by Jonathon Van Maren
Stephen Woodworth’s bid to examine the biology of the pre-born, Motion 312, has terrified Canada’s abortion advocates like a mirror terrifies a vampire.
Joyce Arthur insisted so loudly that asserting the humanity of the pre-born child is “begging the question” that she couldn’t hear the scientific consensus of embryologists and medical professionals. (She may believe that humans can give birth to the offspring of other species. Further research required.) Jane Cawthorne, the author of the “Abortion Monologues,” obliviously asked, “How can two persons reside in one body?” while asserting that it was wrong to enforce “moral beliefs” on someone else. As long as they’re born, of course.
It’s always interesting when the advocates for a point of view are completely terrified of an inquiry—not a law, not a referendum, not even a statement—an inquiry. It would seem to indicate that they know they’ve been blatantly lying, and that they’re quite afraid everyone else will know it shortly as well.
But aside from the regular tired tripe about patriarchy and people being obsessed with women’s sexuality, the one point that abortion advocates have been constantly trotting out is that the pre-born child is completely dependent upon the mother, and therefore can be killed for any or no reason. Which brings up an interesting question: In what other situation is this “logic” applied?
We all would agree that the pre-born child is completely dependent upon the mother. It is also obvious to anyone of cognitive function that the reason he or she is completely dependent upon the mother is because for our species, at that age, that is the way things should be. We could also point out that a newborn child is completely dependent upon others for survival and so on.
But isn’t it true that in our society, the dependency of one human being actually correspondingly heightens the responsibility of those around her? For example, I’m twenty-three. I could go to my parent’s house and ask for supper, and they would be completely within their rights to refuse me for any number of reasons. But what if my little eight-year-old sister was refused meals by my parents? Now suddenly the government would step in—because my parents have a legal obligation to their dependents.
You see, in a compassionate society, we do not refer to those who are dependent upon others as “disposable,” but as “dependents.” An enormous number of laws and regulations ensure that those who need more care—the young, the disabled, the elderly—are provided with that care by those of us who are capable of providing it. Ironically, when the abortion crowd loudly points out the dependency of the pre-born child, they’re making our case, not theirs.
But at least the fallacy-ridden Jane Cawthorne made one excellent point in a recent interview. “These people never give up,” she told the Calgary Journal, “and they’ll never give up until abortion’s completely recriminalized, because that’s their ultimate goal.”
Also, here's my commentary from Monday on the American Left bashing motherhood: