an Angus Reid survey of 1122 participants from across Canada. Our polling found that the responses of Canadians changed based on the context of the question.
Our poll included a series of ten questions. The first question we asked resulted in a similar support for assisted suicide as the recent poll. We then asked eight further questions with the tenth question being a near restatement of the first question. The response to the tenth question was: 45% of Canadians supported the legalization of assisted suicide, 39% of Canadians opposed the legalization of assisted suicide while 16% were undecided. In other words, when people have a chance to think about assisted suicide with respect to its related issues within societal context then the support for assisted suicide drops.
The response to the some of the other questions were very interesting.
- 77% believed that vulnerable Canadians might be euthanised without consent, even with safeguards in place.
- 75% believed that recent assisted suicide cases are not reason enough to change the current law.
- 69% believed that the law should discourage suicide by restricting the promotion of devices and methods.
- 67% believed that legalizing assisted suicide would increase the suicide rate.
- 54% believed that guaranteeing pain control and good hospice care was a higher priority than legalizing euthanasia or assisted suicide.
- 69% are more concerned about protecting vulnerable Canadians than legalizing assisted suicide while 16% were undecided.
It is important to note that our poll showed that the majority of Canadians were more concerned about protecting vulnerable Canadians and guaranteeing pain control and good hospice care rather than legalizing assisted suicide.
Therefore the real support for euthanasia or assisted suicide can only be determined once it has been placed within a social context.
Whether or not you’re left believing any of the numbers, the important take-away seems to be that context is key to any polling on these issues, especially when there are some many complicated factors involved that aren’t well known by the majority of Canadians. Be skeptical of any polling without adequate context, and be aware of the context that’s being provided.
Anything that Andrea Mrozek is speaking at is automatically worth attending. Even beyond that simple fact, it’s an all-star line-up.
National Pro-Life Conference 2009
- Andrea Mrozek
- Rev. Dr. James Lamb
- Alex Schadenberg: Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.
- Rod Bruinooge
- Ezra Levant
- Dr. Larry Reynolds
- John Henry Westen
- Renee Schmitz
- Leah Hallman
- Fr. Louis DiRocco
- Samantha Singson
This is a great opportunity for all Saskatchewan pro-lifers and those interested in the pro-life movement to hear some excellent speakers. The conference committee expects a great response from the people of Saskatchewan. Let’s make this the best convention! Saskatchewan Pro-Life and Saskatoon will be ready to welcome you on October 29, 30 and 31st, 2009.
This looks like an amazing conference. Now, how can I get to Saskatoon in October…
We’ll be participating in both the UTSU Clubs fair event on Friday, September 3rd (1-4pm) and the SMCSU Clubs showcase on the evening of September 5th (5-7pm). Hope to see you there!
You can find out about these events and more on our calendar.
This is too funny not to post:
I read the column this morning at home and when I was standing on the subway I noticed a woman sitting near me reading the Post who glanced toward that article, rolled her eyes and turned the page. I should have gone back to reading my magazine but I decided to open my mouth. I said to her that she when she got the chance she should read the “well-written and thought-provoking article on the ‘abortion distortion’,” to which she replied that “Andrea and Renita [sic] are funny names for men.” I corrected her, “Andrea Mrozek and Rebecca Walberg are co-founders of the ProWomanProLife blog.” The woman said they were a front for men or perhaps men using female pseudonyms. I said it was sexist to believe that political views are determined by biology and returned to my Economist. Further discussion would be fruitless.
Pro-life? Must be men. Wait, female names? Pseudonyms.
Priceless. You’ve got to read their responses!
(By the way, the article — The Abortion Distortion — is definitely worth reading.)
I don’t know a lot about the experience of trying to adopt a child in Canada, except that it’s hard. Which is probably why a lot of couples look to agencies like Imagine Adoption to find children abroad. This is old news, but many couples were left hanging when the agency filed for bankruptcy a few weeks back. I won’t comment much on the particulars of the situation, but it just struck me that in all the talk about the perils of adopting abroad, there’s no talk about why there aren’t many children to adopt here.
