Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Canadian rights | Main | Good question! »

Thursday, February 02, 2006

The high price of 'choice'

Rebecca Eckler's "Advice to the Lovelorn" column on page B3 of today's National Post (subscribers only) features a letter from a young woman who conceived a child with her live-in boyfriend, but then decided to have an abortion. The young lady writes: "It's been two months,  but I'm still overwhelmed with sadness and guilt." Eckler advises the young woman to see a therapist or counsellor.

Eckler does not say so, but the young lady is clearly suffering from post-abortion stress syndrome, an affliction about which very little is spoken, but which is becoming a veritable scourge in our "choice" society. I wrote a cover story on the problem for the old Report magazine; it ran Dec. 2, 2002.

A good source of information about the syndrome -- and about the healing that is available -- is the Rachel's Vineyard website. Also good is a book, Women's Health After Abortion: The Medical and Psychological Evidence, written by two Canadians, Elizabeth Ring-Cassidy of Calgary, and Ian Gentles of Toronto. It's available through Toronto's deVeber Institute.

Strange how pro-choicers often describe abortion as a simple medical procedure to remove some unwanted tissue from a woman's body. But you never hear of women experiencing guilt, remorse and depression after having liposuction.

Posted by Terry O'Neill on February 2, 2006 in Current Affairs | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d834a6c86f69e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The high price of 'choice':

Comments

The secular-fundamentalist ideology that accompanies militant abortion rights is false, unkind, and, ultimately, cruel. This young woman is just its latest victim.

I just finished reading about a cartoon. The devil is greeting new entrants into hell. He says, "here, there's no right and wrong, just whatever works for you".

Posted by: Richard Ball | 2006-02-02 12:44:15 PM


Good analogy/conclusion Terry; but on another note we always seem to equate abortion issues with the woman "a woman's right to choose" etc. As a male and a father of grown children,I have to say that I was part of the decision making process that led to an abortion many years ago. In hindsight it was a poor and uninformed choice that has left me with a bad taste in my mouth for thirty years now. Although its true that we all have to live with whatever choices we make, we also should realize that some choices really aren't ours to make. I'm sure that abortion under some circumstances may be necessary: in others its just plain convenience as it was in our case. When Ronald Reagan was once cornered as to his views on the subject his thoughtful reply as he looked around him was that as far as he could see no one in present company's mother had subscribed to it.

Posted by: simon | 2006-02-02 12:59:19 PM


Wasn't Campaign Life given intervener status on behalf of the health of women, in Morgentalers attempt to set a legal precedent forcing provinces to pay for private clinic abortions?

Posted by: lwestin | 2006-02-02 1:21:01 PM


The Hidden Victims of "Choice"

By Stephen Gray

“Things that cannot stand sunlight are not healthful”
Harry Emerson Fosdick

An atrocity today that cannot stand the light and is
not "healthful" to the victims who are killed by it is
abortion. Anyone daring to show the bloody, abused and
slaughtered bodies of unborn babies killed by abortion
or “choice” - as its proponents call it - are attacked
and vilified for showing the truth. We live in a
society that pretends “choice” is wonderful and that
there are no victims. There are two victims in this
atrocity: the mother who is told that what is inside
her is “tissue” and is “disposable” and the child who
is the victim of “disposable choice.” Disguised as
“choice,” this procedure eliminates over 100,000 human
lives a year in Canada. There is a wealth of
information available on the humanity of the unborn
baby, who can be seen on ultra sound, and is operated
on to correct certain health problems when the child
is “wanted.” Oddly, when the child is not "wanted" the
lie is told that s/he is only "potential life."

The big lie of “choice” is spread by most of the
media, and hailed by most politicians as a “right” to
be protected, especially at election time. “Choice” is
an election slogan, as witness our democratically
challenged prime minister trumpeting it in the last
election. Yet, “choice” kills. This “choice”
propaganda is worthy of Josef Goebbels himself. He
surely would have approved of these peddlers of
propaganda. Tell the big lie often enough and it
attains credibility. Yet, for a lie to remain as a
“truth” the lie has to continue to be disseminated.
This is why the media generally will not show the
carved up and headless bodies of babies killed by
abortion. They have already committed themselves as
supporters of “choice” and so one lie begets another.
There are no victims in abortion according to the
powers that be; therefore, there is no evidence to be
shown. Or to paraphrase an old saying: lives deemed
unworthy of living are called “choice.”

