Abortion
- Thread starter Canadian Dragon
- Start date
ELF is an ecoterrorist oragization. Yes, I equte anti-abotionists to them. They are both trying to force their will onto the general public. All extremists are unwilling to see their opponents view.
Tibear you are not that different from the Rev, you do not acknowledge points other people have posted as well. At least the Rev will answer every volley lobbed at him.
How is saving the life of the mother any different...than say using fetuses that have been aborted to save people's lives or even make some people's lives a little easier ? These people face hardships too, in some cases more.
Tibear you are not that different from the Rev, you do not acknowledge points other people have posted as well. At least the Rev will answer every volley lobbed at him.
How is saving the life of the mother any different...than say using fetuses that have been aborted to save people's lives or even make some people's lives a little easier ? These people face hardships too, in some cases more.
Zen,
I've acknowledged on many occasions good points that other people have made and I don't believe there has ever been a 'real' question that I've backed away from. I am getting tired of Pea and RB attacking virtually everything I post. If someone did this to them, they would accuse me of all kinds of nasty things. For example in the "favorite quote" section, we all know that she is posting quotes that directly attack me from people that I have no respect for. I will acknowledge that some of the quotes I post are to counter hers but the people I quote are scientific and hope she would respect. Nobody has problems with her attacks but if Jay or someone else does it, suddenly he is told to "smarten up" or move on.
As for your question of
The pro-life movement only accepts abortion when the pregnancy will directly result in the death of the mother. Economic, emotional or other issues are not valid reasons for abortions, from the pro-life viewpoint, because there are other options(adoption).
There may be validity in using fetal tissue that parents donate for medical research but the pro-life movement objects to fertilizing eggs simply for research purposes. I would agree that using fetal tissue in research is akin to donating one's body to science or to organ donation, however, only with the parent's consent and only if the pregnancy was naturally terminated.
I've acknowledged on many occasions good points that other people have made and I don't believe there has ever been a 'real' question that I've backed away from. I am getting tired of Pea and RB attacking virtually everything I post. If someone did this to them, they would accuse me of all kinds of nasty things. For example in the "favorite quote" section, we all know that she is posting quotes that directly attack me from people that I have no respect for. I will acknowledge that some of the quotes I post are to counter hers but the people I quote are scientific and hope she would respect. Nobody has problems with her attacks but if Jay or someone else does it, suddenly he is told to "smarten up" or move on.
As for your question of
The pro-life movement only accepts abortion when the pregnancy will directly result in the death of the mother. Economic, emotional or other issues are not valid reasons for abortions, from the pro-life viewpoint, because there are other options(adoption).
There may be validity in using fetal tissue that parents donate for medical research but the pro-life movement objects to fertilizing eggs simply for research purposes. I would agree that using fetal tissue in research is akin to donating one's body to science or to organ donation, however, only with the parent's consent and only if the pregnancy was naturally terminated.
It still does not answer how saving the Mother's life over any other life would be warranted. To remain consistent in that argument the lives of both the mother and the fetus would be lost. Its okay to save the mother's life and sacrafice a fetus, but you cannot save or use a fetus to save or enhance anyone else's life. Thus, the contridiction in the "prolife" philosophy.
As for points in the past I have brought up. The "prolife" propenant have completely dismissed the argument that, as a society, we value freeedom and choice more than life. This is why it is important to leave the choice up to the woman.
As for points in the past I have brought up. The "prolife" propenant have completely dismissed the argument that, as a society, we value freeedom and choice more than life. This is why it is important to leave the choice up to the woman.
Zen,
Firstly our society doesn't value freedom and choice over life. Try climbing on a bridge and jumping off. Wait a while and the police will show up trying to stop you. They will do everything in their power to take away your choice of suicide because our society believes that your life is more important than your freedom to choose to die.
As for the mother/child arguement, as stated in my previous post, if the mother would die as a direct result of the pregnancy the pro-life movement believes that an abortion is possible because the mother's life would be saved(thus pro-life). i.e. someone is going to die as a result of the pregnancy, either the mother at the end of the pregnancy or the child during the abortion. So the philosophy is that since the mother has existing relationships that it would be more of a hardship to lose the mother than the baby.
