Wednesday, 28 November 2007

Ideas that some day might grow up to be posts - vol. 1, no. 1

Having spent most of my working life writing for academic and professional journals, I find that restrictions on length or number of words are quite unwelcome. But once in a while, one wants to simply throw out some ideas without taking the time to write the usual multiple pages, as has been my life-long practice.

So in no particular order, here are some thoughts that have been bouncing around in my mind lately that may or may not one day grow up into full-blown postings.

1. The peacemaker (so called)

What is it about Americans and guns? I lived in the U.S. for two years as well as doing an open-line radio program in Washington State for another three. During that time I found that a major difference between our two cultures is that Canadians, by and large, see a very limited place for handguns, or weapons of any sort, whereas Americans seem to be in love with the things. In my time doing the radio program, only twice was I interfered with in my choice of topics. One of these was guns. And this was a Christian radio station! My producer admitted that he had three of his own.

Yet as I read American bloggers following the U.S. presidential race, I find self-proclaimed so-con spokespeople lamenting that there are candidates who are pro-abortion and anti-gun. Pardon me?

Can you imagine if Jesus had been born in the U.S. He would be criticized by the NRA for not packing heat. Peter would have been the hero for wielding that sword in the garden of Gethsemane, and Jesus would have been the bleeding heart liberal who offered free public health care.

2. The Prime Minister (so far)

Getting back to my own shores, there is an Ontario blogger who calls himself Christian Conservative. He identifies himself further as an evangelical Christian active in his local church and devoted to biblical truth. I have no criticism of this, of course. To some extent I could say the same thing about myself. But this otherwise unnamed gentleman also displays an ardent support for Stephen Harper, our Prime Minister. Has he questioned our first minister lately about his pathetic performance on the life file?

First of all, I would like to remind my Christian brother not to be too confident that the political route will get you far on issues related to the personhood and security of the unborn baby. It is not for nothing that the Bible warns us not to put our trust in princes (Cardinal Wolsey's dying words, quoting Psalm 146:3).

Beyond this, Mr. Harper has dismissed discussion of life matters with the comment that his position is too complicated to talk about. A couple of representative quotes:

a. ctv.ca, June 1, 2004

Harper admitted that although his personal view of the issue lies somewhere "in between the two extremes," he has "no intention of discussing the topic during an election." "We know different people in our party have different views on abortion and they're entitled to them. But the truth of the matter is this is an issue that could not be done at the federal level anyway. It's a matter of provincial jurisdiction," he said.

Harper said that he would oppose any bill limiting provincial funding to abortion services. How health-care funding is spent, he said, should be left to the provinces.

b. ctv.ca, January 20, 2006

Harper also believes moral issues should be a matter of individual conscience, not party policy, he (i.e., William Johnson, author of Stephen Harper and the Future of Canada) said. By not making abortion and same-sex marriage party issues, Johnson noted Harper has in effect marginalized the social conservatives. "Because the vote (on same-sex marriage) will be a free vote, and he will vote one way, yes, but the Bloc, and most of the Liberals and NDP almost to a person would oppose anything that limited abortion or same-sex marriage, it's not going to go anywhere."

It should come as no surprise, then, that Conservative backbencher Ken Epp's very important bill regarding unborn victims of crime is going the private members route. Why isn't it a government bill? Alas, it will die aborning.

3. The Pope (so tactless)

A number of Canadian bloggers with strong pro-life convictions have been urging Christians to encourage the Pope's presence at the 2008 International Eucharistic Congress in Quebec City next June. They are suggesting that this would be of great help in taking the pro-life cause forward. See, for instance, Vote Life, Canada Nov. 9/07; Stand Your Ground Nov. 9/07; The Bear Blog Nov. 9/07; and Big Blue Wave Nov. 1 and Nov. 7/07.

Now I profess great admiration for the present Pope's predecessor, John Paul II. I am beyond grateful, as well, for the leadership given by Catholics to the pro-life cause. In addition, I find at the personal level that Protestant and Catholic Christians can work arm in arm without any difficulties.

But Holy Smokes (if you'll pardon the expression in this context), this Benedict fellow is a public relations disaster.

Pope Benedict XVI blesses pilgrims during his weekly general audience in St Peter's Square at the Vatican
Pope Benedict XVI. Photograph: Vincenzo Pinto/AFP/Getty Images

Quoting from The Guardian, July 11, 2007:

Protestant churches yesterday reacted with dismay to a new declaration approved by Pope Benedict XVI insisting they were mere "ecclesial communities" and their ministers effectively phonies with no right to give communion.

The view that Protestants cannot have churches was first set out by Pope Benedict seven years ago when, as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, he headed the Vatican "ministry" for doctrine. A commentary attached to the latest text acknowledged that his 2000 document, Dominus Iesus, had caused "no little distress".

But it added: "It is nevertheless difficult to see how the title of 'Church' could possibly be attributed to [Protestant communities], given that they do not accept the theological notion of the Church in the Catholic sense and that they lack elements considered essential to the Catholic Church."

The Pope's old department, which issued the document, said its aim was to correct "erroneous or ambiguous" interpretations of the Second Vatican Council, which ended in 1965.


I mean no disrespect to the person or the office, but perhaps for the sake of ongoing cooperation between Protestants and Catholics in pro-life organizations, it might be better if the gentleman were to stay in Rome.

Monday, 26 November 2007

Who put the crisis in crisis pregnancies?

