Anything worth talking about, is worth blogging about

Blog for Choice 2009 #2

Blog for choice day 2009

Blog for choice day 2009

It’s January 28, and on this day in 1988, the Supreme Court issued its decision in R. v. Morgentaler, which struck down federal laws on abortion. Since then, Canada has had no laws regarding abortion. The decision has been compared to the American Roe v. Wade, though the issues and facts of law and are more similar to Doe v. Bolton. Although Blog for Choice is organized by NARAL Pro-Choice America, I have decided to do an unofficial second blog for choice day 2009 because I am a Canadian.

Banning abortions has nearly no impact on the abortion rate. Women will find other ways to get one if they are desperate. Well-off women will go to somewhere where it is legal and get it. Not well-off women, they are the real victims. They will end up maimed or dead from back-alley abortions. If you say unsafe abortions are a “myth” invented by the pro-choice movement, take a look at this extremely graphic photograph and say it again honest from your heart with a straight face. Legalized abortion does not have much of an impact on the abortion rate; what it does is make it safe.

Even some people who personally oppose abortion acknowledge this. According to Wikipedia, Elizabeth May, leader of the federal Green Party, has stated that she is “against abortion” and does not “think a woman has a frivolous right to choose” and that she “talked women out of abortions.” And yet May also realizes that despite her personal opposition to it, abortion needs to be legal because “[i]f we make them illegal, women will die”.

Abortion: it saves women. That’s one of the reasons why I support pro-choicers. And why you should be too.

Image is from NARAL Pro-choice America.

Advertisements

Comments on: "Blog for Choice 2009 #2" (2)

  1. Steve Greenwood said:

    I understand that abortions may be safer for some women, but there are still many who have these back alley versions.

    My problem with your thinking is this: If we are to adopt a moral position that says, “if you’re pregnant, but don’t want to be, we will kill your baby for you in such a way that it is safe and clean, so you can return to your life with no ill effects”, then how much longer will it be before people will want murder of living persons and euthanasia to be legalized?

    The concept is no different. If we can legally destroy unborn human life for convenience sake in the vast majority of cases, why can’t I drop Gramma off to the clinic and her aborted?

    Intellectually, the argument is the same. The only difference is that Gramma has lived a full life, having been married, had children, a career and hobbies, and the sweet, innocent unborn baby hasn’t had any of those opportunities.

    Abortion is not the answer to women remaining healthy. The answer is in a woman choosing to abstain from sexual relations. That’s the moral ground that needs to be adopted.

    I don’t believe you’ll allow this position, but to me God is the creator of life, even unwanted pregnancies resulting from rape or incest. That life should be protected as long as it can be done so without jeopardizing the life of the mother.

  2. Steve, I have a response to your comment, and I’ll make one argument in it. I can tell that you have not clicked on the link to the graphic picture I added. For the sake of those argument, I’ll consider fetuses to be persons.

    In your first point, you argue that abortion is comparable to the murder of a born person. But that is not the case because the fetus is dependent on the woman for survival. Hence, expanding the rights of the fetus means that you must restrict the rights of the woman. This creates a conflict between rights. It is better to favour the rights of the woman when she is pregnant. When a person is born, there is no longer any conflict between rights because the baby can always be put up for adoption, perhaps?

    I’d like to add that its even better to make it less costly to raise children, adoption easier (though I think children should be raised by their biological parents when possible), and easy access to birth control to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies.

Feel free to leave a reply.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: