fbpx
National Campus Life Network > Articles by: prolifepharmacist

University of Toronto Students for Life: The wonders of “choice”

This post was written for University of Toronto Students for Life by prolifepharmacist. It does not necessarily represent the views of NCLN.

Granted, this case from the Ottawa Citizen is not representative of every woman seeking an abortion, but it does raise the question of, “What constitutes choice?”. Here are some highlights from the article:

Anna, first, asked her mother whether she would help her, if she had the baby. Her mother flatly refused, saying, “I do not want to waste my life babysitting.” Her male partner said he “wasn’t interested in a kid” and their relationship has since broken up. She tried to get an appointment with her gynecologist to discuss her options, but the first available one was two months away. She then contacted an abortion clinic, which gave her an appointment in two weeks, at which time Anna was nine weeks pregnant. She said, “I went to them to get information on abortion, to know more about my options, the consequences of an abortion. I was open to getting an abortion, because that was what everyone around me recommended I do. I saw abortion as an option, but was really not sure. I was hoping for some answers.”

What answers did Anna (not real name) get?

Anna met, first, with a nurse for a “consent interview.” She said, “The nurse told me that at this stage of the pregnancy the fetus is just a bunch of cells. I also asked her if the abortion would have any impact on my health, my future pregnancies, and so on. She said abortions had no impact at all, no consequences at all, that all that I had read (to the contrary) were myths. The nurse said, ‘In two weeks, it will be as if all this never happened’.”

Anna changed into a hospital gown and was taken into an examination room where a technician proceeded to do an ultrasound. Anna asked what the fetus looked like and could she see the ultrasound. She said, “The technician told me she was not allowed to show me the images and I was unable to see the screen,” which showed the fetus. At nine weeks gestation, it would have had a beating heart. The technician then picked up the printout of the ultrasound, but dropped it on the floor. She scrambled to gather it up quickly, saying, “You don’t want to see this.” But that’s exactly what Anna did want.

So, Anna was told that her 9-week old baby was just a “bunch of cells”, that after 2 weeks she will be as good as new and she did not have to worry herself with those pesky ultrasound images. That’s great information! Choice wins the day! But all kidding aside, this girl wanted information and was not given any so she had an abortion.

Anna said that “the attitude in Quebec, that ‘of course you should have an abortion, it is of no consequence’, is not true.” She explained, “I feel terrible. I can’t go to work. I’ve started seeing a psychologist. I feel guilty.” She mused, “I wonder why Quebec is like this.”

It’s not just Quebec. These lies about abortion travel all over the world. This is not a case of a woman exercising her choice to have an abortion, this is a case of a woman who did not have support and felt that abortion was her only chance. And, since she was told abortion was more like getting your tonsils removed than the killing of a human being, she thought “what’s the harm?”. I wonder how many more woman there are like Anna, who experienced the wonders of “choice”.


Read the comments at the University of Toronto Students for Life website.

University of Toronto Students for Life: Heart beat = Viagra…

This post was written for University of Toronto Students for Life by prolifepharmacist. It does not necessarily represent the views of NCLN.

…or at least that how it seems in Ohio (kind of makes sense since Viagra was first used to treat hypertension, but I digress). Here is this piece of non-sense as reported by the National Post:

Ohio State Senator Nina Turner is taking aim at the multitude of reproductive rights bills that have made waves in the United States this year — 430 thus far, by MSNBC’s count — by sponsoring a bill of her own: One that would force men to meet with sex therapists before being prescribed Viagra and other erectile dysfunction medications.

Really, Turner’s beef is with Ohio’s House Bill 125, the “Heartbeat Bill”, which would not allow for an abortion to take place once the heart beat of the unborn child is detected. I guess having guys chat it up with a sex therapist before getting their Viagra is “levelling the playing field” against those neanderthals trying to save babies’ lives. Maybe Turner is also of the same clan who compare vaginal probes to rape, even though they are widely used on women before undergoing an abortion.

This quote was interesting:

“Women should not need a permission slip from government to take care of their own reproductive health.”

And unborn babies should not have the government compare their lives to erectile dysfunctions. This just goes to show what kind of lunacy can be accepted when you deny the personhood of the unborn child.


Read the comments at the University of Toronto Students for Life website.

University of Toronto Students for Life: Killing babies the same as abortion: Experts

This post was written for University of Toronto Students for Life by prolifepharmacist. It does not necessarily represent the views of NCLN.