An evangelical church in greater Vancouver recently did a three-week exploration of the biblical teaching on social justice. The speaker for the first week concentrated on the needs of the world's poor. In the second week I explored the topic from the point of view of the requirements that justice places on those in positions of governance. In the third week I turned my attention to crisis pregnancies. The text that was read before the sermon was Luke 7:36-50 where a woman considered to be an outcast from polite society interrupts a dinner party given by Simon the Pharisee to wash Jesus' feet with her tears and to wipe them with her hair. Jesus accepts her love at the same time as he is being criticized by his host for his willingness to associate with her. This is the sermon.
A. INTRODUCTION
Good morning. After a professional career spent mostly in post-secondary teaching and administration, research and publishing, and in municipal politics, I have in my elder statesman years become a full-time consultant.
Much to my surprise, the Abbotsford Right to Life Society approached me about a contract as Director of Education and Development. So much for billing at $1000 per day!
As a follow up to last week’s sermon on biblical justice, I plan to spend my 20 minutes today dealing with a pro-life issue from a justice perspective. My focus, I want to say up front, will be on women in crisis pregnancies and the church’s responsibility towards them.
I should probably also say at the beginning that I have no idea what position this church or its denomination holds on life matters, no one asked me to preach on this subject, and that I am speaking only for myself.
But first--
B. THE UNSERMON – WHAT I WON’T BE DISCUSSING TODAY
1. Let me begin by saying that it is not my intention to concentrate at any length on the more common focus that life is sacred from conception, making abortion an unacceptable option for those who hold to this belief.
While there is no explicit reference in Scripture to abortion, there is no question that this is the traditional Christian position, whether Catholic, Protestant or Orthodox. It is my position as well. Time does not permit an examination of the relevant biblical passages, nor of the understanding of biblical interpreters in the 2000 years since the time of Jesus that our faith teaches the sanctity of life even in the womb.
In modern times there are those Christians but who have argued that we should view this teaching differently. One could debate their opinions of what the texts mean or their position on the authority of Scripture. But that is not my objective. It would be better done in a small group discussion format.
In a way it is almost irrelevant to do so. While climbing on to the back of a moral high horse affords a wonderful view of some non-existent perfect world, it removes the saint from the realities of everyday life with which one must deal if one is really a follower of Christ and lover of all humanity.
For to a large extent, while we may think that we have won the theological battle, we have lost the pragmatic war. In the U.S., where 1.3 million abortions are performed each year, over half are obtained by women who are members of Roman Catholic and evangelical Protestant churches, all churches that hold to traditional pro-life positions. 1% of these abortions are done in instances of either rape or incest, and 3% because of issues related to the mother’s health. The rest are obtained as a means of birth control.
Are we to condemn, even shun, these women for breaking with our theology? I grew up in a fundamentalist environment with just that kind of thinking, but it does not square with the example Jesus left for us when he was accused of wasting all his time hanging out with those whom polite society disapproved of (as we heard in this morning’s scripture reading).
2. Neither, as passionately as I feel about the subject, am I going to talk about the personhood of the unborn child at any length. As you know, at various times in recent history African-Americans, women, Jews and First Nations people have been considered non-persons in some sense. In Abraham Lincoln’s time, for instance, black slaves were defined by the U.S. Supreme Court as two-thirds of a person for purposes of the U.S. Constitution and could therefore be denied life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
In Canada, a fetus is not a person until she or he has fully emerged from the mother’s womb. For that reason, doctors can even perform what are called partial-birth abortions where the baby in partially removed from the mother’s body and destroyed. Thousands of them have been done, although they were recently banned in the United States after much controversy.
As another example of what it means to be a non-person, if a pregnant woman is killed, as happened recently in Toronto, and the unborn baby also dies, the murderer is charged with only one murder, not two.
While obviously a justice issue, an examination of this matter awaits another time.
If I am not planning to explore any of these obvious areas at any length, what’s left for today? Lots!
C. THE SERMON AT LAST
As Jet made clear two week ago, and hopefully I did as well last week, biblical justice goes beyond a sort of dispassionate fairness to actually seeking out and championing the needs of the marginalized, the exploitable, the poor—those in the least position to fend for themselves. While pro-life discussions typically center on the unborn baby (and rightly so in the proper context), I want to focus on the women who carry these little ones.
How should women in crisis pregnancies be viewed by the church and society? How can we champion their cause?
1. Stats tell us a little
A good place to start is to ask ourselves, what makes women seek abortions in the first place. There are approximately 30 abortions for every 100 live births in Canada, with women in their 20s comprising the largest group who obtain them. About 33,000 Canadian teens become pregnant each year, and 18,000 of them abort. Abortions can be obtained fairly easily. Our public Medicare system pays for the vast majority of them. A 14-year old does not need to obtain parental permission to go ahead with the surgery. Her parents very often do not even know.
2. Culture tells us more
Those are the statistics. But what are the reasons? Some indications can be gleaned from such facts as these:
  1. 75% of women who abort are single. We live in a society that not only permits, but often rewards, promiscuity. Can you imagine that at one time we considered it insulting to say that a person was ‘easy’ or ’fast’. What we once viewed as sluttish behaviour is now more or less the norm, particularly as social relationships are depicted in the media. Ever watch Friends? People who have not had intercourse are looked on with amusement and pity—such as was depicted in the movie The 40 Year Old Virgin. My wife had a 13-year old middle school student who actually passed out gag business cards to her male classmates calling herself a sex expert. Of course, it is the women who pay the price for this societal permissiveness. And it is the young women and girls who feel the strong pressure to conform. At the same time we are experiencing a significant breakdown in the traditional family structure. Combine lack of a supportive family structure with rampant sexual permissiveness, and an abortion boom is predictable.