Yet some choices are bad. When somebody chose to kill
bald eagles recently, the media gave this story big
coverage and even showed the carved up carcases of the
eagles. Questions were asked as to who was committing
these atrocities and it was stated the police were
investigating. How strange our society is; killing
eagles is unacceptable and rightly so. Yet in our
local slaughterhouses, called abortion clinics,
killing babies is acceptable. These places are
described as promoting “healthcare choices.” When the
language is perverted then anything is possible and
permissible. After all “choice” is not horrific is it?

Most people are horrified when they see pictures on TV
of baby seals being clubbed to death and the ice flows
running red with their blood. Warnings are issued on
TV before showing the pictures and we are told the
images are gruesome. Imagine if these same TV cameras
took us inside the local abortuary where babies are
slaughtered, suctioned out, poisoned by a saline
solution or in some cases born alive and left to die.
The people would then be able to see these grisly
medical butchers at work performing “choice” for the
nation. Then the truth and the light would be shed on
this abominable action, and the babies killed and
mutilated by abortion would no longer be the hidden
victims.

Note: To see the truth about abortion go to:
http://www.AbortionNo.org

Stephen Gray

July 29, 2005.

[email protected] website:
http://www.geocities.com/graysinfo

Posted by: Stephen Gray | 2006-02-02 1:25:01 PM


"...overwhelmed with sadness and guilt..."

Sounds like she was raised Christian and her Christian "morals" getting the best of her. It doesn't sound like an actual medical condition.

Regardless of whether the condition exists or not, all movements to limit birth control are campaigns to subjugate women. Women own their bodies and can do with them as they choose, including having unwanted living cells, like cancer or a foetus, removed. When they can't do so, it limits their their liberty and by consequence their economic and social opportunities.

Any limitation of a person's right to their body is grossly immoral. Abortion is a moral issue. There are those who support a person's right to their body (classical liberals and otherwise inconsistent leftists) and those who don't (religious people who base their morality loosely on a book of superstition and act as if agreement of a large group is the same as certainty).

Posted by: Robert Seymour | 2006-02-02 1:29:23 PM


Personally, I think that abortion was created by men, to absolve them from any responsibility. I definitely think the increase in the number of fatherless children is connected to the fact that they can put the entire burden on the woman. If she wants the child, keep it-its hers. If she doesn't want the child, have an abortion. Its up to you dear...

Posted by: lwestin | 2006-02-02 1:36:22 PM


"Regardless of whether the condition exists or not, all movements to limit birth control are campaigns to subjugate women."

Tell you what, Robert Seymour, let me, as a woman, decide what subjugates me. This doesn't even come close.

If you disagree with me, you will be subjugating me. :)

BTW, are you saying that abortion is a method of birth control? I hope not because decades of statements by the pro-abortion side insist otherwise.

Posted by: Kathryn | 2006-02-02 1:50:17 PM


lwestin, abortion was not created by man " to absolve them from any responsibility" according to the Old Testament.

See http://ianism.com/?p=68

Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-02-02 1:51:21 PM


To equate cancer cells with a fetus is frankly a very sick analogy.

Not worth replying to actually....what a sick mind.

RZ

Posted by: RZ | 2006-02-02 1:52:37 PM


It is sad that post-abortion stress is not being addressed by the medical profession on a daily basis. In this article it is a situation we do not have all the details available.
For the women raped, molested, sexually abused, who have been forced to carry a child from violence! The trauma, guilt and judgements from others is horrific!
We have to be supportive, we need the medical professionals to deal with the types of situations if violence is part of the reason a pregnancy has occured. More professionals need to make treatment available without delay.
The future of both the mother and child are at risk! We do not need women to consider taking the children's life's are suicide to resolve situations that occur from violence.
Sincerely Holly Desimone

Posted by: Holly | 2006-02-02 2:11:20 PM


Ian,

Being hostile, as you advertize, to the Word of God, I'll hardly be looking to you for guidance as to its meaning. Much more appropriate to look to the Church, whom Christ gave that job to.

