“For protesting without a permit” (1963)/ “For trespassing” (2010)
By James Carnegie
If one thing is evident in the abortion debate, it is the difference in argument of those in favour of abortion and those who oppose it. You can see this by listening to speakers or reading literature from either side. While pro-lifers often refer to their opponents as ‘pro-aborts’ the pro-choicers often use the term ‘anti-choice.’ In seeing how names are used in this debate one thing becomes clear: those opposed to abortion and those who support it are arguing two separate issues.
The argument of Brock Students For Life, along with all other pro-life advocates, is based upon demonstrating the inherent dignity of all human life from conception to natural death. Our opponents, however, build their argument upon the idea of choice. For this reason, rather than arguing why the unborn are not human, the pro-choice side tends to argue why the woman has a right to control her body.
In my experience, the abortion advocates I have encountered have avoided the question of the humanity of the unborn by turning to the worst-case-scenarios. By resting upon the cases of rape, incest, and the endangerment of the mother’s life the pro-choicer turns the argument back to ‘choice,’ thus appealing to the “mushy middle,” those who do not have a strong belief in either direction.
What the pro-life advocate must do is keep the conversation focused on the topic of ‘life’ as opposed to ‘choice.’ When the opponent argues that abortion should be legal because of the cases listed above we must explain why in both the case of the rape of a minor and the inconvenience of another child to a married couple the fetus is, in fact, a human being and, therefore, aborting him or her is murderous.
Without disrespect to those I have debated in the past, I have noticed a tendency to deny the reality of factual evidence. Usually this is justified by the argument that “there is nothing wrong with aborting a clump of cells.” Otherwise the facts I’ve presented are glossed over and ‘choice’ is again trumpeted.
In my opinion, this is further proof that it is essential that we, as pro-life advocates, have the tools and skills necessary to defend our position. We must be able to explain to persons of any opinion that the unborn are human, that it is not a matter of choice but a matter of life and death.
In future posts I will dive further into pro-life arguments and the how to defend our position when challenged (apologetics = “to speak in defense”). If anyone has a particular pro-choice argument to which they would like a pro-life response please leave it in the comment section and I will include it in my next post. Until next time, keep fighting the good fight!
By Andrew Korchok
I recently read an article about a woman in Vancouver who was charged with the murder of her two newborn sons, both killed shortly after their birth, their bodies hidden and left to rot. One quote that particularly struck me was from Vancouver Police Deputy Chief Warren Lemcke, who said “Few incidents are more tragic than the death of a child but when that death is allegedly at the hands of the mother, it is unimaginable. And when it is two children, it is incomprehensible,” True words indeed; our society abhors and decries the senseless murder of our children – born ones, that is.
The article goes on to mention that the suspect is facing second-degree murder charges, which hold a maximum sentence of life in prison, rather than infanticide, which only holds a maximum sentence of five years. Yes, this is so heinous and deplorable a crime that it carries the possibility of life in prison. And well it should! What mother could possibly be so evil-minded as to take the lives of two of her newborn babies? Why, she ought to be put away for all eternity!
I’m sure you already know where I’m going with this. Despite reviling in disgust at the thought of a mother killing her own newborn sons, we still turn a blind eye to the thousands upon thousands of abortions performed every year in hospitals and clinics, leaving one to ask what, exactly, is the difference? Why do we shake our heads in abject shock, mouths agape, at the bone-chilling sight of a police officer carrying a body bag the size of a purse, and yet at the same time defend with great ardour a woman’s right to reach inside her womb and choke out with the hand of hypocrisy the vibrant growing life within her, leaving only the dead, rotting remnants of a terminated life in it’s place? Are we truly arrogant enough to believe that the walls of a woman’s womb can shield our eyes from the culture of death we’re promoting?
Or do we believe that there truly is a difference between those still safe and protected in their mother’s bellies, and those who have been thrust out into this world of harm and danger? The victims of this horrible murder were not pre-schoolers or toddlers. They could not speak, nor walk, nor feed or sustain themselves. They were helpless, defenseless newborns, physically no different from when they were in their mother’s womb. Are we expected to believe that this child has every right to live in a world of death and danger, and no right to live in the world of his mother’s womb, a world of safety, protection and new life?