  2. We also live in a culture, or sometimes a sub-culture, that views some lives as worth less than others. In the 1960s, when I was in high school and university, we argued that everyone was of equal worth and that no one should be afforded special privileges or be denied anything that others could access. But we have gone back to an older view that certain types of life are deemed to be lacking in worth. In Hitler’s Germany, this category included Jews, gypsies and homosexuals. In today’s Canada, it is the physically and mentally challenged, those who are unwanted, and in some sub-cultures, females. So we find that 90% of fetuses diagnosed with Down Syndrome are aborted. In the East Indian sub-culture, and others as well, women abort female fetuses in disproportionately large numbers. And politicians actually campaign on the slogan “Every child a wanted child”, as if that were a guarantee of any social good. Are we really content with a culture that diminishes human worth on the basis of handicap, gender, or unwantedness? Is life so cheap?
  3. What is it like for a female growing up in a society with such values as these? No wonder the abortion rate has risen as it has.
But while I’ve probably outlined a pretty good preaching agenda, as well as a number of important issues for youth groups to address, we still haven’t gotten to the meat of today’s focus—biblical justice and the crisis pregnancy.
3. Who put the crisis in crisis pregnancy?
We are told that most women obtain abortions to please, or placate, someone else. Obtaining an abortion is seldom a fully independent choice. As much as society talks about a woman’s right to choose, the choice is often taken out of her hands. Or to put it another way, while a woman may ultimately make the decision, it is often with a strong element of coercion.
But before I get to that, I want to take a quick look back on an earlier chapter in my chequered career.
I once hosted an open-line radio show in Sudbury, ON. It was aimed at young people (ages 14-22), although over half of the audience was adult (the young people's parents listened in large numbers). I used to get high-schoolers calling in to complain about their dad or mom. One of the things that I used to do with such callers was to ask them to do a role play with me. First I would set the scene, along such lines as these:
MGS (my good self): What does your father do for a living?
CYC (complaining young caller): He works for INCO. He's a miner.
MGS: Does he like his job?
CYC: Not very much. Who would?
MGS: How does he feel when he gets home from work?
CYC: I never thought about it. Pretty tired, I guess. Bummed out. [Sorry, that's how we talked in the 1970s.]
MGS: OK, you play the tired-out, unfulfilled father coming home from another lousy, hard day of work, and I'll play the 15-year old son who intercepts him at the door to complain about..... (whatever the issue was that the caller had raised).
It's amazing the effect this had on the caller's perspective. I wish that many of my pro-life friends would do the same with respect to the way they approach their task of addressing what they feel is a huge moral wrong. Put yourself in the shoes of:
  • The fourteen year old girl who got high, had sex with three different guys at a party, is now pregnant, has no idea who the father is, and is afraid to tell her parents. [I'm not making this up. I had just such a call from a girl on my open-line show. Of course, it was the "girl's friend" who called on her behalf.]
  • The sixteen year old who wants to keep the baby but doesn't know how she will ever complete high school now if she has an infant to care for. [It was just this common scenario that led my school board to start our New Beginnings program at one of our high schools, providing both daycare for the young moms so that they could go to school, and parenting skills classes for these children having children as well. You may not be surprised to learn that there were those who accused us of doing nothing more than encouraging teenagers to get pregnant. Such is the life of the school board trustee.]
In fact, I’m going to go off-script here for a moment and recount a story from a school board meeting held to deal with the unfounded rumour that we were going to cancel the New Beginnings programme. A large number of people, including many who had benefited from the programme gathered to urge the Board to keep it going. One of the spokespeople was a young woman who identified herself as a former runaway who ended up on the street and sold her body to make a living. She became pregnant and decided that she had to change something in order to keep her baby. Somehow she ended up in Abbotsford and enrolled in New Beginnings. "I was able to finish high school and keep my baby," she said, her voice trembling with emotion. "You mustn't let the programme die." It's the only time in 21 years that I cried at a school board meeting.
But back to my list of people whose shoes we all need to walk in.
  • The nineteen-year-old woman whose boyfriend, having gotten her pregnant, now threatens to leave her if she doesn't abort. When a young woman in Winnipeg a few years ago refused to abort, her boyfriend actually killed her and the baby.
  • The recent university grad who, having started on a promising career, finds that she is pregnant and will have to abort the career unless she aborts the baby because her company makes no allowance for her situation.
  • The female member of a church who sees how unmarried mothers are treated.
How do these women feel when they see signs proclaiming, “Abortion is murder”? Read the rants of the many pro-life bloggers I get to read as part of my job? Sense their obvious hostility? Do they see any concern for the vulnerable, the needy, and the exploited that is supposed to be the hallmark of the Christian lifestyle? Or have these woman joined the ranks of the unwanted like the woman who washed Jesus feet with her tears? Will they likely turn to us for help?
The pro-choice people may have vacuous arguments, but they do withhold judgment. Jesus treated the Samaritan woman at the well (John 4:1-42), or the women "taken in adultery" (John 7:53 - 8:11) better than many pro-lifers treat such women as I've outlined above.
I am now going to give you the most amazing fact of all--the Protestant church has more or less washed its hands of the whole business. Some denominations, such as the Presbyterian Church of Canada, have simply proclaimed themselves as officially pro-choice, giving themselves the luxury of ignoring these difficulties. The evangelical Protestants have maintained a theoretical pro-life stance, which one would think would translate into a concern to address this great moral challenge and to deal with the human fall-out such as crisis pregnancies and the dividing of God’s creatures up into the wanted and the unwanted.
But I’ve learned the grim reality from actually working in the field. Pastors in Abbotsford, a seat of evangelicalism if there ever was one, have told me that such matters are simply not part of the church’s agenda. One pastor told me that we are just another special interest group like Love Abbotsford and Pray through Ramadan. At best, they see such issues as political only and none of their concern.
Ask yourselves--Is lobbying to make abortion illegal the answer? Or is it an easy solution to a vexing moral question while ignoring all of the fall-out? Being moralistic is not the same thing as properly addressing moral issues. Nor is it the same thing as doing justice.
I want to close with one last story, told to me by a long-time friend that Sharon and I visited this past summer. I will, of course, disguise some of the details to protect the innocent. I would happily expose the guilty.