I know you won't get this but, there is a huge , difference between God calling back His own to Him, and Man usurping God's right and killing. (As someone who has miscarried, I can tell you that there is also a huge difference in how it affects the woman.)

Posted by: lwestin | 2006-02-02 2:11:25 PM


I am not hostile to the Word of God whatsoever. That is your projection. The fact of the matter is the Bible is NOT anti-abortion.

You may not get it, perhaps because your mind is made up as to what the Bible says. Of course, I'd be more than willing to ready how Judah's declaration to burn Tamar was going to be "God calling back his own" or how a priest that induced an abortion was "God calling back his own."

That is simply an insane idea, and if we apply that hermenuitic throughout Scripture.. well.. heh... Scripture means nothing at all.

Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-02-02 2:19:08 PM


"ready how Judah's" should be "read how Judah's"

Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-02-02 2:20:03 PM


You might also want to take a look at some passages in Hosea regarding abortion as well, and what God threatens to do regarding the emptying of wombs.

It's done out of anger, not "calling back His own."

Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-02-02 2:21:16 PM


On the previous thread you explained how you WERE hostile. Nice try, to find in the Bible, 'references' interpreted by you to be condonement by God, for everything you want to rationalize as acceptable. By the way, I don't rely on my own interpretation. I rely on the Church's, which is how Christ set it up, and that's good enough for me. Apparantly the fact that you have to rely on your own individual 'idea' of God to interpret His Word, doesn't bother you. Maybe you have private revelations?

Posted by: lwestin | 2006-02-02 2:28:37 PM


I found this recent article in Britian interesting in that their politicians actually discuss the issue.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1697424,00.html

Conservatives with moderate (0

I find it interesting that Morgentaler said the following last year when Quebec announced that they were opening a clinic for >6mths pregnancies:

"We don't abort babies, we want to abort fetuses before they become babies," Morgentaler said from his Toronto clinic.

"Around 24 weeks I have ethical problems doing that."

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20040912/quebec_abortion_040911?s_name=&no_ads=

Morgentaler - hidden agenda? Socon prolifer!

Posted by: Don | 2006-02-02 2:39:51 PM


Ian Scott

On your logic, God isn't against murder because he had people killed.

Posted by: Pat | 2006-02-02 2:42:28 PM


Well, that comment didn't turn out well.

Those quotes are from Morgentaler.

My point was that Conservatives that think there should be limits (3,4,5mths) shouldn't be afraid to bring this issue up.

Posted by: Don | 2006-02-02 2:42:28 PM


"By the way, I don't rely on my own interpretation. I rely on the Church's, which is how Christ set it up,"

Well, in a couple of days, I will discuss some of the individuals that you listed as being "intelligent," including Aquinas and Augustine, and some former Popes and their views on abortion.

Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-02-02 2:47:41 PM


Pat,

That is not my logic at all. The Ten Commandments were mistranslated with the Commandment, Thou Shalt Not Kill. It should read, Thou shalt not murder.

The originals used different words for kill and murder.

Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-02-02 2:51:32 PM


No doubt you feel you are eminently qualified and intelligent enough to do that. Good luck!

Posted by: lwestin | 2006-02-02 2:52:03 PM


Oh, I do, lwestin. In fact, I know you are intelligent enough to do your own research as well.

Hey, do you know when the Roman Catholic church decided abortion was wrong, by the way?

Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-02-02 2:53:56 PM


Ian,

I think we are more interested in when Canada will make a decision on it - either way.

Posted by: Don | 2006-02-02 2:57:34 PM


Don, what should this decision be based on, exactly?

Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-02-02 3:03:46 PM


Ian has a knack for missing the point.

Posted by: lwestin | 2006-02-02 3:05:00 PM


lwestin, then tell us what the "point" is, exactly.

Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-02-02 3:06:12 PM


"To equate cancer cells with a fetus is frankly a very sick analogy.

Not worth replying to actually....what a sick mind.

RZ"

Because self-righteous mawkishness is so much better. Get over yourself.

Posted by: Robert Seymour | 2006-02-02 3:18:20 PM


Since the Lord said be fruitful and multiply, I can't see why He would say, have abortions. I never saw that in the Bible.

Everywhere in the Bible, having children was seen as a blessing. Not having children was seen as a mishap. For example, Rachel felt unloved because she was not having children until God answered her prayer.

One powerful miracle was done on the person of Sarah who became pregnant at ninety.

Abortion is contrary to the design of God for humanity.

Posted by: Rémi houle | 2006-02-02 4:24:40 PM


There are limits to abortion in Canada. Just because we don't have de jure limits doesn't mean we don't have de facto.

It's very difficult to find a physician who will do an abortion after 12-14 weeks (generally, at this point, there must be demonstrable fetal malformation). No one will do one after 24 weeks gestation.

Posted by: Boudica | 2006-02-02 4:29:56 PM


"But you never hear of women experiencing guilt, remorse and depression after having liposuction."

You never see people lined up outside liposuction clinics calling patients murderers and butchers, either. It's a hard enough choice as it is, and the anti-choice crowd is just making it harder.

Posted by: Greg | 2006-02-02 4:44:35 PM


Stephen Gray is really what every woman considering an abortion, should be given to read, meditate and pray over.

I think many people try to lie to themselves.

I sure hope some reporters will find the courage to show what is happening inside an abortion clinic and how the murdered baby looks like.

Posted by: Rémi houle | 2006-02-02 5:42:25 PM


Abortion should be illegal due to the simple fact that the unborn child's rights as an individual human being are to be protected by law as anyone else's should. Cutting the umbilical cord doesn't magically make someone human. They are human before the cord is cut.

The problem with the pro-life movement is that it is painted with the religious brush (most often Christian) and most people do not wish to have religious views pushed on them or mixed with public policy. As much as I sympathize with their cause, their arguments do not, have not, and will not resonate. It's time to start talking about human rights - a concept supposedly close to the hearts and minds of Canadians - and making it clear that butchering the unborn is incompatible with this concept.

Posted by: Michael Dabioch | 2006-02-02 6:26:53 PM


Ian Scott, your urban prejudices and inbreeding are showing.

Try to make your arguments without reference to religion. Try me with a Kohlbergian analysis.

Posted by: MGK | 2006-02-02 6:52:37 PM


MGK, make the arguement for anti-abortion without invoking religion. My reference to The Holy Bible is because I am aware that is lwestin's frame of reference for her argument on this subject.

And of course, you are wrong on both counts regarding urban and inbreeding. But then I've noticed a lot of ad hominem and red herrings thrown into this debate.

Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-02-02 7:01:43 PM


I must say I am totally against abortion but support fully the right of women to choose. What/who the hell gives a man, a religion or a Government the right to tell a woman she must give up or sacrifice a good portion of her life to support someone else's beliefs?

Posted by: Western Canadian | 2006-02-02 7:17:21 PM


tick, tick, tick...

Posted by: MGK | 2006-02-02 7:18:22 PM


A woman controls her own body, except, apparently, the brain, the using of which would prevent an inconvenient pregnancy. Not getting pregnant is not rocket science. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

Posted by: Kathryn | 2006-02-02 8:28:17 PM


Conscience is an amazing and most precious of human characteristics - for the majority of us that have one, please make all efforts to avoid abortion; if you anguish over past "choices", share your experiences with others in an appropriate way. (this may work better than prozac)

For those of you that can have an abortion without affecting a non-existant conscience - please do!(The sooner our species has eliminated these selfish/sociopathic triats from the gene pool, the better!)

Posted by: fjb | 2006-02-02 9:18:32 PM


Western Canadian: How about the "woman" taking responsibility in the first place...thereby negating the need for an abortion.