As for the use of the fetus's body for donation, as I also said in my previous post, this is acceptable with the parents permission and if the abortion is natural. That is, a child wasn't created simply to be killed.
Firstly our society doesn't value freedom and choice over life. Try climbing on a bridge and jumping off. Wait a while and the police will show up trying to stop you. They will do everything in their power to take away your choice of suicide because our society believes that your life is more important than your freedom to choose to die.
As for the mother/child arguement, as stated in my previous post, if the mother would die as a direct result of the pregnancy the pro-life movement believes that an abortion is possible because the mother's life would be saved(thus pro-life). i.e. someone is going to die as a result of the pregnancy, either the mother at the end of the pregnancy or the child during the abortion. So the philosophy is that since the mother has existing relationships that it would be more of a hardship to lose the mother than the baby.
As for the use of the fetus's body for donation, as I also said in my previous post, this is acceptable with the parents permission and if the abortion is natural. That is, a child wasn't created simply to be killed.
What about if there were fetus farms tibear...ripe for the harvesting...
...and I think the reason that suicide is not legal has less to do with valuing life, and more to do with keeping up the appearance that the government is doing a good job...if people started jumping off bridges every day, I think people would notice that things aren't as great as they could be...and the police would file union grievances over having to clean up all the carcasses...it would be a real mess...
...and I think the reason that suicide is not legal has less to do with valuing life, and more to do with keeping up the appearance that the government is doing a good job...if people started jumping off bridges every day, I think people would notice that things aren't as great as they could be...and the police would file union grievances over having to clean up all the carcasses...it would be a real mess...
I think you missed a large component there. Vanni.
You missed the part where other people (family member. Interest groups. Friends of the suicider) would be extremely upset with the suiciders choice and demand that the gov't do something about it.
The circle of life. Society seems to chase it's tail endlessly in a circle. Like a dog. Without being concious of the futulity or aware of changes/chances that could be taken.
You missed the part where other people (family member. Interest groups. Friends of the suicider) would be extremely upset with the suiciders choice and demand that the gov't do something about it.
The circle of life. Society seems to chase it's tail endlessly in a circle. Like a dog. Without being concious of the futulity or aware of changes/chances that could be taken.
tibear...You support war. We send young men and women off to die in the name of freedom...and for a lot of reasons that are less valid. Society values freedom more than life.
If someone commits a crime( In some cases crimes that take even the most innocent of lives) ...we rarely take their life. We punish them by denying freedom. Society values freedom more than life.
Even in the case of an accident, the punishment is that freedom is revoked.
If they talk a person about to commit suicide down ...what is the first thing they do...its deny their freedom. ( they're put suicide watch, immdiately.)
Down here, if you go to prison, serve your time, they still revoke your right to vote. ( That's a basic freedom) even though you have paid your debt to society. As a society we value freedom more than life. It is quality of life that we hold in high esteem.
You still don't seem to think I understand the point about the Mother and child. I get it. I got it the first time you brought it up. You still haven't explained why the Mother's life should be saved over the fetus, other than the Mother is already been alive. Which shows the contridiction of your argument, If life begins at conception, then why is the life of the mother valued more than that of the fetus? The existing relationships argument is an interesting point...however would this mean the friends and family would not welcome the fetus into their lives ( rhetorical) . Of course not.
It seems to me your argument is very selective... Its okay to send men & women to die in war( Ones that have already established relationships)...yet the mother of a fetus is allowed to live because she has already established relationships. Do you see the contridiction?
What if by having this child it would cause undo hardship on the mother after birth ? ( I am not talking monetary...but, emotional or physical) Should the child be aborted then? ...Or should the Mother be forced to have it ? How much emotional damage is caused by putting a child up for adoption and never seeing it again. How much damage is done to the child ? Why do you think so many people seek out there true lineage? Waht about genetic health conditions that may develop after the Mother has given birth and the child may go through life not even thinking about? What about all the children who are giving birth and foregoing education, only to find themselves on generational welfare roles?
I told you I ask a lot of questions.
If someone commits a crime( In some cases crimes that take even the most innocent of lives) ...we rarely take their life. We punish them by denying freedom. Society values freedom more than life.
