If you're one of the three or four people who read my blog, you
might have noticed a number of posts about abortion in the last week
or two, where previously there were none. I am staunchly pro-life. I
have a number of friends who are pro-life activists in this community.
Some of them got on TV and the radio two weeks ago for their
counter-demonstration at the so-called "women's rights" march. I
stand by them. But I am not formally affiliated with any pro-life
organization. Simply put, it isn't my "thing"; I don't
define myself as a "pro-life activist" or a "pro-Macintosh
activist" or a "Protestant activist" or anything else I happen to have
strong views about. But thanks to the marches held in Washington and
elsewhere last month, as well as a few soundbites from the media, this
is a subject that has been on my mind.
A friend of mine drew my attention to an online
"breaking news" story on yesterday's Globe and Mail
Web site. This article is a particularly egregious example of the
sort of typically bad pro-abortion rhetoric I've been highlighting
over the last few days. I suppose that because of the length of this
post, it sort of represents my "coming out," as it were, as an
outspoken pro-life advocate.
The article purports to be an editorial "comment" by someone named
Peter Wilson, about a new abortion-rights advocacy group, Canadians
for Choice. Interestingly, when you get to the bottom of the article,
you see the following byline:
Peter Wilson, director of communications with the
Nunavut Planning Commission, is a member of Canadians for Choice
steering committee.
In other words, it's not a balanced news report by a disinterested
reporter, nor is it an op-ed piece by a commentator who happens to
agree with the goals of Canadians for Choice. Essentially, it is a
press release to further the aims of this organization, prepared by
someone who helps set its agenda. It is, in short, advertising
masquerading as journalism. (I am hopeful that since the "story"
is Web-exclusive content, its readership is only marginally higher
than my own.)
The article begins:
The establishment this month of a new pro-choice
group in Canada signals a new era in abortion-rights activism. Like
other human-rights struggles before it, the challenges today are more
about funding, education and awareness than about protests or court
battles.
Make note of the wording. This is an
other human-rights struggle. Wilson is trying to cast the
argument for abortion rights in the same light as the fight for racial
equality, as his following anecdote (about his witnessing a black
family discriminated against in a Georgia gas station) demonstrates.
He closes the story:
I am reminded of this story now, so many years
later and so far away, because it parallels the struggle for abortion
rights in Canada. That struggle has emerged victorious from its own
black days, only to be faced with the challenge of getting through the
final locked door.
Wilson is right: The debate over abortion is a debate
over human rights - only not in the way he claims it is.
In 1857, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down the decision in the
infamous Dred Scott v. Sandford case, in which Scott, a
black man who had lived in free territory and then moved to the slave
state of Missouri, sought to be recognized as a free man. The Supreme
Court ruled that Scott was property and therefore not
entitled to protection under law. When the Founding Fathers had
written in the Declaration of Independence that "all men are created
equal," they had not had black persons in mind. Effectively, Scott
was not a person.
The situation is practically identical for the unborn today: under
law, they are effectively not considered human persons and therefore
are not entitled to equal protection under law.
But this is the crucial issue in the abortion debate. What,
exactly, are the unborn? Basic biology, the principle of biogenesis,
states that they are human beings. People who reproduce make more
people, who for the first nine months of their existence are small,
undeveloped, and dependent upon the environment of their mother's womb
for their survival. This is a no-brainer, or at least it ought to be.
Dred Scott was later overturned by the Emancipation
Proclamation. Today, black people are entitled to equal treatment
under law because of who and what they are: human persons.
Similarly, the unborn ought to be entitled to equal protection under
law, including the right to life, because of who and what they are:
human persons.
By contrast, Wilson makes a completely irrelevant comparison. He
compares equality under law for black people (based on who they
are) to the right of women to have an abortion (based on what
they do). This is apples and oranges. And it is based on a
false premise. There is no absolute right for a woman to do what she
wants; in fact, there are plenty of laws on the books describing
actions that people may not do.
The Dred Scott case is rightly recognized today for
the sophistry it was. We can only hope that in time, more and more
people will come to recognize the obvious when it comes to the unborn,
as well.
Wilson's screed continues:
From the time of Confederation until 1969,
abortion was a criminal act; women bled to death or died of infections
as a result of desperate coat-hanger attempts to end unwanted
pregnancies.
Sooner or later you can usually count on the pro-abortionists to
trot out the old standby, the "botched illegal back alley abortion"
argument.