The scene: A goodish sized, conservative evangelical church in small town Canada. The church shows a commitment to the well-being of young people in a number of ways, including the provision of various clubs and sports camps.

The church's pro-life position: The church supports a local pregnancy counseling agency, including the provision of church members who serve on its board, raise money and do some of the counseling.

The church's commitment to babies: The congregation is young and many babies are born every year. The church puts on elaborate and generous baby showers on these occasions. A class on parenting is offered as well.
Sounds pretty good so far. But what happens when the unmarried daughter of two of the church's members has a baby? Well--nothing. No shower, no support, no joy, no nothing! Just big time rejection.

Was the girl some kind of disgusting sinner that she should be treated this way? She is not a Christian herself, so was not violating her own principles in having premarital sex (not that she should have been rejected on that basis in any event). She did not resort to an abortion. 75% of abortions are performed on unmarried women, but this young lady made the life choice and kept hers. She did not flaunt her situation, actually staying away from the church while pregnant (and no wonder!).

One of the members, a devout evangelical with several adult children, sprang into action. She approached the teacher of the parenting class about holding a baby shower for the young woman in her home. The church leaders, some of whom were privately sympathetic, made it clear that the shower could not be held in the church but could go ahead as long as if was off-site. A number of supportive people attended, gave various gifts (including a generous amount of money), and generally made the girl feel appreciated.

But the official position of this alleged pro-life church was that the young woman would not realize the warmth and support of her parents’ home congregation because of having had a child out of wedlock. It makes me want to cry.
Should we as Christians promote the sanctity of life? By all means. Should we work to lower the abortion rate so that, in Hilary Clinton’s words, “the choice guaranteed under our constitution either does not ever have to be exercised or only in very rare circumstances”? Even the National Abortion Rights Action League wants to lower the abortion rate.
But what should distinguish us as individual Christians and as a church—some vague, if ever thought about at all, notion that it would probably be a good thing if there were no more abortions? That’s moral high horse thinking and completely useless in the cause of justice.
It’s time that we started to take our faith seriously. There are hundreds of thousands of crisis pregnancies in our city, province and country. How many churches are committed to aiding woman in this situation? Must they turn to the public school system, or to the government for help? Or simply abort? Have we no responsibility here?
The answers to this challenge are as individual as the people and churches that face it. There may be crisis pregnancy centres in your community that need financial help, personnel, and professional guidance. Perhaps one should be started here in the church building. Only you know what best meets the needs in your circumstances.
But what we don’t have is the luxury of pretending that it is someone else’s problem. It is time that the church’s agenda was broadened. We must add the crisis pregnancy to the list. In fact, it needs to be near the top. Justice demands no less.


Tuesday, 13 November 2007

Canadian women deserve better

While I have not been formally involved in the pro-life movement for very long, I've been an educator at the post-secondary level since 1974. People have trusted me as a consultant to address problems and give well-reasoned opinions. I was also a municipal politician for 21 years. I think that I know something about the information that is necessary to make an informed choice. And Canadian women are not getting such information with respect to the abortion question

It is time that women young and old in this country were treated as human beings with brains and critical thinking abilities and not, on the one hand, as people who have to be protected from anything upsetting or controversial, nor on the other hand, as willing partners in something that is clearly wrong. They also need to be taken seriously by our federal and provincial politicians.

So I am about to write three pleas--one to pro-choice activists, one to the prime minister, and one to my pro-life colleagues--with none of the nice academic sugar-coating that I normally employ in my writings. Too many women are being hurt and victimized to always write with equanimity.

First, to the (self-labeled but not at all obvious) pro-choice activists. You are really as committed to choice as I am to having a frontal lobotomy without anesthetics. You simply do not trust women to make fully informed choices for themselves.
  • Rather you push a few slogans relentlessly (particularly the illogical and odious "Every child a wanted child") while vilifying anyone whose views are different from your own.
  • You attack what you call (legitimately or not) false information that you say will mislead a woman about medical and psychological issues surrounding abortion, while ignoring information that is either erroneous, exaggerated, understated or just plain missing from your favoured websites and literature.
  • You demean women who join, often in very large numbers, organizations that take a contrary position to yours. I guess this isn't a woman's 'choice' that you feel 'pro' about.
  • And perhaps most surprising of all, you push the male agenda when it comes to abortion legislation.
Beyond this, you have chosen for yourselves spokespeople who, whatever be the state of their IQs and the extent of their education, are capable of writing some of the most irrational opinions that I have ever read, Joyce Arthur's column in today's National Post being a prime example (see "Fetal homicide laws are not the answer," National Post, Tuesday, November 13, 2007, p. A17).

I have written on all of the above points in numerous posts in the past, and space does not permit a review of them all. But I'll briefly address two.