Even in the case of an accident, the punishment is that freedom is revoked.
If they talk a person about to commit suicide down ...what is the first thing they do...its deny their freedom. ( they're put suicide watch, immdiately.)
Down here, if you go to prison, serve your time, they still revoke your right to vote. ( That's a basic freedom) even though you have paid your debt to society. As a society we value freedom more than life. It is quality of life that we hold in high esteem.
You still don't seem to think I understand the point about the Mother and child. I get it. I got it the first time you brought it up. You still haven't explained why the Mother's life should be saved over the fetus, other than the Mother is already been alive. Which shows the contridiction of your argument, If life begins at conception, then why is the life of the mother valued more than that of the fetus? The existing relationships argument is an interesting point...however would this mean the friends and family would not welcome the fetus into their lives ( rhetorical) . Of course not.
It seems to me your argument is very selective... Its okay to send men & women to die in war( Ones that have already established relationships)...yet the mother of a fetus is allowed to live because she has already established relationships. Do you see the contridiction?
What if by having this child it would cause undo hardship on the mother after birth ? ( I am not talking monetary...but, emotional or physical) Should the child be aborted then? ...Or should the Mother be forced to have it ? How much emotional damage is caused by putting a child up for adoption and never seeing it again. How much damage is done to the child ? Why do you think so many people seek out there true lineage? Waht about genetic health conditions that may develop after the Mother has given birth and the child may go through life not even thinking about? What about all the children who are giving birth and foregoing education, only to find themselves on generational welfare roles?
I told you I ask a lot of questions.
Zen,
Questions are fine. Its personal attacks I have a problem with!
The war situation you bring up is an interesting point and in almost all situations of war the basic assumption is that the enemy is killing people. Certainly there are political reasons and sometimes revenge behind wars as well. However, and let me state that I don't "officially" speak for the pro-life movement, that the pro-life movement is NOT in favour of wars where one side attacks the other for reasons outside of killing innocent lives. Land or resources are not valid reasons for killing someone. However just as a policeman has the right and duty to protect society from people who would do us harm, our armed forces have the same duty.
Your right that soldiers die and leave behind loved ones. However those soldiers knew what they were getting into when they joined the military and knew that the possibility of war may arise. And your right the case of a pregnant mother of a fetus is selective in that in the pregnancy situation, either the mother or fetus will die and in this situation where a death will occur, which death causes the least harm to those around.
Rather the mother should kill her baby and then live with that for the rest of her life?? Check our the website:http://www.silentnomoreawareness.org/ It is full of mothers who are hurting tremendously from their previous decisions to have abortions.
Your right, we need to do more for these woman. First and foremost change peoples attitudes regarding adoption. We need these woman to leave the adoption office feeling that they are giving their children a better life than what they can provide rather than feeling that they are "abadoning" their children.
Noone can go through live without hurts. However, killing an innocent child(and I acknowledge, you may not share that definition) is never the solution.
Questions are fine. Its personal attacks I have a problem with!
The war situation you bring up is an interesting point and in almost all situations of war the basic assumption is that the enemy is killing people. Certainly there are political reasons and sometimes revenge behind wars as well. However, and let me state that I don't "officially" speak for the pro-life movement, that the pro-life movement is NOT in favour of wars where one side attacks the other for reasons outside of killing innocent lives. Land or resources are not valid reasons for killing someone. However just as a policeman has the right and duty to protect society from people who would do us harm, our armed forces have the same duty.
Your right that soldiers die and leave behind loved ones. However those soldiers knew what they were getting into when they joined the military and knew that the possibility of war may arise. And your right the case of a pregnant mother of a fetus is selective in that in the pregnancy situation, either the mother or fetus will die and in this situation where a death will occur, which death causes the least harm to those around.
Rather the mother should kill her baby and then live with that for the rest of her life?? Check our the website:http://www.silentnomoreawareness.org/ It is full of mothers who are hurting tremendously from their previous decisions to have abortions.
So rather than having a child with questions about their birth parents, we should kill them??? How many parents suffer when their children go astray?? Look at the father in Alberta right now who is calling his child the "devil" for murdering the 4 RCMP officer. Should he have killed the child once he had these feelings because I'm sure those feelings are far worse. I know a couple of woman who put children up for adoption and sure they wonder and long to know how the person is doing. However, without exception they all say that the child was better off with someone else at that time.
Your right, we need to do more for these woman. First and foremost change peoples attitudes regarding adoption. We need these woman to leave the adoption office feeling that they are giving their children a better life than what they can provide rather than feeling that they are "abadoning" their children.
Noone can go through live without hurts. However, killing an innocent child(and I acknowledge, you may not share that definition) is never the solution.
tibear said:
I take it a step further... no one gets out of here alive. We will never agree tibear, I doubt we will find many points that we can even find common ground on.
I think you have missed my point about undo hardship.
Let's say the Mother experienced a traumatic event that resutled in pregnancy. What if the problems were so horrifying that it required years of therapy? What if she harboured resentment towards the child, yet refused to give up custody? What if she is just not mentally mature enough to take care of a child but wants one anyway? Would you take the child away and forve it to be adopted?
Let's say its a physical problem, that wouldn't be life threatening. Would you force the Mother to bring the baby to term?
I just don't see the reasoning behind forcing ( to me that's what prolife reallly means...forced adoption) a Mother to have a child and either making her give it up or having her raise it...only to let that child go off to war and risk death. ( believe me, the possibility of a draft being enstated down here is very real) That seems completely devoid of reason.
Your link didn't work, but while your surfing around...look at how some of the children are living in Rio. Look at how the affluent and the impoverished live. This is a problem that will get worse. I now you don't believe the world is overpopulated, but pay close attention this is going to become more common, especially if abortion is outlawed again. Slums full of children just barely surviving. It won't just be Rio, it will be everywhere( yes...even Canada.) Is it really a more humane approach to keep bringing children into conditions where they have the minimalist chance of surviving.
Vanni,
How are any of these situations different than what takes place today?? If the woman isn't mature but wants the child there is nothing you can do, just like today. However, the traumatic event could also happen once the child is already born. For example, take a young couple who just has a baby and the father dies weeks later. The mother then feels resentment that she is now a single parent and has a very tough road ahead trying to make ends meet, raising a child, perhaps finding another partner(which isn't as easy with a child). Should she then have the right to kill her child?? Of course not. Situations in live arise that are dificult that we must all deal with.
As for the link, simply copy it and put it in the address of your browser: http://www.silentnomoreawareness.org
BTW, thanks for debating rather than ridiculing. I think we both get alot more out of the exercise.
How are any of these situations different than what takes place today?? If the woman isn't mature but wants the child there is nothing you can do, just like today. However, the traumatic event could also happen once the child is already born. For example, take a young couple who just has a baby and the father dies weeks later. The mother then feels resentment that she is now a single parent and has a very tough road ahead trying to make ends meet, raising a child, perhaps finding another partner(which isn't as easy with a child). Should she then have the right to kill her child?? Of course not. Situations in live arise that are dificult that we must all deal with.
Using that logic why should any of us have any children, if they are only going to have the possibility of going to war and getting killed. Your going to have to further explain that logic because it doesn't make sense to me.
Again, I agree with you that there are horrible conditions around the world that WE need to address. We have so much excess and their are people around the world that have NOTHING. Instead of killing the people who have nothing perhaps we should start to think about sharing a little bit more.
As for the link, simply copy it and put it in the address of your browser: http://www.silentnomoreawareness.org
BTW, thanks for debating rather than ridiculing. I think we both get alot more out of the exercise.
Well that is a real interesting website you posted there tibear. There is alot of talk about the kind of tatics they imploy to. They have no shame, why would they, they are religious zealots. I thought you said you did not approve of the methods used by these zealots.
Your belief is based on your book, yet you cannot and will not refute vanni. Perhaps vanni should pay your link and visit, since there is alot of scripture quoting in the links provides at the site.
Not to worry tho tibear, the word is out about the munipulation tatics now being taken by anti-choice people.
ABORTION IN WICHITA....The LA Times has an interesting feature today about Troy Newman, one of the country's most aggressive and obsessive abortion activists. He's recently turned his sights on Wichita:
Over the next 12 months, Newman and his followers will point their arrows at everyone who works for Women's Health Care Services, from the chief physician to the armed security guards.