Really? I thought that’s what pro-lifers have been saying for the last little while, but don’t trust us! Trust the experts!

Seriously, though, this article in the British Medical Journal is callous. It really goes to show what kind of mentality arises when there is no respect for life. What stood out for me is that for a medical journal article there is a lot of talk about “personhood”, which is really a philosophical issue instead of a scientific one. And in terms of verbal gymnastics, check out this little somersault on the issue:

we propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’, rather than ‘infanticide’,
to emphasise that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus (on which ‘abortions’ in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child.

Disgusting. In order to feel better about the killing of a newborn they use the euphemism of “after-birth abortion” rather than “infanticide”. Not only does it lessen the personhood of the newborn, it sounds nicer too. Win Win! Again, I ask why is there talk of moral status of an individual in a scientific journal? How can you perform experiments in a lab regarding personhood?

Science already has a term to describe a fetus, a newborn and a child: Human life.


Read the comments at the University of Toronto Students for Life website.

University of Toronto Students for Life: Unfinished business part 2: Why oppose abortion

This post was written for University of Toronto Students for Life by prolifepharmacist. It does not necessarily represent the views of NCLN.

This comment was sent a couple of months ago. After the fantastic debate we had last Monday, I thought it would be good to go through the points:

What makes a cluster of cells inside a woman’s fetus any more “human” than say, a grouping of skin cells that was just scratched off my back? What makes this argument a fallacy is that a zygote does not have the ability to feel pain, suffering, or especially consciousness. What makes killing a human fetus anymore “evil” than a protist. Neither can think, and in fact I would argue that in order for a body to really be considered living it has to be able to live on its own.

The skin cells that were scratched off your back are not new human beings…just cells with the same genetic makeup as your other skin cells. Zygotes constitute a new human entity, irreplaceable and unrepeatable in time and space.

Since when does feeling pain, suffering or consciousness have anything to do with whether someone is a person or not (I assume you are attacking the personhood argument since you seem to conclude that the fetus is human)? The ability to feel pain or suffering does not determine personhood. It should never be defined based on abilities or faculties because what would we call a person in a coma? Not a person at that point?

The ability of the fetus to live on his own is not determined by his stage in life but rather by the technological advances in society. For example, an unborn child at 24 weeks can survive with the technology we have at our disposal that we would not have had decades ago. This does not mean that the present day unborn child at 24 weeks is more of a person than he would have been 40 years ago because it is technology that has changed, not the unborn.

The reasons that people come up with to support the non-choice of abortion are almost always based in religion. From a completely unbiased and non-religious view, abortion is no more wrong than squishing an ant (I would argue it’s MUCH less wrong). It would be like suggesting that no sperm or egg should ever go wasted and that it should be illegal NOT to have kids every chance you get (eg. no masterbating).
Your argument is completely fallous and deeply rooted in (very wrong) religion. There is absolutely no reason to suggest killing a fetus is evil. I personally think that it is immortal to deny a woman any choice in the matter.

You are a little all over the place in this next part but I will do my best to sift through it. Sperm and eggs have 23 chromosomes; the unborn have 46 chromosomes. I got this from a biology textbook, not the Bible. Therefore, you cannot equivocate the killing of the unborn to wasting eggs and sperm. They are different biologically. Also, read my post again. I did not mention any religious arguments so I am not sure how you can say the abortion debate is deeply rooted in religion.

To close, the fact that the fetus is human (and I’m pretty sure you agree with me on that) provides a reason as to why abortion can be considered evil. I hope you give it some more thought.


Read the comments at the University of Toronto Students for Life website.

University of Toronto Students for Life: Reminder: Abortion debate Monday!

This post was written for University of Toronto Students for Life by prolifepharmacist. It does not necessarily represent the views of NCLN.

Just so you have no excuses, here is the time and location for the debate “Abortion: Human Right or Human Rights Violation?”:

Monday, March 14, 2011

7:00pm

Bahen Centre for Information Technology Room 1170

40 St. George Street

Toronto, ON

The Bahen Building is located near the St. George Street and College Street intersection. Seats will probably fill up fast so get there as early as you can!

This intellectual tussle between Stephanie Gray and Donald Ainslie (his course has been highlighted on this blog before) will prove to be captivating on this hot-button issue of abortion.

We at UTSFL hope you are as excited as we are! This will be a fantastic night so don’t miss it!


Read the comments at the University of Toronto Students for Life website.