First, the male agenda. If you go back just two posts from the one you are reading now (look for the picture of my baseball hero Hank Aaron in his Atlanta Braves uniform), you will see my analysis of the latest statistics from American and Canadian polls on abortion-related issues. There you will read that many more men than women want unrestricted access to abortion, and far fewer men than women call themselves pro-life. The pro-choice cheering section has a decidedly baritone sound. Apparently their views are carrying the day.

Second, Joyce Arthur's column (which would get a D at best in my classroom). Let me take just two quotes to show you how empty the reasoning is:

Creating a "fetal homicide" law that would allow murder charges to be laid for the death of a fetus would be an unconstitutional infringement on women's rights...

How is a law protecting unborn victims of crime an infringement on choice? The woman has made her choice--she is pregnant after all, and has not chosen to have an abortion. A killer ignores that choice and murders the baby. Where is the infringement? In fact, in some of the recent cases in Canada, the father killed the mother because she refused to have an abortion.

A "fetal homicide" law would completely sidestep the issue of domestic abuse and do nothing to protect pregnant women.

What!? Parliament is capable of passing only one law? If it puts one legal restriction in place, it is shut out from also passing another dealing with the issue? Wouldn't that be like saying that if the government passes a law saying that a homeless person can't steal my money that it is bypassing the broader issue of homelessness? Ridiculous.

While many pro-choice activists are too addicted to ideology and too immersed in groupthink to take an arm's-length look at themselves, I would make this plea to those ordinary women and men who have, perhaps somewhat uncritically, taken a pro-choice position:

Take stock. Do you have all of the information necessary to make a fully informed choice? Are you ignoring possible sources of information because they have been ruled out in advance by yourself or others? Are you even aware of public opinion on the issue? If you say that you believe in choice, start looking everywhere for what you need to make that choice. Don't be bullied, manipulated or otherwise kept from seeking the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. It's there if you really look. But there are those who are trying to keep it from you. If the pro-choice activists don't trust you, trust yourselves.

Next, to my pro-life colleagues. I used to host an open-line radio show in Sudbury, ON. It was aimed at young people (14-22), although over half of the audience was adult (the young people's parents listened in large numbers). I used to get high-schoolers calling in to complain about their dad or mom. One of the things that I used to do with such callers was to ask them to do a role play with me. First I would set the scene, along such lines as these:

MGS (my good self): What does your father do for a living?
CYC (complaining young caller): He works for INCO. He's a miner.
MGS: Does he like his job?
CYC: Not very much. Who would?
MGS: How does he feel when he gets home from work?
CYC: I never thought about it. Pretty tired, I guess. Bummed out. [Sorry, that's how we talked in the 1970s.]
MGS: OK, you play the tired-out, unfulfilled father coming home from another lousy, hard day of work, and I'll play the 15-year old son who intercepts him at the door to complain about..... (whatever the issue was that the caller had raised).

It's amazing the effect this had on the caller's perspective. I wish that my pro-life friends would do the same with respect to the way they approach their task of addressing what they feel is a huge moral wrong. Put yourself in the shoes of:
  • The fourteen year old girl who got high, had sex with three different guys at a party, is now pregnant, has no idea who the father is, and is afraid to tell her parents. [I'm not making this up. I had just such a call from a girl on my open-line show. Of course, it was the "girl's friend" who called on her behalf.]
  • The seventeen year old who wants to keep the baby but doesn't know how she will ever complete high school now if she has an infant to care for. [It was just this common scenario that led my school board to start our New Beginnings program at one of our high schools, providing both daycare for the young moms so that they could go to school, and parenting skills classes for these children having children as well.]
  • The nineteen year old woman whose boyfriend, having gotten her pregnant, now threatens to leave her if she doesn't abort.
  • The recent university grad who, having started on a promising career, finds that she is pregnant and will have to abort the career unless she aborts the baby.
  • The female member of a church who sees how unmarried mothers are treated (see my post from this past August entitled 'Why I am occasionally sympathetic to Bertrand Russell'.)
How do these women feel when they see your signs? Read your rants? Sense your hostility? Will they likely turn to you for help? The pro-choice people may have vacuous arguments, but they do withhold judgment. Jesus treated the Samaritan woman at the well (John 4:1-42), or the women "taken in adultery" (John 7:53 - 8:11) better than many pro-lifers treat such women as I've outlined above.

Ask yourselves--Is lobbying to make abortion illegal the answer? Or is it an easy solution to a vexing moral question while ignoring all of the fall-out? Being moralistic is not the same thing as properly addressing moral issues.

Finally, to our Prime Minister. You have shown yourself to be a good leader in a number of ways that most people approve of (e.g., cutting taxes, reducing the nanny state). You are not afraid to tackle some moral issues (e.g., Canadian participation in the war in Afghanistan, Parliamentary ethics). But on the pro-life vs. pro-abortion issue you are an abject failure. Let's start with your limited discussion on the issues:

"I've been clear. A Conservative government led by me will not be tabling abortion legislation. It will not be sponsoring an abortion referendum," Harper said, adding he has no intention of discussing the subject further during the election campaign....Harper said his own views on abortion fall somewhere "in-between the two extremes." (CBC , Tuesday, June 1, 2004).

That's it. On this subject, you are silent. You can be very blunt on many controversial topics. But you treat this one like it has leprosy. Doubtless recognizing the political difficulty it could cause, you have run very hard in any other direction.

I don't respect you for this.
  • Fetuses enjoy less protection in our criminal code than do people's pets (see my post entitled 'Of hamsters and Nellie McClung'.)
  • The majority of Canadians don't approve of public funding of abortions as is permitted now (Environics October 2007 poll). You simply dismiss such issues as provincial responsibilities--but campaign on reduced hospital wait times in those same provincial jurisdictions.
  • Your Minister of Finance, Jim Flaherty, was prepared to risk his leadership aspirations of the Ontario Tory party in 2002 by publicly taking a pro-life stance. You won't even take a Henry Morgentaler stance (no abortions after 24 weeks).
  • Many Canadians think that it is immoral, and should be illegal, for a man to kill a pregnant woman and her baby and yet be charged with only one crime; i.e., murder of the woman. In the U.S. that killer would be charged with two murders. You are satisfied with this state of affairs?
  • You are accused (wrongly in my view) of being too close to the current U.S. President George W. Bush. I would be happy if you were within hailing distance of the next U.S. President, Hillary Clinton, who said: [Abortion is] a sad, even tragic choice to many, many women. There is no reason why government cannot do more to educate and inform and provide assistance so that the choice guaranteed under our constitution either does not ever have to be exercised or only in very rare circumstances.
Can't you muster up enough compassion for women, and respect for public opinion, to at least propose an unborn victims of crime law? Is an extra seat or two in Quebec and Ontario more important than stemming such violence? Do you really find yourself convinced (or intimidated) by the likes of Joyce Arthur? Judy Rebick? The Bloc? Aren't Canadian women and their unborn babies worth as much of your concern as their Afghan counterparts? Right now they're not worth as much as a couple of hamsters in the Canadian Criminal Code.

Canadian women deserve better from you.

Monday, 12 November 2007

'Youth for Life' is on Facebook

In anticipation of the introduction of some youth-focused initiatives at Abbotsford Right to Life in the New Year, we've set up a Facebook group called 'Youth for Life.' Since controversial issues like pro-life, etc. tend to attract the irrational fringe (on all sides) out of hiding, we've set the group up as an invitation-only space on Facebook.

In addition to the discussion board, the 'Youth for Life' group will be a space through which local pro-life events can be publicized, and photos, videos, and links can be uploaded.

If you are already on Facebook and would like to join the Youth for Life group, send me a message via the Facebook site with your request, or contact me directly by e-mail and I'll invite you.

If you don't have a Facebook account (they're free, by the way) then go ahead and set one up so that you can request access to the group. Alternately, e-mail me your request to join the group, and the e-mail you receive for the invitation will also allow you to set up an account (just follow the links in the message).

I look forward to further pro-life discussion with you on the 'Youth for Life' Facebook group.

Thursday, 8 November 2007

My name is John--and I'm a stats addict

Or so some would say. I do have an insatiable interest in statistics. No, not standard deviations from the mean, the Pearsonian coefficient of skewness--not those kind of statistics (gag!) I mean the kind that show up in box scores on the sports pages, and are derived from market and other kinds of research.

How bad is it? As a young teenager in the early 1960s, being poorer than a church mouse, I devised my own baseball game using the bottom of a Sears box and a plastic spinner from some tabletop game. I would write down various baseball lineups from the paper so that I could have full sets for each major league team, complete with pinch hitters and relief pitchers. On a piece of paper taped to the box, I had I forget how many alternatives that can happen when a pitcher faces a batter--strike, foul, wild pitch, single with runners advancing one base, home run, etc., etc.

I set up a schedule of games, spun the spinner, played nine innings or whatever it took to finish the match, kept statistics of every game, and even compiled tables of leading batters, pitchers, etc. Now the X-Boxes and Playstations do it all for you. No imagination, these young people.

[I was a huge Milwaukee/Atlanta Braves fan. To this day, Hank Aaron is my favourite baseball player. You can imagine what I think of Barry Bonds.]

I suppose that this fascination with statistics is what led me eventually into a career in market research. As I mentioned in an earlier post (Pro-life and....) I love using research to unearth information that clarifies the picture and aids in decision-making.

So you will not be surprised at my delight when I discovered a number of polls done this year in the U.S. and Canada having to do with societal opinions of the life vs. abortion issue. As I have said in the past, stereotypes and myths come crashing down when accurate information is compiled.

I will try to summarize the data from these research efforts in a way that does no violence to their integrity as sources of information. I say this because the questions posed to respondents, while similar, were not necessarily identical, and the samples of respondents, while large and random, were slightly different in some cases (e.g., general sample of Americans vs. registered voters). The polls were done between May and October 2007, most of them in October.

1. Abortion should be legal in all cases (or, it is a sufficient basis for abortion that the baby is unwanted).

Fox News - 39% of Americans
L.A. Times/Bloomberg - 24
CBS News - 26
CNN - 23
Pew Research - 21
Environics Canada - 33% of Canadians (30% of women, 36% of men)

2. Abortion should be legal most of the time; it should be legal in most cases.

L.A. Times/Bloomberg - 19%
Pew Research - 32
CBS News - 16 (more restricted than it is now)
Environics Canada - 11 (support law protecting the fetus after 6 months)
Environics Canada - 21 (support law protecting the fetus after 3 months)

3. Abortion should be illegal with a few exceptions; e.g. only in cases of incest, rape or the mother's life; illegal in most cases.

L.A. Times/Bloomberg - 41%
CBS News - 34
Pew Research - 24
Environics Canada - 47% support public funding for abortion only in such emergencies

4. Abortion should be illegal with no exceptions; never legal; always illegal; illegal in all cases.

L.A. Times/Bloomberg - 12%
CBS News - 4 (another 16% say legal only if woman's life is endangered)
CNN - 22
Pew Research - 15
Environics Canada - 30 (34% of women, 26% of men)

5. Do you consider yourself (more) pro-choice, (more) pro-life, both/mix, unsure?

a. Pro-Life
Fox News - 37%
Gallup - 45
CNN - 50

b. Pro-Choice
Fox News - 48%
Gallup - 49
CNN - 45

c. Both/Mix
Fox News - 8%
Gallup - 3
CNN - 2

d. Don't know/Unsure
Fox News - 7%
Gallup - 4
CNN - 3

6. Do you personally believe having an abortion is wrong?

CNN Yes - 60% No - 36% Unsure - 4%

What can be drawn from this snapshot of societal opinion? Certain trends seem to be indicated.