Let's note right from the start that this argument falls apart on
first principles. It assumes that a fetus is not an unborn human
person. Thus it sidesteps the real issue: whether it is justifiable
for one person to take the life of another, and therefore a "safe and
legal" environment ought to be created for the act. (We could argue,
on equal logical grounds, that that since a man who assaults his wife
runs the risk of having his manhood sliced off or waking up to find
his bed on fire, the government ought to set up publicly-funded
"discipline centres" where he can administer "physical correction" in
a safe environment. This, of course, is idiotic.)
This is an emotionally compelling argument, because no one wants
to see women die at the hands of a quack. The problem is, it's not
true. It probably never was. Abortion rights activists would have us
believe that before abortion became "safe and legal," thousands upon
thousands of women died in botched illegal back alley abortions. It
"preaches well," but the numbers simply don't add up.
If the claim were true, for example, then starting in 1973 or
thereabouts, we would expect to see a sharp drop in the number of
deaths due to illegal abortions. There is no such drop - at
least, not in 1973. This drop actually takes place in the 1940s.
Why? Because contrary to popular belief (and pro-abortion
propaganda), the vast majority of illegal abortions were not
conducted in back alleys with bent coat hangers. They were done by
respectable (though lawbreaking) doctors in offices and clinics. The
drop in the death rate can be attributed to the widespread use of
better antibiotics as well as general improvements in surgical
technique and technology. As a result, the death rate due to illegal
abortions dropped more or less steadily. In 1972, the year before
Roe v. Wade made abortion on demand "safe and legal" for
any reason or none, the number of deaths attributed to illegal
abortions was - get this - 39. Since only a tiny minority
of illegal abortions were performed outside of the doctor's office,
the number of deaths attributable to "botched back-alley abortions"
would be smaller still.
There were no "desperate coat-hanger attempts" - at
least, not in any quantity that would precipitate a crisis for which
abortion on demand was the solution. Peter Wilson is fearmongering.
What about the commonly believed claim that 5 to 10,000 women died
because of botched abortions in 1972? Bernard Nathanson was one of
the founders of the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL).
He later repudiated his support for abortion and became a pro-life
activist. According to him, the number was a complete fabrication,
which was maintained because it was useful to the pro-abortion cause.
In his book The Hand of God, Nathanson writes, "There
were perhaps three hundred or so deaths from criminal abortions
annually in the United States in the sixties, but NARAL in its press
releases claimed to have data that supported a figure of five
thousand" (Nathanson, The Hand of God [Washington:
Regnery, 1996] 90-91; see also Aborting America [New
York: Doubleday, 1979] 193).
After a brief history of the pro-abortion-rights movement in
Canada, Wilson sums up the current situation with the following:
Today, abortion is safe, legal and publicly
funded in Canada. But too many women are still facing a final locked
door. A CARAL study last year concluded that more than four out of
five Canadian hospitals do not perform abortions. In Prince Edward
Island not a single hospital provided the service. Across the
Prairies, women can obtain abortions in only 5 per cent of hospitals.
Finding a hospital that performs abortions is hard enough, but in
many cases that's just the first of many obstacles. Gestation limits
range from 10 to 23 weeks, CARAL found, noting that inconsistencies
exist even within individual hospitals. In New Brunswick, in direct
contravention of the law, the approval of two doctors is
required. . . .
This isn't a Georgia gas station we're running here; the Canada
Health Act is supposed to ensure accessibility, and shouldn't be
undermined by the personal bias of front-line employees behind the
counters of our community hospitals.
Wouldn't a consistent "pro-choice" position not only allow women
to choose to have an abortion if she wishes, but also allow doctors to
choose whether to perform them? Would it not also mean that those who
choose to have an abortion are the same ones who choose to pay for the
procedure? This is why I have consistently refused throughout this
article to refer to Peter Wilson and his views as "pro-choice." He
and "Canadians for Choice," for whom he presumably speaks, are
pro-abortion. They will whine at the label, but it is true.
For Wilson, "pro-choice" means allowing pregnant women to murder
unborn persons for any reason or none. It means obliging doctors to
perform those abortions, whether they choose to or not. It means
obliging hospitals to accommodate them, whether they choose to or not.
It means requiring taxpayers to fund them, whether they choose to or
not. And, of course, the unborn persons being murdered get no choice
at all.
Remember that the next time you hear Wilson or his fellow
activists call the pro-life position "extreme."
Update: At the time of writing (very early Saturday morning), apparently there are a whopping two people who took notice of this piece in the entire blogosphere. Unfortunately, CathieFromCanada takes the opposite position.