April 23, 2010

By Dave Andrusko

It's not especially creative on my part, but of late I've tried to use Friday's editions of TN&V and our new pro-life online newspaper, "National Right to Life News Today" to update/expand upon stories we've recently covered. Part Two, for example, will discuss more media reviews of the new, fawning HBO production about Jack Kevorkian. Part Three takes a fresh look at the inspiring anti-euthanasia victory in Canada.

At "National Right to Life News Today" (www.nationalrighttolifenews.org), Wesley Smith offers a passionate but thoughtful look at the appearance of Family Guy Creator Seth MacFarlane on Larry King last night and the controversy over the "comedy" show's abysmal treatment of Terri Schiavo. I'll also brief discuss there a moving column by Colleen Carroll Campbell about new research on Alzheimer's. In addition, I'm passing along a statement expressing National Right to Life's support for an important new bill in Georgia.

But first things first.

As the dynamics of the abortion debate continue to shift, we've talked a lot about the possible role of Nebraska's "Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act" in changing the discussion. The bill's name says it all: only the zaniest of pro-abortion militants can fail to understand the need not to tear limb from limb unborn children capable of experiencing pain. For the wider public the new law is an exercise in Conscious Raising 101.

What else (as we used to say in college) can shift the paradigm, radically alter the way non-combatants to the battle over abortion understand what is at stake? I've often argued it's the insanely incoherent picture of pro-abortion "feminists" blithefully accepting sex-selection abortions.

We received some interesting response when I talked about that (see "Putting Abortion Advocates in a Box," http://www.nrlc.org/News_and_Views/April10/nv041310part2.html). Several wanted to know about Joyce Arthur, co-coordinator, Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada, Vancouver, who (it was alluded) found herself comfortable with such blatant inconsistency. I couldn't find the letter to the editor she'd written to the National Post. A Canadian friend sent it along.

Arthur argues that pro-lifers miss the boat. It is not (as one pro-lifer had written) that pro-abortionists believe "a fetus is not human in the moral sense."

"This is incorrect," she opined. "The pro-choice view is woman-focused, and we take no view on the fetus (or should not). The status and moral value of the fetus is moot because it's a matter of subjective personal opinion, and the only opinion that counts is the pregnant woman's."

This is a reminder, in a back-handed way, of the progress we've made south of the border. Pro-abortionists in the states are on the defensive. They are keenly aware that the public is coming to understand that the unborn child is one of us on a developmental trajectory which, if not arbitrarily and cruelly terminated, will merely reach a new stage when the child is born. It's no longer cool, in public discussion, to dismiss the child's claim on our hearts as "moot."

The other is Arthur's lame handling of sex-selection abortions. Briefly, an article in the January issue of Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada suggested that health professionals hold off on telling parents the sex of their unborn child until after the gestational age at which "termination for non-medical reasons is no longer an option." The authors are not advocating withholding information but instead counsel that doctors not seek out the baby's sex. It turns out doctors in British Columbia are already doing something similar.

Not acceptable to Arthur. Nothing ought to be done; wait until the cultures that value boys over girls change, she writes. In the meanwhile, of course, countless babies not just in Canada but also around the world will lose their lives simply because they are girls.

On the general question, "No one wants to see abortions done for reasons of sex selection," Arthur insists. "But most pro-choice people do not want to ban the practice because that means removing personal autonomy in favour of society's values. Being pro-choice means supporting women's choices even when we don't agree with them -- the hallmark of a truly free and democratic society."

This mindlessly elevates "personal autonomy" above all other societal values. It also raises the question, are there no limits?

Are we putting our "truly free and democratic society" at risk because child abuse is against the law, as is spousal abuse? Surely the callous parent or the boyfriend who brutalizes his girlfriend is merely exercising their "personal autonomy." You wonder if these people ever listen to themselves.

Please take the time to read Parts Two and Three and "National Right to Life News Today."