It's time

It's time that the Canadian pro-choice movement admitted it--at least to themselves. They are more in tune with the views of men than of women. In fact, they are ignoring the views of the vast majority of women when it comes to life issues.

You, my faithful reader, are probably tired of me saying this by now--but amazement and incredulity demand it. The pro-choice movement is anti-woman and anti-choice.

The latest Environics poll on life v. abortion data confirms once again that a substantial majority of women, but barely a majority of men, are unhappy with the status quo that the pro-choice movement defends--unrestricted abortion at any stage of the pregnancy, for any reason, all paid for by Medicare. Yet you won't find a peep about it on the pro-choice sites (suppressing embarrassing information being a pro-choice specialty; e.g. the abortion-breast cancer link).

Here are the 2007 statistics--and they haven't changed in years.

1. Two-thirds of women support legal protection for unborn children (currently there is no protection and has not been for 20 years).

2. Only 57% of men feel the same way. Of course, abortion is a great way for men to avoid any and all responsibility for fathering a child.

Curiously, one of the small majority of men who supports restrictions on abortions is Dr. Henry Morgentaler, the Canadian perhaps most responsible for our present state of affairs. He was quoted in 2004 as saying (Sun. Sep. 12 2004, Canadian Press as reported on CTV):

"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.

[The Canadian Medical Association's policy on induced abortion (see their website, www.cma.ca) includes this statement: extrauterine viability may be possible if the fetus weighs over 500 g or 20 weeks have passed since conception, or both.]

3. 34% of women favour legal protection for the unborn from conception (so much for the fanatical fringe). Another 21% want protection after the first trimester, and a further 12% after the second. Ignoring this large majority of women they purport to support, the pro-choice and pro-abortion people cater to the 30% or so of women, and 43% of men, who want unlimited access to abortion.

4. There's more. 75% of women and 72% of men support some kind of law that would protect unborn children from criminal violence to the mother. Presumably women whose unborn babies are victims of violence and crime have made their choice--they want these babies. Yet the pro-choice people argue that there should not be legal protection even in this case

See, for instance, the convoluted argumentation of a Ms Joyce Arthur, whose release on behalf of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada includes this incredible statement:

Pregnant women being assaulted or killed is largely a domestic violence issue, and the rights of fetuses should not take precedence over the rights of the woman. When media coverage focuses on the victim’s fetus, and whether it should have rights or not, the pregnant woman is overlooked, and so is the problem that killed her – domestic violence.

If you can figure out that logic, I wish you would tell me how.

5. As for the Medicare issue, most of the over 100,000 abortions performed each year in Canada are paid for by taxpayers through the publicly funded system. Almost two-thirds polled said that abortions should be privately funded except in cases of medical emergencies or for rape and incest.

Doubtless the pro-choice people, and particularly the abortion providers, would like things to stay as they are. But in taking that stance, they are in a minority situation with Canadian women, although they would have lots of male supporters.

I wish that the next time one of their spokespeople in Parliament or the media started calling a parliamentarian anti-choice for holding the same position as the vast majority of her/his female constituents, that they would clarify what choice they are referring to. Male choice perhaps?

P.s. Recent polls regarding life v. abortion views done by CBS News, the Los Angeles Times, and Bloomberg News in the U.S. have found an almost identical profile to that of Canada.