Here is a marvelous post written by my sister who is simply marvelous... and in more than one way. So with no further to do...
"God works in mysterious ways, I find. Not that I entirely mind, of course. Rather, I like what so far He has done within these past few days on the subject of abortion. I must admit, however, that reading The Daily Telegraph's quite recent article about gender based abortion in Britain seems slightly eerie, given that just a few weeks ago the same topic was broached over here in Canada. In both cases, something occurred that triggered the response of, I think it would be safe to say, unease, at the very least. (I would like to think it caused people to feel real horror at the thought of innocent children being killed, but I am not sure that society is at that point quite yet.) In the case of Canada, it was an article written by the interim editor-in-chief, Rajendra Kale, of CMAJ, suggesting that doctors no longer tell their patients what gender the child is, in order to combat this business of abortion simply because the child is a girl, or more broadly- because both boys and girls are equal- because the child is the wrong gender. What happened in Britain, as near as I can tell, doctors were filmed by undercover journalists, and they were caught to have agreed to falsifying documents and arranging things so that women could have an abortion simply because the child was the wrong gender. This kind of selection is thankfully illegal in Britain- in fact, after 24 weeks, abortions for non medical reasons are actually prohibited in Britain. However, just because something is illegal does not actually make it disappear, although it is a step in the right direction.
This is more than can be said for what is allowed here in Canada, as since 1989 there have been no restrictions whatsoever on abortion, although from what I read, some doctors will not perform the abortion after 20 weeks. This is, however, no doubt a sort of un-codified restriction. What Canada really needs are some sort of guidelines, some sort of law that would put it officially into being that there is a time after which abortion is unacceptable. Of course, ideally I would like to see abortion prohibited outright, but I realise that in order to succeed, one must take a page out of William Wilberforce's book and do things slowly and in small steps. We are not just talking about being able to succeed with a law that will be put on the books, changing the legal status of a thing: we are actually talking of the much greater task of changing the way society thinks and behaves.
Unfortunately, Her Majesty's Canadian Government has been unequivocal in its stance that it is not elected to deal with abortion, but with the economy, and that they (keeping in mind that the government equals the cabinet, and that any Member of Parliament that is a Conservative but is not part of the cabinet is a backbencher, and that backbenchers of all parties are there to keep a check upon the cabinet, or, government) will personally stop any attempt to have any discussion about abortion in Parliament. It has happened too many times already- even with private members' bills that have nothing to do with prohibiting outright this awful killing of life , but of tightening up terms and language related to abortion in some way. Sometimes it seems that social conservatives here in Canada have not much hope.
What is interesting, though, is that Sun News conducted a poll on whether or not there ought to be some restrictions to abortion, and a majority of those who participated wanted some sort of restrictions. And yet the Government says that the people are not interested in the subject.
Secondly, in Prince Edward Island one actually could not have an abortion, and you have not been able to have one since the early 1980s. So perhaps there is some hope.
But while the Canadian government has said time and again that they will not even discuss the issue of abortion, (and that being with a comfortably majority in the Commons) I have slightly more hope from the British Government, even though there is currently a Coalition between the Liberal Democrats and the (not-very) Conservative Party. In any case, backbenchers are allow to discuss abortion- and whether or not their bills are passed (and unfortunately, several of these put forth by Nadine Dorries MP and Frank Fields MP, Conservative and Labour, respectively, did not succeed) the Government does not threaten beforehand to squash any such discussion. They do not, so far as I can tell, cause trouble for their backbenchers in this area who wish to discuss this, although of course, it might happen away from the public eye. The Health Minister, Mr Andrew Lansley, has said “I’m extremely concerned to hear about these allegations. Sex selection is illegal and is morally wrong. I’ve asked my officials to investigate this as a matter of urgency.” This is well and good: it is morally wrong to kill babies- or anyone- simply because of their gender. But one must ask, why is it so wrong? It is wrong because these yet unborn babies are indeed human. So by saying that gender selection is wrong, has there been a tacit change in the minds of people, so that people now agree inherently that the unborn are human? And if so, would not you agree that it then follows that all abortion is wrong? Why is it worse to kill babies based on their gender than killing them outright because they are simply unwanted? What makes it moreso morally wrong?
Interestingly, I have read that Scotland Yard has launched an investigation into the matter. I realise that the situation in Britain is by no means perfect, but it does look better at the moment than that of over here.
On a concluding note, The Telegraph's article says that
The disclosures are likely to lead to growing pressure for pregnant women considering an abortion to be offered independent counselling.
This would be great if so. In fact, this would be pretty much exactly what the bill put forth by Ms Dorries and Mr Fields last year was wanting- at that for which they were aiming: independent counselling for women seeking abortions. Up until now, the majority of counselling given to these ladies has been provided by abortion clinics, and I think it is naturally safe to say that this "counselling" will be predisposed to the path of abortion.
So, we will see what we will see. But the fact remains: abortion is back in the spotlight- of whatever degree, it's there- and most reasonable people will eventually ask why is it so wrong to kill girls, but not boys? What moral difference is there between the two? They are both created by God, specially designed from birth. There is no moral difference between the two options. This blog holds to the belief that if it is wrong to kill girls, (and it is), it then follows that it is wrong to kill boys. "
~Keri-Lynn
