Thank you for this insightful analysis. I hope that everyone with an interest in abortion policy reads this carefully.

This is an article every Canadian needs to read. One of the first points I make with many friends and colleagues on the issue of abortion is that it can only be one of two things: the exercise of a woman’s right to choose to end a potential difficult pregnancy, or the killing of a human being in the very place designed by nature to protect it in its most vulnerable period of growth. The onus is not on those who choose to let nature take its course to justify their opinion, but on those who choose to intervene. Yet in this case, those who have chosen to intervene—and I am referring not to the young women who often ignorantly, and with pressure from others, undergo abortions—far from justifying their case, have tried to silence those who question their intervention. Abortion has been and continues a tragedy on several fronts: for the child, the mother and father, but also for a people—whose nation is reputed to be a bastion of human rights—whom future generations will regard with the same disbelief as we now regard slave-owners of the past: how could such “good” people have been so blind?

I’m pro-life, as I think everyone is, in the deepest levels of their psyche.

After all, have you ever met anyone who was proud of an abortion?

My opinion, on the important matter of ‘what should the penalty be for the woman who has an abortion?’ is jail time.
Some might find that harsh; but if a woman makes a conscious decision to terminate the life she is 50% responsible for creating, and 100% responsible for protecting, I would feel no qualms about letting her serve time.

I am, of course, excepting cases where both mother and child would perish, or perhaps rape.

Otherwise, it was the mother’s decision to engage in behavior that would lead to her pregnancy; and to circumvent the consequences of her actions by terminating an innocent existence is unacceptable.

If said woman finds herself in such a situation where she cannot raise the child (she has difficulty holding a job, she feels she is emotionally unable to care for a dependent) , I still believe her morally obligated to carry and birth the child, and then put it up for adoption.
In my opinion, an orphan is better than a prematurely silenced infant.

That’s my take on it, anyway.

Is a baby conceived by a rapist any less a human?  I don’t think these kids run around with an asterisk - so why the exception allowing us to abort them?

I like the expression “moral instinct” as described by Professor Somerville. This notion, transferred into the abortion debate implies, among other things, that there is no neutral moral stand, and that normally we all have a reaction when confronted to moral issue. What should follow logically is the need to speak about it, and to analyze this natural reaction. To repress this need cannot be intellectually healthy, individually or collectively.

The least that we should do, as members of a democratic society, is to facilitate and encourage a free speech’s arena on abortion and to allow everyone to express their moral instinct, avoiding at all cost the ad hominem attack based on gender or religion. The ones experiencing the “yuck reaction” should have the same right to speak as the others who have “overcome” it. We have to think collectively the type of culture we want to legate to our future generations, one of life or of death.

For someone who seems proud of having had an abortion, see the article in the London Times, link below.  The content is sufficiently indicated by the title, “Abortion: why it’s the ultimate motherly act”. 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/
comment/columnists/caitlin_moran/article1645946.ece

A quote: “I’m not being flippant when I say it took me longer to decide what work-tops to have in the kitchen than whether I was prepared to spend the rest of my life being responsible for a further human being.” Perhaps this at least rebuts the usual claim that “No woman takes a decision about termination without very careful consideration”. 

I’m not with That Lesbian on jail for women who have abortions.  So many people tell them that there’s no harm in it, and when they find out this is a lie, they are to be pitied rather than blamed. But jail for doctors who ignore the laws (there may be no law in Canada, but we have laws in UK, which are frequently ignored) would be different.

And abortions to save the life of the mother are necessary about as often as the spun coin comes to rest on its edge.

To Pat S; Thank you for asking: I do have an explanation for that.

Actually, I know two people that were conceived by their mother and a rapist.

And while I would certainly urge a woman to carry the child to term and, if possible, raise it with all the love she can muster, the fact remains that this woman had a child unfairly thrust upon her.
If a woman uses contraceptives, or ‘only did it that once’, and has a child, she is still responsible for the actions that conceived that child, and is therefore subject to the consequences of those actions.
However, in cases of rape, the woman had -no- choice regarding the child; so, again, while I would strongly encourage the victim to carry and raise the child, I am powerfully averse to -forcing- any woman to take responsibility for a life she did not willingly take action to create.

In addition, if you know anyone conceived via rape, you might be familiar with the phenomena whereby the mother has severe trauma of the rape; trauma that is often carried into the raising of the child themselves, leading to the child feeling incomplete or fundamentally flawed due to their mother’s trauma relating to their conception.