And what's the big deal about her 'right' to choose ? She has the right to CHOOSE from various methods of birth control...abortion should not be a method of birth control !

Another thing that always gets me...if it's the woman's right to choose, then why do taxpayers have to pay for it ? Also, if it's a PRIVATE ABORTION CLINIC, that's okay, but if it's any other private clinic, it's the evil 2 tier health care that will destroy us !!!!!!

Posted by: MarkAlta | 2006-02-02 10:13:53 PM


"tick, tick, tick..."

Well, that's a helpful comment. My three year old goes "tick, tick, tick.." when he listens to a watch.

Now, most of us don't know what a "Kohlbergian analysis" is. Why don't you be more precise and tell us your own views from a "Kohlbergian analysis," and why such an analysis is more "correct" or "real" than any other analysis?


Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-02-02 11:33:25 PM


Its kind of stupid to expect this argument to be had without it being obvious that people of religious and moral integrity are arguing for life. They're are the most likely people to care what happens to the child or the mother.
Any man advocating abortion has motivations that are suspect. A man who stands up for his child is above reproach. Few enough men do.

Posted by: lwestin | 2006-02-03 5:50:43 AM


The womans right activists have made abortion a choice, well my choice is not to do it. I can tell you though if any one of my friends do it, I don't want to know and I won't give any sympathy for it. If they had any respect for me then they would not even tell me! I've made that clear to them.
I know it makes them sad and full of guilt, well too bad you should never of done it.
I have guilt and sadness for all the children that weren't born, not for the mothers who aborted them.

Don't get me wrong, hatred isn't there either. I see it as none of my business if you've done it. You made the choice you live with it. I live with my choices everyday, and I survive (so far).

Posted by: Sara | 2006-02-03 7:01:33 AM


"women own their own bodies and can do with them as they choose..."

I contend that once a woman becomes pregnant she is no longer the sole owner of her body, that, in fact, the feotus also has some inherent rights of ownership.

Posted by: potato | 2006-02-03 7:04:53 AM


Frankly, its unfortunate Iwestin's mother didn't abort her (or it).

Posted by: morgentaler | 2006-02-03 7:29:46 AM


Nice. Very unemotional. Too bad. I'm oldest of 10 and have 8 of my own. Feeling out-numbered?

Posted by: lwestin | 2006-02-03 8:01:15 AM


lwestin:

"Its kind of stupid to expect this argument to be had without it being obvious that people of religious and moral integrity are arguing for life."

"Moral integrity" is an interesting description. But anyhow, lwestin, perhaps what we need to do is define some terms.

What life are you protecting? All life? And when does this life begin?

Are you prepared to argue for the protection of life of non-human species?

Start at the beginning, and define "life" that you are protecting. And explain by what method you have used to determine the reality of this "life."

Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-02-03 12:38:06 PM


I support her right to choose. I also support her right to shut the hell up about it after the fact.

Posted by: PGP | 2006-02-03 2:52:40 PM


Ian, (quickly)


I am speaking of HUMAN life, beginning at conception. Not aguable without defying science. (not that stops everyone.) Please don't ask me to reference you. Look it up.

Posted by: lwestin | 2006-02-03 2:56:17 PM


lwestin, I don't believe that HUMAN life begins at conception. In fact, I agree with the very intelligent Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine, as well as former Popes on this subject. (I'll provide reference if you want, but you can look it up).

Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-02-03 3:12:18 PM


I find it interesting and ironic that so many pro-choice radical feminists are vegetarians.

Religion is not necessary to oppose abortion. I'm a pro-life atheist. Kathryn makes the best point: women have the choice to use their brain and not have sex.

Why is left - normally so pre-occupied with such discussions - so averse to discussing the 'root causes' of abortion? Why do so many young girls dress like little Britney Spearses and feel like they have to have sex to be cool?
The right to regular orgasms is the focus, as well as the right to kill human life, which is the well-known result of heterosexual sex.
Sex creates life, abortion destroys life.

Posted by: Charlotte | 2006-02-03 4:01:35 PM



The comments to this entry are closed.