A New Perspective on the Abortion Debate
I came across an interesting study in regards to abortion. It was commissioned by the UN, so I would say it is a reliable study from a credible international organization.
It says that regardless of whether abortion is legal or not, abortion rates are essentially the exact same all across the board. I will repeat, whether or not abortion is legal in a country or not, the number of women who have abortions is not affected. Translation: criminalizing abortion doesn’t work.
And what does criminalizing abortion do? It kills the women who are trying to have them, because they then seek back-street abortions.
What has lowered abortion rates? Over time, countries that provide sex education and cheap access to birth control see a steady decline in abortion rates.
Think none of this is relevant to Canada since abortion is legal here? A private member’s bill called The Unborn Victims of Crime Act (C-484), introduced by Conservative MP Ken Epp (Edmonton Sherwood Park) last fall, passed Second Reading in Parliament on March 5, 2008. Though it was intended to allow additional charges for violent crimes committed against women who were pregnant, it would have given fetuses person-hood status, which conflicts with the Criminal Code. Stephen Harper also supposedly told Conservative Party members that he would seek to criminalize abortion if it wouldn’t hurt them politically. Consider – the Conservatives are currently polling in majority territory. If the conservative party had a majority, they could certainly pull it off, especially considering there are a significant number of Liberal MP’s who have a pro-life stance.
What I don’t understand, is that this study shows that to decrease the number of abortions and deaths of women, you need to keep it legal, cheap, and provide people with a decent sex education and contraceptives. And trust me, regardless of the huge divide between pro-choice and pro-life groups, they both have one thing in common – they want less abortions and less women dying unnecessarily.
Related posts:
- The Ontario Tories Have Lost Their Voice in the HST Debate Many Ontarians are wondering: where is the official opposition in...
- Bilingualism in Canada – The Great Language Debate Bilingualism in Canada is undeniably one of the most prevalent...
- Ben’s Recession Experiences in Perspective “It’s very quiet now”, the agency receptionist told Ben, while...
- Quebec Votes 2008 – Quebec Provincial Election Breakdown of the Issues The Issues Separation Health Education Economy Language Immigration Separation...
Tags: abortion, conservatives, liberal, pro-choice, pro-life, UN, unborn victims of crime act
Loading ...
November 5th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
The first problem is your presumption that the UN is a credible international organization. (At least in the area of abortion and homosexuality – i.e. population control strategies)
The UN has been very active in intimidating vulnerable members regarding access to abortion and homosexuality ‘education’. Countries that have resisted have been chastised. This, in spite of there being no mandate to do this. In fact, the UN mandate, as re-asserted this fall, is expressly NOT an abortion mandate. That they continue regardless does not make them credible. It shows that that the UN officials have an independent agenda from the member states, and makes all their reports and statistics ‘suspect’.
Try to find second sources that don’t have money to make off abortion, or a ‘population control’ agenda.
November 5th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
It’s pretty hard to find other sources that don’t come from pro-choice organizations, because no pro-life group would publish a study that contradicts their beliefs. The Guttmacher Institute published a very large study that essentially says the same thing as the UN one, but they are admittedly pro-choice, but are also a very credible think tank. More info here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8305217.stm
I think all the facts you state could be worded either way. If they do not have an abortion mandate, but they published a study that leaned towards a pro-choice model, it would likely be more credible.
Personally, I’m not a fan of the UN organization, for various other reasons. And other international organizations will also pressure and threaten members, its not uncommon. But if the UN does it because they have scientifically determined that it is in the interests of women and everyone who wants there to be less abortions, i think that it is slightly more acceptable than say, trade organizations forcing third world countries to sell their water to american corporations.
Also, the only thing homosexuality really has in common with abortion is they are both about everyone having the right to make their own decisions about their bodies.
November 6th, 2009 at 8:54 am
1. Speaking against homosexuality is sexual bigotry. It is for bigots.
2. Assuming babies are persons, assuming a woman does not want one in her womb, are they not than raping (or at least assaulting) the mother. If a ten year old was raping someone and the only way the victim could stop them was to kill them the victim does have the moral right to kill them. The right to governing one’s own body exists regardless of the perpetrator’s intent.
Any other assessment is of the situation is a stretch and invariably a stretch in the direction of denying women the right to govern their own bodies. By the way that’s bigotry too.
Jessi, your article deserves better responses. For example when something is “scientifically determined” (frankly I think that these stats are suggestive and not proof, but so are nearly all stats) and our leaders ignore it we should ask why. I for one think any person who can utter the line “Some try to pacify Canadians with statistics” (Stephen Harper) is not worth having a dialogue with. In a manner similiar to the platform of public office the abortion issue lures out the wack jobs, similarily they are not worth having a dialogue with.
November 6th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
A New Perspective on the Abortion Debate…
Whether or not abortion is legal in a country or not, the number of women who have abortions is not affected. Translation: criminalizing abortion doesn’t work….