I’ll say again, while I would encourage the mother’s acceptance of the child, I do not believe it morally acceptable to force the mother to endure a pregnancy where every moment is simply another reminder that the life within her was created because a man assaulted her and deprived her of her right to her own body; I do not deem it improbable that under such circumstances, the traumatized mother would be tempted to take her own life rather than be constantly reminded of her victimization by remaining pregnant.

In such a case, I believe it the best course of action to encourage the mother to raise the child; but if the mother is under emotional distress fit to endanger both her own life and the life of her unborn child, at least one life should be saved.

That Lesbian -

I don’t think you answered the question - is it a human child or not?  If it is a human child then there’s no way s/he can be aborted.  If it isn’t then someone needs to re-educate this PhD biologist.

It truly sucks for the raped woman, but why compound the first immoral act with a second?

Pat

I agree with Pat S.
While there may be more complications involving a woman who was raped and conceived a child, one thing remains. That child is, and will always be, human. Besides, aborting the child is not the only way to solve a possible source of emotional stress. The mother could put the child in an orphanage or have him adopted.
There really is no need to resort to the murderous act of abortion.

You know, the case of rape is always cited as a reason to have abortion legal.  But the number of instances of a child being conceived through rape is really not that great.  But it is always used as a reason to legitimize abortion. 

One does not make rules because of the exception; the exception needs to be considered, but it is never the reason for making a rule or eliminating one.  Julie

I’ll be quick; I missed something in an earlier post that now catches my attention.

Tim Roberts:
You disagree on me on the idea of jail time for women who aborted their child.
I cannot see how women will be deterred from seeking an abortion if the -doctor- is the only one punished.

“So many people tell them that there’s no harm in it, and when they find out this is a lie, they are to be pitied rather than blamed.”

Pity them if you like, but they still need to face the consequences of their actions. They -should- be blamed; -they- made the choice to have an abortion, not their doctor. (I will agree, however, that the doctors should be punished as well.)

As for Pat S and Dominic G…

I’m getting the feeling we’re not going to reach a consensus. Rather than clog the posting arena with more debate that’s not getting anyone anywhere, perhaps we should ‘truce’, as it were. Agree to disagree etcetera.

Julie makes the point that the number of abortions because of rape is not great.  You can be sure, however, that an abortion law with an exception for rape would certainly cause the number of cases claiming rape to multiply!

Yes, that would probably be true. 
But I meant, and you understood this I’m sure, that citing rape as an example of why abortion should be legal is always used.  It is used to divert attention away from the real issue and people argue it in order to try and trip up anti-abortion supporters.

Yesterday I read an article by John Neuhaus on First Things which he wrote in 1992! about how abortion was made legal in the US by the decision of court judges, while the polls indicate that the American population is decidedly against abortion on demand.  We are living with laws brought down by individuals who were never elected by the people, yet they decide how the people will live.  Same thing in Canada. 

Since this article is about freedom of speech, where is the democracy in the abortion laws, which are not supported by the majority of the people in both Canada and the US, yet we have to live with them? 

It is time to bring law making back to the people, not put it in the hands of appointed judges, who have their own agenda and are persuaded by certain groups to decide in their favour.  Julie

Julie-- I recognize you from the city newspaper discussion thread on this topic (are you from Hamilton?) Dr. Somerville above has also written about the hostility of pro-choice groups toward pro-life groups on university campuses. We know that happens here, and I also know that happens in the U. S. from what I’ve read in First Things and other publications. It is interesting to note that the pro-life advertisements removed in Hamilton (mentioned above by Dr. Somerville) were up in the neighbourhood that surrounds the university campus (and so has a great deal of student housing), if not actually right on campus (my student son reports he saw one there). They were actually defaced with graffiti before someone complained to the city councillor about their presence.

Michelle, I am in Halifax, another city that is very hostile to any pro life groups.  There is a very worrisome agenda afoot to silence anyone who speaks of traditional values of any sort, pro life, defence of traditional marriage. 
The political correctness in Canada amounts to allowing certain groups to dictate what others can and cannot say.  Yet, who says that they are right?  Who is setting these people up as the ones who decide what we can and cannot say, what we can and cannot do? 
This so-called “tolerance of intolerance” is totalitarian in its very nature.  Julie Culshaw