Letter to the editor
Jan. 20th, 2008 06:18 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
velvetpageThere 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.
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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2008-01-20 11:57 pm (UTC)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.