Letter to the editor

[velvetpage]

There was an article in yesterday's newspaper about a topic that has been fairly quiet in Canada for a number of years: abortion.

The issue: the Hamilton Right To Life association bought some advertising in bus shelters, and put up an ad that reads: "9 months: the length of time an abortion is legal in Canada. No medical reason needed. Abortion: Have we gone too far?" Then there's some contact information. The picture is of a clothed pregnant woman, with an ultrasound-style image of a fetus superimposed over the belly.

The ad was pulled by the city's transit commissioner as too controversial/offensive, and yesterday's article was from the president of the Right To Life Association, who happens to be a Catholic priest. The article said (rightly, I think) that the ads should not have been pulled just because somebody disagreed with them, when they were in good taste. The problem I have is that he then went on to defend his subject matter. He talked about the "slippery slope" towards abortion starting in 1969 in Canada, and culminating in 1988.

Well.



If Father Slaman had restricted his comments to his association's right to promote opinions that are contrary to those of the transit authority, I would not be writing this letter. I agree with him on that. The ads should not have been pulled. However, I take issue with the ads themselves and with Father Slaman's comments after that.

The ad suggests that we have gone too far in allowing abortions for the entire term of a pregnancy. The phrase "too far" suggests that there is a point that is "far enough" - that is, a point up to which abortions would be more reasonable. The polls suggest that many Canadians would agree with some restrictions on late-term abortions.

The problem is that his own slippery slope argument applies equally well to what he is doing. If the ruling to allow medical abortions in 1969 was a slippery slope towards abortion, one must wonder: would legislation to prohibit, for example, third-trimester abortions, also be a slippery slope? Does the president of the Right to Life Association expect Canadians to believe that, if such legislation were to be enacted, they'd stop campaigning there? It's no secret - and the article makes it less so - that the Right To Life Association would prefer that all abortions be illegal. If Canada were to enact legislation banning SOME abortions, it's reasonable to expect that the Association would then begin campaigning for stricter legislation until abortions were near-impossible to get.

Pro-choice people watch what is happening south of the border, and see ads and articles like this here, and fear for women's rights. The result is a polarization. Neither side trusts the other to stick to whatever compromise they end up agreeing on. Both sides can point to cases where the other took such a hard-line stance that there was reason to distrust their word. And so we stand, at an impasse, with no protection for babies who could survive outside the womb, and a political climate where even broaching the subject is considered tatamount to handing over the election.

If Father Slaman really expects Canadians to consider some restrictions on late-term abortions, he's going to have to make promises that his article implies he wouldn't keep. In that situation, I cannot see him getting what he wants.

Comments

[midnightsangel.livejournal.com]

ok wait - we can actually have late term abortions in Canada??????????????????

Honestly, I could not imagine even CONSIDERING that at this stage.

I'm not saying I wouldn't consider it at all (I'm not going to go there.. lol) but just at this point.. 9 months.. I'm so excited to meet my little man now, the thought of anything happening to him period is terrifying. Let alone myself doing it to him.

These are just my opinions, I'm not getting into the debate on abortions.. too much stress in that topic lol.

I posted an entry for you on my journal.

[asqmh.livejournal.com]

I think you wrote a fair, well-worded letter on a very tough topic.

I'm pro-choice, don't get me wrong. I don't like the idea of abortion, but it's better that it's legal.

I wish there were never need for it - but I also wish no one were ever abused, hungry, ill or sad, too, and I haven't figured out how to fix those things yet, so I'll just have to keep working on my Ultimate Solution Made of Win™.

Late term abortions are a really difficult thing in my mind. But I'm still not done ferreting that out yet, so I'll leave it be.

Just wanted to say good for you for writing.