1. Somewhere between a quarter and a third of North Americans want unrestricted abortion. In Canada there is no abortion law and unrestricted access to abortion, in most cases paid for by the health system, is the current reality. In the U.S. abortion is a constitutional right, although some restrictions exist in most states and many people have to pay for the procedure out of their own pocket.

Despite this open door to abortion access, however, the vast majority of North Americans (two-thirds to three-quarters) would accept (or even prefer) restrictions. In Canada, men are considerably more in favour of unrestricted abortions than women.

2. Abortions related to saving the mother's life or to pregnancies resulting from rape and incest are a very small fraction of total abortions. For all intents and purposes, one could lump together the statistics for making all abortions illegal, and restricting them to extreme cases as mentioned above, to arrive at the statistic for eliminating virtually all abortions. The American respondents in this category fall somewhere between 40 and 50%. Canadian support for public funding for emergency abortions only stands at 47%.

3. Perhaps the most interesting statistic of all indicates that many people who call themselves pro-choice actually mean it in a legal way, while still retaining the moral view that abortion is wrong (what I call the Elizabeth May position). While a little under half of respondents put themselves in the pro-life camp, fully 60% see abortion as immoral.

As for the "every child a wanted child" slogan that so many politicians and abortion advocates use, Fox News found that only 39% favoured abortion because the pregnancy was unwanted, while 50% opposed "unwantedness" as a legitimate basis for abortion (11% were unsure). In other words, for those with an opinion a solid majority reject the common slogan.

Finally, in Canada women are more pro-life than men.

Monday, 5 November 2007

Misery acquaints a man with strange bedfellows

This title is actually a line in the play The Tempest, by William Shakespeare. It is spoken by a man who has been shipwrecked and finds himself seeking shelter beside a sleeping monster. Over the years it has morphed into the more familiar phrase: "Politics makes strange bedfellows." But I'm inclined in this case to use it in its original context.

You see, the pro-life movement is really in the ascendancy according to public opinion polls, but still finds itself on the periphery in terms of the public debate. It seems here in Canada that despite the public's desire for a swing in the life v. abortion pendulum in the direction of reasonable accommodation of choice while putting certain safeguards in place with respect to the choices being made, the status quo--no abortion law, unrestricted choice, illogical argumentation when choice is not even at issue--prevails. Thus my reference to misery in the title. Like Cassandra of old, it's miserable to be always right and never believed.

[Cassandra was a daughter of King Priam and Queen Hecuba of Troy whose beauty caused Apollo to grant her the gift of prophecy. However, when she did not return his love, Apollo placed a curse on her so that no one would ever believe her predictions, including her warnings about the Trojan horse.]

Unexpectedly, the pro-life cause is being aided and abetted to some extent by those whom one would plant squarely on the "access to abortion" side. There are a surprising number of people who label themselves as pro-choice who are arguing either for fuller information for women, greater emphasis on alternatives to abortion, or for significant restrictions on access to abortion that the majority of Canadian parliamentarians and much of the Canadian media reject at this time. I have referred to some of these 'fellows' in previous posts, but thought it useful to put them all together in the one bed.

So here's whom I have been sleeping with lately:

1. Senator Hilary Clinton, quite possibly the next president of the United States of America:

[Abortion is] a sad, even tragic choice to many, many women. There is no reason why government cannot do more to educate and inform and provide assistance so that the choice guaranteed under our constitution either does not ever have to be exercised or only in very rare circumstances

Keep in mind that the abortion laws are already much more restrictive in the U.S. Though important Supreme Court rulings known as Roe, Doe and Casey limit the power of states to regulate or ban abortion, nearly every state has some sort of law limiting abortion. About 80% ban non-therapeutic abortion in the last three months of pregnancy. Many have parental notice or consent laws for minors, waiting periods, informed consent and statistical reporting requirements for all abortions.

2. Elizabeth May, leader of Canada's federal Green Party:

I think there's been a moral dimension to this debate that's quite complex, and I think deserves respect. So I respect people who say, "I'm against abortion because there is a right to life, and the fetus is sacred." I respect that, because I think all life is sacred. So, where do I come to thinking we should be able to have - and must have - access to therapeutic abortions in Canada?

It's the other side of a moral dilemma: If we make them illegal, women will die. We know this. It happened for hundreds and hundreds of years, that women would seek out whatever butcher they could find to cause an abortion to happen, and they would die horrible deaths, and the baby would die
too.
. . .
[W]hat I'd l
ike to do in politics is to be able to create the space to say, "Abortions are legal because they must be to avoid women dying. But nobody in their right mind is for abortions."

I've talked women out of having abortions. I would never have an abortion myself, not in a million years. I cannot imagine the circumstances that would have ever induced me to.


3. Lord Steel, who as a British M.P. introduced the bill that led to the legalization of abortion in the United Kingdom. Britain limits abortions to the first 24 weeks of the pregnancy. Some are calling for a reduction to 20-22 weeks.

The former David Steel, who as a Liberal backbencher in 1967 put forward the bill legalizing abortion, said: "Everybody can agree there are too many abortions." He added: "I accept that there is a mood now which is that if things go wrong you can get an abortion, and it is irresponsible, really."

