#AbortionIsNotHealthCare

By Rebecca Richmond 
abortion is not healthcare2

Recently the Canadian Medical Association Journal (CMAJ) bemoaned inequalities in abortion access in Canada and today, recently elected Premier Brian Gallant announced a change in regulations that would improve access to abortion in New Brunswick, fulfilling his election promise to do so. Both the Premier and the CMAJ refer to reproductive “care”, “services”, and “health procedures”, and neither question what this “care”, “services”, and “health procedures” actually consists of.
As someone who grew up in a rural area, I know that access to health care is a concern. My town has a great hospital, but anything requiring surgery or even delivering babies required a bit of a drive or a ride in the helicopter. So for the more vulnerable members of rural communities, access to health care is a real legitimate concern and certainly a legitimate election issue.
I am all for improving access to important medical services and health care generally in Canada and in New Brunswick specifically. But both the Canadian Medical Association and the Premier of New Brunswick should remember that the reality shrouded by words like “reproductive services” and “termination of pregnancy” is the killing of a human being. Abortion might be a ‘procedure’ or ‘service’, but it constitutes lethal violence against the smallest and most vulnerable Canadians.
So, to the Canadian Medical Association and to Premier Gallant we say, please do improve access to health care, but #AbortionIsNotHealthCare
Share Button

uOttawa Students For Life: Female Feticide

This post was written for uOttawa Students For Life by uOttawa Students For Life. It does not necessarily represent the views of NCLN.

From Aborting Women’s Rights:

So prevalent is this trend that the delicate balance required to maintain healthy populations is becoming badly skewed. According to an article in The New Atlantis:

“The practice has become so ruthlessly routine in many contemporary societies that it has impacted their very population structures, warping the balance between male and female births and consequently skewing the sex ratios for the rising generation toward a biologically unnatural excess of males. This still-growing international predilection for sex-selective abortion is by now evident in the demographic contours of dozens of countries around the globe – and it is sufficiently severe that it has come to alter the overall sex ratio at birth of the entire planet, resulting in millions upon millions of new ‘missing baby girls’ each year. In terms of its sheer toll in human numbers, sex-selective abortion has assumed a scale tantamount to a global war against baby girls.”

When feminists talk about abortion, they do so in terms of women’s rights. Legalized abortion empowers women, they assert, because it puts them in control over their bodies; it gives them the choice whether or not to bear a child who has been conceived. What these proponents of “liberty” fail to consider, however, is that in many cases women are “choosing” abortion at the behest of someone else. Cultural pressures, fear of retaliation, and other factors are driving them to end the lives of their unborn children because daughters are deemed undesirable. Thus, abortion is being used as an instrument of oppression against females, not as a tool of liberation.

No doubt abortion advocates would argue that it is not abortion that is at fault here, but backward cultures that are misusing the tools of liberty in order to further their misogynistic agendas. Third world abortion might be an abusive, repugnant phenomenon, but that says nothing about its use in the western world. Such logic is nothing short of delusional. When it comes to questions of life and death, there is little gray area. You are either an advocate of life, a supporter of inherent human dignity, or you aren’t. You can’t justify the killing of the unborn the name “choice” and then complain when others exercise that choice in ways you find objectionable.

So this leaves the feminists of the west in somewhat of a pickle. What will they make of these new demographic trends? Will they stick to their guns and defend the use of abortion even as a tool of gender-based infanticide? Will they attempt to somehow construct a “morality of abortion” in which only certain motivations for the procedure are deemed justifiable? Will they evade the issue altogether?

For the sake of millions of unborn women around the world, here’s hoping this trend puts some pressure the pro-abortion movement to reconsider the implications of their inhuman and inhumane conception of human “rights.”


Read the comments at the uOttawa Students For Life website.