Photos of the mangled heads of fetuses will greet the receptionist at her favorite restaurant. Protesters will point out the nurse as she walks into the mall, the office manager as she heads into church. Every clinic employee can expect pickets at home, yellow arrows pointed at their front doors.
Newman will pick through clinic workers' trash to figure out where they do business; he'll trail them at a distance to learn their routines.
His goal is not just to make their lives uncomfortable. He wants to unsettle and disgust their friends and associates, so their hairstylists and their pharmacists, even their neighbors, make it clear they're not welcome in Wichita.
Charming, isn't it?
Your belief is based on your book, yet you cannot and will not refute vanni. Perhaps vanni should pay your link and visit, since there is alot of scripture quoting in the links provides at the site.
Not to worry tho tibear, the word is out about the munipulation tatics now being taken by anti-choice people.
ABORTION IN WICHITA....The LA Times has an interesting feature today about Troy Newman, one of the country's most aggressive and obsessive abortion activists. He's recently turned his sights on Wichita:
Over the next 12 months, Newman and his followers will point their arrows at everyone who works for Women's Health Care Services, from the chief physician to the armed security guards.
Photos of the mangled heads of fetuses will greet the receptionist at her favorite restaurant. Protesters will point out the nurse as she walks into the mall, the office manager as she heads into church. Every clinic employee can expect pickets at home, yellow arrows pointed at their front doors.
Newman will pick through clinic workers' trash to figure out where they do business; he'll trail them at a distance to learn their routines.
His goal is not just to make their lives uncomfortable. He wants to unsettle and disgust their friends and associates, so their hairstylists and their pharmacists, even their neighbors, make it clear they're not welcome in Wichita.
Charming, isn't it?
Pea,
Yes the site is a "religious" site, however the point I was trying to make was that all of these woman are woman who have had abortions. They now regret their decisions and tried to get help from organizations like "Planned Parenthood" and basically had the door slammed in their face.
They simply want to make sure that every woman who is going through the decision process of whether to have an abortion knows the deep regrets they may encounter later in life from having killed their own children.
As for your example of a pro-life extremist, I think we've established that yes there are some, just as there are animal rights extremists. These people are by far in the minority and don't represent the group that they say they do.
Yes the site is a "religious" site, however the point I was trying to make was that all of these woman are woman who have had abortions. They now regret their decisions and tried to get help from organizations like "Planned Parenthood" and basically had the door slammed in their face.
They simply want to make sure that every woman who is going through the decision process of whether to have an abortion knows the deep regrets they may encounter later in life from having killed their own children.
As for your example of a pro-life extremist, I think we've established that yes there are some, just as there are animal rights extremists. These people are by far in the minority and don't represent the group that they say they do.
Well tibear its just that Troy Newman uses the same links at his website operation rescue. Since the man is insane, I would think the website you linked to would not want to be affliated with someone capable of such disquisting tatics.
If a belief is right and moral there is no need to stoop to lies, munipulation and trickery and fear tatics. If this is what is required to impose a belief on someone else, well than its pretty darn close ot being a terrorist.
Tell me tibear is the planned parenthood website still selling t-shirts that say "I had an abortion". And I can tell you that at least in this province there is a more than a growing awareness of the misrepresention the anti-choice people are trying to imploy to decieve women. Don't make me start posting them either, you are well aware of those tatics.
You say you do not aprove of these tatics, but I do not believe you.
If a belief is right and moral there is no need to stoop to lies, munipulation and trickery and fear tatics. If this is what is required to impose a belief on someone else, well than its pretty darn close ot being a terrorist.
Tell me tibear is the planned parenthood website still selling t-shirts that say "I had an abortion". And I can tell you that at least in this province there is a more than a growing awareness of the misrepresention the anti-choice people are trying to imploy to decieve women. Don't make me start posting them either, you are well aware of those tatics.
You say you do not aprove of these tatics, but I do not believe you.
Pea,
Your telling me that extreme animal rights activists don't provide links to more "acceptable" animal right websites. They do this to try to make themselves look more acceptable. How can the "SilentNoMoreAwareness" people control someone else's website???