Logically, it makes little sense. But of course the paths of humans and those of logic rarely, if ever, meet. We are not swayed at heart by twisting reason or philosophical arguments. We are swayed when we are faced with stories like this. We are moved when we are confronted with the ugly face of death and murder, replete in all its publicized glory which only serves to make it that much more palpable. We are convinced when we feel in our hearts and see with our eyes, the loss of human life and the grief that it brings.
This is why we as pro-lifers must never lose sight of the humanity of our situation. Abortionists will use every tool in their arsenal to deprive the act of abortion of all humanity. They hide behind medical terms and quaint euphemisms that reduce the act of murdering a child to a simple and routine medical procedure. They hide behind the walls of hospitals and clinics, places of healing and life-saving, all in an effort to convince the world, and themselves, that the act of abortion is a safe, effective and acceptable way to improve and control their own lives. The children they terminate are not worthy of such a title. After all, they cannot hear a fetus’ screams; they cannot see the unborn being carried away in body bags; they cannot see the look of terror and regret in the mother’s eyes as she is paraded before the media, her heinous crime broadcasted for all the world to see and condemn. All of this is hidden behind sterile hospital doors and euphemistic medical terms.
We however, must cling to our humanity, and attempt to share that humanity with others. We must expose to the world the true casualties of abortion: those whose lives have been shattered, and those whose lives have been erased. We must reach out with heartfelt sympathy to those women and those families who have been hurt by abortion, as well as those who are about to be hurt by it. We argue our case most effectively not when we resort to logical, moral and philosophical arguments in an attempt to confound and confuse our opponents, but when we put on display our love for humanity and our love for life. We do our job best when we show the world that we’re not here to win an argument; we’re here to save lives.
By Matt Martyres
A woman who suffers from tuberculosis is pregnant.
Her husband has syphilis.
There are three children in the family.
One is blind, another deaf, and the other suffers from tuberculosis. Yet another child died in infancy.
Would you have recommended the mother to have abortions instead?
If so, then you have just taken the life of Ludwig van Beethoven.
This is one of many examples we hear when discussing the topic of abortion. Every year many abortions occur in Canada. In 2005, 96 815 abortions were recorded. If good can ever be seen in abortion stats it’s that there has been a decline in abortions since 1997 (abortioncanada.ca).
Among teenage women under the age of 20, the induced abortion rate in 2004 was 13.8 for every 1,000 women, down from 14.4 the year before. The induced abortion rate for these women has declined gradually since 1996 when it peaked at 18.9 (webhart.net). Sometimes, a teen in pregnancy finds having an abortion is one of the toughest decisions to make.
The following video by Nick Cannon tells the story of how his mother almost aborted him. Hopefully his story can help those young mothers make the right decision.
By Margaret Stephenson
As most students at Brock University are enjoying a break from study for the summer BSFL is working hard to prepare for the year ahead. So, following in the cyber-steps of University of Toronto Students for Life and uOttawa Students for Life, BSFL is excited to launch a blog space!
Why? Mostly to give members of the Brock community a chance to interact with our members as we chew over current life topics. We will flex our advocacy muscles as we wrestle with tough life issues and we welcome, encourage, and invite your responses to our blog posts! Please get involved!
Our club’s purpose is to actively promote the non-negotiable right to life of each human being. At present in Canada this right is blatantly denied to the unborn and is only grudgingly extended to the elderly and the suffering. This purpose is so important to the social, moral, and political fabric of Canada that we joyfully promise to set aside time in our busy lives of study to regularly compose worthwhile posts!
If we need more inspiration to boldly assert our presence on campus let’s mark the final words of our University’s namesake Major-General Sir Isaac Brock. As he died while leading British forces in Upper Canada in the War of 1812, Sir Isaac encouraged his tired troops saying “Surgite!” or, in English, “push on!”
So let’s “push on” into the year with the confidence that our advocacy for the lives of the vulnerable is of great importance. Let’s “push on” in our tireless encouragement of those brave individuals who defend life. Let’s “push on” to make any infraction against the right to life unthinkable.