Over 2000 flyers personally delivered to Brock students!

Here is a link to the Facebook event page: https://www.facebook.com/events/547773871929351/?ref=3

By Melissa Otten

Do you promote violence against women? Or, to engage in a less personal Shakespearean monologue… “To endorse violence against women, or not to endorse violence against women… That is the question.” Or… is it possible to do both and ignore the blatant contradiction?

Amazingly, many people vote for the last option. At Brock’s vendor fair, I stopped at a booth advocating women’s rights. Part of their goal was to stop violence against women—violence in the form of date rape and other atrocities. Another part was to promote abortion. Is that an inconsistency? Many argue that abortion is an important means to end violence against women. Yet, ironically, abortion supports instead of stops this violence.

First, who is aborted at least 50% of the time—or perhaps more due to a phenomena sometimes called ‘gendercide’? Female babies. Now, according to the Canadian Criminal Code, subsection 223(1), a ‘foetus’ does not become a human being until the moment of complete birth. Based on this definition, aborting a female foetus is totally irrelevant to any violence against women. However, this is a 400 year old law. Based on current scientific research and evidence, these female foetuses are very much human beings!

In the medical field, a person’s heart and heart rate are often used to determine whether that person is alive or dead. In the case of the foetus, their heart chamber is already developing 25 days after conception and before they are 2 months old their heart is beating distinct from its mothers at twice the rate (Tsiaras, Alexander. “Conception to Birth Visualized.” Ted Talks. Filmed Dec. 2010; Posted November 2011). This foetus is already an unique individual at a time when his/her mother is usually only becoming aware of his/her existence! On the “When Does Life Begin” section of the St Catharines Right to Life website, they explain that by 6 weeks doctors can even measure the baby’s brain waves with an electroencephalogram.

One women in particular comes to mind when I think of those affected by abortion. Gianna Jessen is one of the aborted who lives to tell about it. She survived a saline abortion, and because of that procedure deals with cerebral palsy every day of her life. This all goes to show that abortion, often targeted against baby girls, is very much a nefarious form of violence against women. The question then is: when do we stop promoting violence against these women and start fighting it?

Abortion doesn’t only hurt the baby girls. Many grown women also suffer, physically and mentally, as a result of having an abortion. They suffer physically—even when performed properly and legally, abortion is never a ‘safe’ procedure. Abortionincanada.ca details some of these many risks involved: short term risks include retained fetal and placental tissue, endometritis (infection of the lining of he uterus), uterine perforation and lacerations, hemorrhage, cervical lacerations and injury, and saline poisoning, to name only a few. Longer term risks include breast cancer, premature labor in future pregnancies, and even infertility.

They suffer mentally. The Silent No More Awareness Campaign highlights the stories of many women who suffered as a result of their abortions. One woman speaks of how her “abortion regret haunted very part of her life for years.” Another woman documents the horror of a forced saline abortion in a Canadian hospital, a contradiction to the supposed love for women in difficult pregnancies and their freedom of choice. Interestingly enough, research by the Campaign for Life Coalition website documents that 64% of women who had abortions did so because they felt pressured to by their doctors, boyfriend, or other people. By advocating abortion, one is really minimizing a woman’s freedom of choice instead of truly leaving open her options of adoption, support and seeing the the pregnancy through. Doesn’t this constitute violence against women, especially when women who undergo abortions are 155% more likely to commit suicide?

Abortion imposes pain and violence on numerous baby girls and women. Since abortion became legal in Canada during the 1970s, doctors have performed over 3,000,000 abortions. Recent statistics show that St Catharines averages one abortion per day. If you really want to stop violence against women, you need to seriously take a second look at abortion.

The talk will be held in TH 247 (next to the Sean O’Sullivan Theatre) at 8pm. Admission is free.

Scott Klusendorf

Scott Klusendorf, president of Life Training Institute, will speak in defence of the pro-life position at Brock University on Tuesday, February 28, 2012. The talk is free of charge and all are invited to attend. The event will take place in Welsh Hall 324 from 7:00pm to 8:45pm.

For details on the location of Welsh Hall please consult the Brock University campus map (Welsh Hall is #3). Parking rates are $6 per entry in D Lot (across from Welsh Hall) or $2.50 per hour in P Lot (beside Walker Complex) and throughout the campus.

If you have any questions concerning the event please leave them in the comment section below. We look forward to seeing you there!

Tuesday, January 24th, 8:15pm TH240, Brock University
Part of the Brock University Pen Share Workshop Series 2012

Rhetoric, of course, extends beyond the labelling of those in favour of and opposed to abortion. Within the abortion debate, the way in which the unborn are labelled and described plays a much more important role than the labels “pro-abortion” and “anti-choice”. In the lefthand corner of the ring stand “pre-born” and “unborn child”. In the righthand corner, “fertilized egg” and “clump of cells”. These four terms can be observed within the wrestling ring that is public discourse, battling it out. Again, the importance of the use of such terms in the abortion debate cannot be denied. While “pre-born” and “unborn child” give life and humanity to the foetus, “fertilized egg” and “clump of cells” objectify it. In the first case, “fertilized egg” suggests a lack of change after conception; because it is still an “egg”, though fertilized, it belongs to the woman and, therefore, may be removed without remorse. In the second example, the foetus is exactly what it is described as and therefore possesses no life.

What is the point of this analysis, then? Yes, labels are placed in the abortion debate to support the argument of either side of the issue. Yes, a rhetorical battle ensues, even as you read this article. So what? Well, the terms describing the unborn are far more important to the debate than the terms describing the opposition. While the latter targets the opposition, labelling them as fundamentally opposed to either the right to life or the right to choose, the former has the power to directly affect a woman’s decision to abort or keep her child, and this makes all the difference.

So, is there any connection between the two labelling systems? Does the labelling of the opposition connect in some way to the labelling of the unborn? Do they support each other, the one building upon the other? While the rhetoric of those opposed to abortion is consistent (“anti-life” and “unborn child” both work to focus the issue on the life and humanity of the unborn), the rhetoric of those in favour is not. The term “anti-choice” focusses the debate on the right of women to choose but “fertilized egg” and “clump of cells” primarily work to demonstrate the absence of life in the unborn. The woman’s right to choose is dependant upon this demonstration and follows secondarily in the argument. Both sides, then, focus the more important defining of terms upon the humanity, or lack thereof, of the unborn. Therefore, through the analysis of the rhetorics of the abortion debate and the unanimous acknowledgement, through these rhetorics, of the importance of the identification of the unborn as either human or not human, it follows that the resting point of the debate is not upon the right of a woman to choose but, rather, upon the right of the unborn to live. In other words, both pro-life and pro-choice rhetoric demonstrates that the humanity of the unborn must be established before the question of a woman’s right to choose is answered.

For those fighting for the right to life, the question of the humanity of the unborn must be kept in mind when engaging the public sphere. While one can easily get caught up in terminology, the central point must always be that the unborn are human beings deserving of life. Focussing our speech upon the humanity of the unborn is far more powerful than pro-choice rhetoric and it will be this tool, along with love and compassion, which will win the battle. While labelling may sway some, proclaiming the humanity inherent in the unborn will change hearts and minds. Though this article is an analysis of words, the heart of the matter is about much more. In a culture which denies the humanity of the unborn, in a country which permits abortion until the moment of birth, who will protect those who cannot protect themselves? In Canada, approximately 100,000 lives are cut short every year as a result of abortion. Will you be a voice for the voiceless?