I'm sorry Pea but I'm not aware of any deceitful "ploys" used in the pro-life movement. Could you please educate me?? Perhaps your talking about the cancer-abortion link??? But I'm not sure.
There are studies both confirming and denying any link between abortion & cancer. Are there some groups that try to use this "grey area", absolutely. However, until the matter can be settle conclusively I would like to think that woman should be told that there "maybe" a link between the two. It is the only prudent thing to do.
Your telling me that extreme animal rights activists don't provide links to more "acceptable" animal right websites. They do this to try to make themselves look more acceptable. How can the "SilentNoMoreAwareness" people control someone else's website???
I'm sorry Pea but I'm not aware of any deceitful "ploys" used in the pro-life movement. Could you please educate me?? Perhaps your talking about the cancer-abortion link??? But I'm not sure.
There are studies both confirming and denying any link between abortion & cancer. Are there some groups that try to use this "grey area", absolutely. However, until the matter can be settle conclusively I would like to think that woman should be told that there "maybe" a link between the two. It is the only prudent thing to do.
I think a lot of the problem is is that the religious influence over the years, especially in Jesusland, that has kept sex ed and the distribution(condoms) and information about birth control out of the high schools. People when they start to have sex have no "education" then they get an unwanted pregnancey they have no choice but to have an abortion. There are so many people that use abortion as birth control whether it is from lack of sex ed or stupidity.
Like Sue Johannsen says Canadians are better educated about sex, birth control etc than americans.
Like Sue Johannsen says Canadians are better educated about sex, birth control etc than americans.
no1important,
I think a person would have to be deaf, blind and stupid not to know about safe-sex. Its everywhere from the TV to radio to large billboards on the side of the road. Sure there are some families that don't let their children know about the "birds and the bees". However, I think the research would show that in the vast majority of pregnancies that at least one member of the couple knew what safe sex was and chose not to do anything.
I think a person would have to be deaf, blind and stupid not to know about safe-sex. Its everywhere from the TV to radio to large billboards on the side of the road. Sure there are some families that don't let their children know about the "birds and the bees". However, I think the research would show that in the vast majority of pregnancies that at least one member of the couple knew what safe sex was and chose not to do anything.
Tibear, I will try to be civilized. But I must tell you when someone tries to pretend "dumb" with me, I don't like it. You are very well aware of the tatics that are imployed, you are part of this movement.
I would like you to present to me one tatic that even compares to the many employed by the anti-choice movement. If your cause was so righteous and the work of "god", than tell me why lies, munipulation, misrepresentation, haressment, are their tools of choice. A real truth has no need for them.
You want examples well here is just one of the many tatics they imploy. Don't worry I will post many more.
Anti-Choice Letters Target BC Doctors
Two different anti-choice groups have sent out letters to BC’s health care providers, asking them to inform on their colleagues who perform abortions or refer for abortions.
In late February, the Kelowna Right to Life association sent a letter to all health care providers in the Okanagan region. Then, on March 16th, a group called PRICE (Concerned Nurses for Patients Rights Informed Consent Ethics) sent a letter to doctors in the rest of BC. This letter was signed by Cecilia von Dehn, a non-practising registered nurse who is a prominent anti-choice activist, and who owns the house next door to the Everywoman’s Health Centre, from which she engages in regular protests against the clinic.
Both of the letters are very similar in wording to a sample letter put out by an American anti-choice group, Life Dynamics, of Texas. Judging from the content of their materials, this group appears to espouse violence against abortion providers. They produce a kit that contains letters that can be copied and sent to doctors, building owners, and clinic workers. One letter from Life Dynamics president Mark Crutcher is signed off "Happy Hunting." There is a sample script that anti-abortionists can use to call doctors’ offices, pretending to be the parent of a pregnant 15-year old, in order to find out if the doctor does abortions. The kit even includes a jokebook containing crude and offensive jokes that target abortion providers. A sample joke reads: "What would you do if you found yourself in a room with Hitler, Mussolini, and an abortionist and you had a gun with only two bullets? Shoot the abortionist twice."