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

Pro-choice people rarely seem to realize that the choice is not "abortion" or "babies" - it's "legal, safe abortion" or "illegal abortions that cause the deaths of women." I agree with you. I hate the idea of abortion and would never get one unless my life were in immediate danger and the baby wasn't going to survive anyway, and even then I hope Piet would be the one making the decision because I might not be able to. But given the choice between legal, safe abortion and illegal abortions that kill women, I'll take the life that is already here over the prospective one, every time.

[asqmh.livejournal.com]

Exactly. And, even biblically, the Bible is not "pro-life" (or pro-choice . . . you can't make it talk about something it doesn't know.).

It's just a tough topic all around.

[kisekileia.livejournal.com]

I think that is a really, really good letter.

I don't support abortion when the baby is viable outside the womb unless there is no other way to save the mother's life, but I agree with you that introducing any restrictions on abortion (or even the possibility thereof) would result in massive campaigning by pro-lifers to introduce more and more restrictions.

[catsarah.livejournal.com]

wouldn't an abortion, when the baby is able to live outside the womb, be akin to a c section and then wouldn't that transmute the "abortion" to murder? I'm not trying to raise any red flags here (and Erin, feel free to screen this comment to keep people from getting in a dither over my thinking out loud), but "if" the baby can survive outside the womb, and someone does something to deliberately terminate that life...wow...that just sort of boggles my mind. And I thought Canada did not allow late term abortions. In fact, I can remember someone in a you woman in a foster home in Alberta, going to the states to have an abortion because she was too far along to have one here in Canada...at least I thought that's what was going on...

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

Late term abortions are legal up until full-term, but that doesn't mean a woman will be able to find a doctor willing to perform one. In fact, it's almost a non-issue - this happens maybe a few dozen times per year in Canada, and almost all of those are cases where the fetus has significant medical problems that were discovered after 30 weeks. 70% of abortions are done before 20 weeks, and most of the rest are done within a week or two of the first ultrasound, when a problem is discovered.

The procedure used for a late-term abortion is usually a D&E, Dilation and Extraction, and mimics natural childbirth up to a point. The fetus isn't allowed to take a first breath, because the instant it breathes, it's considered to have achieved personhood. There are ob/gyns in the States who refuse to learn how to perform D&E's because they're considered an abortion operation, but they have uses in cases of late-term miscarriage, too. It's usually safer to extract a dead fetus than to leave the mother's body to expel it on its own, but there have been cases in the States of women who couldn't find a doctor to do one.

[athelind.livejournal.com]

In short: it's a decision DOCTORS should make, not LAWYERS.

And especially not LAYMEN.

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

Even there, not entirely. If a person is studying to become an ob/gyn, they should learn how to do these operations in order to get their certification. The idea of a woman walking around for weeks, still looking pregnant, knowing the baby is gone but unable to get it out of her body because some holier-than-thou doctors refuse to perform a D&E - that's just horrid.

[girlydoll.livejournal.com]

Laws must have changed since I went to school?

The only hospital to do it here in our town is the one up on the escarpment, and it's only legal to have an abortion up to 11 weeks of pregnancy. After that point nothing short of medical complications or abnormalities in the fetus (women can have a late term abortion rather than having a down syndrome child for example, and some do as they would rather not have a child that will be completly dependant and alone on a system after the lifespan of the parents has expired) have been allowed.

I assume this has changed from the tone of the advertisment?

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

It changed in 1988. Any woman can legally get an abortion at any time - no restrictions at all. Not all hospitals do them (Catholic hospitals never do) but the service is legally and freely available.

[neosis.livejournal.com]

Maybe someone should point out to Father Slaman that it's 18 years later, now. Exactly when can we expect the sliding to start?

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

His point of view is that the sliding began in 1969 with the legalization of medical abortions, and reached bottom in January of 1988 with the Supreme Court's decision to strike down Canada's anti-abortion law - that is, the sliding has stopped.

[neosis.livejournal.com]

Well then: Mission Accomplished!

I know he's trying to argue for pushing the house back up the slippery slope, but frankly, that just sounds like a fool's errand.