9 comments

  1. SUZANNE says:

    I find that many pro-lifers are missing another point: depriving mothers of information about their unborn children is a violation of parental rights. It’s also contradictory for pro-lifers to push information, e.g. nature of abortion and fetal development, as the way to get women to not have abortions, but then deprive them of that information when it comes to sex selection abortion. It is also ridiculous to deprive 99.9% of the population information about their unborn child for the miniscule percentage of people who might have a sex-selection abortion. It’s comparable to patting down every single person in airport security, regardless of their likelihood to commit terrorism, even though we know the problem is within specific communities.

  2. Master Wooten says:

    Well this country is the “Wild West” when it comes to abortion. Anyone can have one irrespective of age, mental capacity, consent of the partner or how far gone they are. Technically a woman can abort a baby even if she is at the point of delivery so long as she can find someone depraved enough to do it. So of course people are going to use this country’s lack of regulation on abortions for ill use such as “after the fact” contraception and sex-selective abortion. I guess for the pro-abortion folks this is but a small price to pay for the “right” to kill one’s baby.

    When one hears of cases like Susan Smith in South Carolina who drowned her children back in 1994 so as to get with an old flame, one can’t blame those who aren’t so shocked, who see how this kind of thinking develops. After all killing children pre-born or post-birth is only a matter of degrees. Its all about what kind of killing we are willing to put up with. For instance, in 1976 we as a society decided that we were no longer willing to execute fellons convicted of first degree murder.

    I’m not one who believes that laws change mens hearts or that legislation adds or decimates humanity where it exists or doesn’t exist. Laws however do tell the world at large what kind of people a society is really comprised of notwithstanding its own propaganda.

  3. Denny Lama says:

    First off I should state that I am am pro-choice as it offers a choice as opposed to pro-life which would offer no choice.
    That said, I could not abort a human life ad all life is precious but I am not so self righteous as to think that only ideology is correct. There wasn’t any thought of abortion when our daughter who really could not afford a child at that time got pregnant. Of course it was of no consequence of the sex and any such thought is disposable.
    Prejudice re: sex will play itself out with second and third generations and does not require further legislation. I thought the Sun was against gov’t intrusion.

  4. Kim says:

    I can see why an anti-choice, hard left columnist would publically find the CMAJ position on abortion incoherent. Nevertheless society draws lines of acceptability in the sand all the time and Mr. Lilley knows this full well. The issueof abortion based on sex is worth some sober thought and discussion but it does not change the existing laws around abortion. That issue has been decided in Canada and is over and done in spite of a hard line, and extreme fringe that would like to roll back the clock to the dark age of back alley abortions.

  5. SD says:

    While I respect that you are pro-life, I think there are a couple viable reasons why one might opt for abortion. The reasons I am mainly thinking of are rape and teen pregnancy (in that, they are in a situation where they cannot raise a child).

    However, I agree with you in that aborting a child for the reason that they are not the right gender seems wrong. It seems in the same vein as aborting a child because they are not going to have the hair colour the parents want (not that I have heard of this happening. Just a ‘what if’). That excuse appears more like an excuse of vanity it seems (unlike getting an abortion because one was raped and became pregnant which, I believe, is a justifiable reason).

    In other words, up until those last couple paragraphs, I agree with you. Things, though, are not as black and white as that.

  6. Marion says:

    I think it is interesting that Suzanne is both for providing all information regarding the gender of the unborn child to the mother but also against pro-life advocates describing to the mother each stage of development of the baby inside the mother’s womb. That is an obvious contradiction of terms. Upfront I will say that I am against abortion. I find it extremely sad that we in Canada will speak out loudly and demand our rights to be heard, but yet refuse to speak out for the rights of all pre-born Canadian children. I can say this with confidence because the latest statistics attest that 3 million Canadian babies have been aborted since the abortion law in Canada was struck down. Of course since these tiny little boys and girls had no voice, no ability to vote, no powerful lobby group, apparently no-one in Ottawa cared enough to bring legislation forward to protect them. I emigrated to Canada because I thought it was the greatest country in the world, but I am disillusioned because a country that allows the abortion of its’ own children with absolutely no laws to protect those pre-born children right up until the day of delivery is a country in need of a conscience. Canada has to step up to the plate and recognize the rights of those who have no voice, and who is more vulnerable and in need of protection than a tiny, helpless, human baby inside the womb? If someone kills a newborn they are charged with murder, but if someone aborts the day before the delivery, a full term baby that has not come out of the birth canal, that is legal in Canada. It is either always a baby or never a baby, no magical transformation happens in the birth canal. If it is a baby on Monday it is a baby on Sunday. It is shocking to me that people say “It is a woman’s right to choose.” I would say it is a baby’s right to be born and to be protected along the journey. Women need to be supported when they are pregnant, we as a society need to encourage the beautiful gift of life, and to help those distressed by unplanned pregnancies. It is not a question of taking the side of the mother or the child, they are both Canadians and they both need the support of the government. It may be more financially viable to abort a baby than to bring it into the world, but with love and support that baby will grow to become a contributing member of our society, and planning for the long term will prove to be the more financially viable choice. There is no reason for our politicians to avoid taking a stand to protect the pre-born children of this nation other than their own lack of a moral compass and their obvious lack of a true vision for the future of Canada.

  7. Master Wooten says:

    Again the question to the so called “choice” advocates as evidenced in this article is whether or not it is acceptible for Canada to be used as a destination for peoples to engage in sex-selective abortions? More succinctly, do you believe that we should allow people to abort girls just for being girls because their culture says so?

    If this in anyway troubles you then you’re gonna have to reconcile your belief in a “woman’s right to choose” with sex selective abortions, particularly in this an increasingly multicultural society where a sustantial number of our new commers are coming from nations where boys are valued over girls.

    When women have the “choice” to kill their children then the reason why they kill their children is also their choice. Hence if a number of Chinese or Indian Canadian women for example “choose” to kill their unborn female children then absent any legislation to the contry, there’s precious little we as a society can do about it. Then that practice becomes a Canadian practice as well.

    Just saying!

  8. Kim says:

    For the anti-choice out there, recent research suggests that abortion rates drop in countries where abortions are legal. This flies in the face of what one would expect but it goes to show these issues are far from black and white.

  9. Master Wooten says:

    “recent research suggests that abortion rates drop in countries where abortions are legal.”

    The problem with this “nothing stat” other than the fact that you didn’t source it is this, where abortions are illegal yet still performed, how do you know that the reported rates are accurate? Stats on illegal activities are rarely if ever accurate. This means that you cannot compare abortion rates between jurisdictions where there is a difference in the legality of abortion, especially when you cannot rely on the stats from jurisdictions where it is illegal.

    Another problem with your statement is that it assumes that the legality of abortion results in a decrease in the number of women wanting to terminate a pregnancy. Again this is not proven to be the case.

    So not only are these issues grey as you rightly point out, so too is the point that you attempted to make.

Comments are closed.