Asked whether abortion is being used as a form of contraception, the 69-year-old Liberal Democrat peer admitted in an interview with The Guardian: "I am afraid it is." He said he never anticipated "anything like" the current number of terminations - 200,000 a year...."I think people find it very repugnant to think you are getting close to the point where you are not dealing with a foetus [at 24 weeks in the womb] but with the possibility of a baby," he told BBC News.

4. Dr. Henry Morgentaler, pioneer Canadian abortionist who in 2005 received an honorary doctorate of laws from the University of Western Ontario for his championing of women's rights.

"We don't abort babies, we want to abort fetuses before they become babies," Morgentaler said from his Toronto clinic. "Around 24 weeks I have ethical problems doing that." Morgentaler said the late-term abortions are mainly performed on women who have learned of severe birth defects during tests performed late in pregnancy and on teenage girls who have tried to hide their pregnancy.

"What we do at our clinics is if we have a problem like that we usually counsel the woman to continue the pregnancy and put it up for adoption if she is unable to care for it," he said.

5. Rudy Giuliani, former New York mayor and possible U.S. presidential candidate, who has said that he personally "abhors abortion':

I believe the best way we can have common ground in this debate that you're hearing is if we put our emphasis on reducing abortions and increasing the number of adoptions, which is something that I did as mayor of New York City.

6. Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, as quoted in the San Francisco Chronicle:

Nancy Keenan, the president of the national NARAL group, is also stressing prevention. Her organization ran an advertisement last year explicitly inviting the "right-to-life movement" to join in an effort to "help us prevent abortions." Usually, NARAL's allies refer to abortion opponents as "anti-choice," so the conciliatory language itself was a welcome departure. At the federal level, NARAL is pushing for a bill promoting contraception introduced by Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, an opponent of abortion.

7. Al Gore, Environmentalist, Nobel Prize winner and former vice-president of the United States, who said in 1998 that abortions should be safe, legal and rare:

On the issue of partial-birth or so-called late-term abortion, I would sign a law banning that procedure, provided that doctors have the ability to save a women's life or to act if her health is severely at risk (debate in 2000 with George W. Bush).





Let's see now...to summarize the key points of each of these individuals:

1. Abortion is a sad, even tragic choice to many, many women.
2. Nobody in their right mind is for abortion.
3. There is a mood now which is that if things go wrong you can get an abortion, and it is irresponsible, really.
4. We don't abort babies (i.e., a fetus after 24 weeks).
5. We should put our emphasis on reducing abortions and increasing adoptions.
6. We want pro-lifers to help us prevent abortions.
7. I would ban virtually all partial-birth abortions, and make all abortions rare.

Isn't that what the students' union at Capilano College called hate-speech towards women? I guess we won't be seeing these fear-mongering, women-hating, anti-choice fundamentalists like Hilary Clinton, Rudy Giuliani, Henry Morgentaler, Al Gore, etc. on the Capilano campus any time soon. My heavens, a bad case of free speech and full information might break out.

Friday, 2 November 2007

Pro-life and.......?

As I long-time professor, as well as practitioner, of marketing research, I have always enjoyed the reaction of students and clients alike when they see the kind of information that it is possible to garner through a well thought through, methodologically sound, research project.

As I have gotten involved in the pro-life movement, and particularly since I began reading blogs on life issues, I have started to wonder if most people who profess to be pro-life are socially conservative, politically conservative, and probably Roman Catholic or evangelical Protestant. Some commentators trot out such credentials up front. Others, of course, do not.

So in the best traditions of my market research discipline, I would like to mount a little survey of y.m.f.r. (you my faithful reader) to see if this typical profile is in any way accurate. Look to your right and you will see the survey instrument. You are allowed to choose more than one answer. Please fill it out as soon as you see it or you will forget.

Many thanks.

Thursday, 1 November 2007

Everything I believe in a paragraph

I've been blogging for about four months. In that time, as y.m.f.r (you, my faithful reader) know, I've come to the conclusion that our government and society, cowed into silence as they are by the pro-choice movement, have once again turned women into victims.

My reasons? Many important facts about the potential short- and long-term effects of abortion are simply covered up, dismissed, or otherwise downplayed in favour of an ideology of (so-called) unrestricted choice. But no effort is made to ensure that the choice is a fully informed one, or that alternatives to abortion are similarly championed.

There are many polls and studies that establish my convictions, but sometimes a little bit of real life speaks louder than a hundred sets of statistics. My anecdote comes from the BackPorch Bulletin, the newsletter of an outreach to women directly across the street from Edmonton's Morgentaler abortion clinic. Apparently many women heading into Henry's place end up "on the BackPorch" and subsequently change their minds about what they were told was the best choice. This is one of them:

“A young lady came in today, she had an appointment with the clinic for an abortion. She said she was having second thoughts and asked one of the nurses there to show her what the ‘fetus’ would look like. When she saw the baby had toes and fingers, she said she could not go through with it. She said the father of the baby…didn’t want the baby. Her mother…didn’t want her to keep the baby……One of her girlfriends showed up…she offered to drive her to the counseling center…We received a call from the Pregnancy Care Center to say that this girl had decided to keep her baby and to take parenting classes with the center. Because this house is here, because someone was available to take the time to listen and educate this girl, her baby’s life, as well as her own physical and emotional life, were saved.

Classic. Another young woman, kept in ignorance about fetal development by her doctor and bullied by her boyfriend and her mother, heads for the abortuary under the assumption that this is the only alternative.

Choice?