There’s no talk about abortion.
“The deep desire by Westerners to become parents” is apparently totally disconnected from Westerner’s reliance on abortion to not become parents. I wish someone would examine that relationship.
There seems to be no shortage of Canadian parents looking for children to adopt. We tend to recommend killing the unwanted instead.
From LifeSiteNews (via AmP):
General Electric has announced that it will use embryonic stem cells provided by Geron Corporation for the purpose of testing toxic effects of drug treatments.
GE issued a statement, attempting to preempt criticism over the decision, saying, “We acknowledge the considerable debate and take very seriously the ethical and societal issues associated with research using stem cells derived from embryonic or fetal tissue.”
“We conduct our research in an ethically and scientifically responsible manner,” the statement said.
Let’s try that again slowly, with a little inconvenient truth injected into the middle.
“We acknowledge the considerable debate and take very seriously the ethical and societal issues…” So, we’re going to destroy human beings instead of testing on lab rats. “We conduct our research in an ethically… responsible manner.”
Nice one, GE.
It’s a good day to be a lab rat.
Or to buy a People for the Ethical Treatment of People shirt from ProWomanProLife, “because you wouldn’t treat a dog like this…”
It is unfortunately common for people to be against abortion, but make exceptions for cases like rape, incest, or the health (not necessarily “life”) of the mother. It’s unfortunate because it’s an incoherent position.
If the unborn is not a human person, then no justification for elective abortion is necessary. But if the unborn is a human person, then no justification for elective abortion is adequate. How would the way in which a person came to be change the way that we should treat them, and whether or not we can kill them? These exceptional cases may be emotionally, psychologically or even practically complex, but they are not morally complex.
Matthew Warner offers his opinion on those who attempt to be pro-life with exceptions:
I think there are two explanations for these walking contradictions. The first is that they are not actually pro-life and do not actually believe that an unborn human being is an unborn human being. However, they call themselves “pro-life” because their personal preferences happen to align with that of pro-lifers (except, of course, for their exceptions). They may believe they are pro-life, but they are such because it’s convenient and not because they first believe that every human person should be treated with dignity and respect for their individual right to life.
The second is that they refuse or are unable to reconcile the conflict between their belief in an objective right to life of every human person with their emotion associated with a particularly challenging situation. There are no doubt some extremely difficult situations people find themselves in after traumatic, horrifying events like rape and incest. And certainly when a loved one’s health hangs in the balance, I can understand the emotion involved, too.
It’s not our place to judge these people. However, it is our place to stand up for any innocent people who may get trampled on in the process.
The good news is that it doesn’t have to be so hard for these people. Most of these emotional situations are made much worse because the mothers, and often the doctors, are very uninformed as to what options are actually available. On a larger scale, many who subscribe to these exceptions do so because they have been badly misinformed and lied to about the reality of such emotional situations.
Many justify their entire reason for the need for legal abortions as to save the life of the mother. They picture a mother who is faced with a decision: To have this baby and die, or abort this baby and live. Of course, even if this situation was entirely plausible, we are not justified in intentionally killing an innocent human being. However, the truth is that it’s not a real situation. It’s one made up by abortion advocates to maintain a shred of credibility in the imaginations of American emotionals.
Others make similar types of arguments for cases where they think the unborn baby suffers from some disability or will suffer and live a short life after birth. Yet again, these are situations fueled by half-truths, short-sightedness, and hopelessness.
There’s also a good debate in the comments at Fallible Blogma, but to dig deeper, check out the article upon which Matthew bases his post:
“Is Late-term Abortion Ever Necessary?“… sheds a lot of light on these difficult emotional challenges that so many imagine make exception for horror.
Blaise Alleyne
Clarissa Luluquisin