Many of Life Dynamics’ initiatives are done under the deceptive name "Project Choice." In fact, Von Dehn (PRICE) included a glossy Life Dynamics brochure in her letter that reports on a survey of American abortion providers that Life Dynamics fraudulently carried out under their "Project Choice" banner. The group convinced doctors and pro-choice groups that they were students doing a research project on anti-choice harassment, and assured anonymity to responding doctors. A former board member of Life Dynamics later revealed that the postage-paid, self-addressed envelopes that the group included with the survey were encoded with invisible ultraviolent ink identifying the abortion provider who received the envelope. The survey results are now being used to embarrass and target the responding doctors and discourage other doctors from performing abortions.
Links exist between this extreme American anti-choice group and the BC anti-choice movement. Life Dynamics president Mark Crutcher mentions Ted Gerk (former director of Kelowna Right to Life) in the acknowledgements of his latest book, Lime 5. And Gerk himself was published in the March issue of The Interim, Campaign Life Coalition’s newspaper, where he enthusiastically praised Mark Crutcher and his Life Dynamics strategies, and encouraged their use in BC.
An excerpt from the Kelowna Right to Life letter:
"... Many of these citizens [who are against abortion] want to know who the medical personnel are who participate in abortions. ... We feel that it is our responsibility to make this information available. ... We are asking you to let us know if you are aware of anyone involved in one of the following activities:
performing elective abortions through chemical means
performing elective abortions and calling them D&C’s
performing unnecessary D&C’s to cover up for sloppy obstetrical care
referring women to doctors who are known to perform any of the above"
PRICE’s letter contained the same list, with one more item added to it: "not reporting to proper authorities damage done to aborted women." It also mentions that "We will be continuing and expanding our longstanding boycott of abortionists with our updated list. Abortion is always dangerous and it must be open for public scrutiny." Both letters encouraged informants to remain anonymous.
Bruce Swan, chief operating officer for Vernon Health Services, said that Vernon Jubilee Hospital would never release any names. He also said that a Vernon-based anti-abortion group had in the past, under the Freedom of Information Act, asked for the names of doctors performing abortions at Vernon Jubilee (the only hospital in the Okanagan that does them). All that was released to them was the fact that 322 abortions were performed there in 1996/97.
Kelowna Right to Life is "clearly trying to intimidate doctors" said Dr. Lianne Lacroix, a family physician and member of Planned Parenthood. "It’s like they want to set up a hit list of doctors." She noted that one local doctor has had his life threatened, and other doctors are concerned for their safety. In fact, many doctors are angered and upset over both of the letters and have complained to the Ministries of Health and Attorney General, and local police.
The letters may be in violation of the Access to Abortion Services Act. This Act prohibits the protest of "issues related to abortion services" within 50 metres of facilities that provide abortions, and within 10 metres of doctors’ offices that provide abortions. Since the Act’s definition of protest encompasses written means, and since these letters were distributed directly to doctors’ offices by mail, the letters should fall into the category of prohibited activities under the Act. Outside the access zones, the Act also generally prohibits harassment and threatening conduct that is aimed at discouraging the provision of abortion services.
Campaign Life Coalition, Canada’s national "pro-life" group, has defended the Kelowna Right to Life letter, saying the list would not be made public to prevent it from being "misused." Instead, "callers to the association can ask whether specific doctors do abortions." This claim is naive at best, and dangerous at worst. Any dissemination of names would not only target doctors for harassment, but would create a risk of violent attacks on doctors by radicals in the anti-choice movement.
Ted Gerk, former director of Kelowna Right to Life, and now with the Pro-Life Society of BC, said, "The real issue here is that physicians should be truthful with their patients about whether they do or don’t do abortions." But as a Vancouver Sun editorial rightly pointed out on March 5: "The real issue is that abortion is a legal medical service, yet anti-abortionists continue to try to limit access by making doctors fear for their safety. It is contemptible." We agree. And considering that a national Task Force is investigating the shootings of three Canadian doctors, the sending of these letters amounts to a callous lack of regard for doctors’ safety.
Attorney-General Ujjal Dosanjh expressed his concern about the apparent link between the American group Life Dynamics and Kelowna Right to Life. He said that if the level of harassment of doctors and other abortion service providers continues, he may have to look at legal ways to combat the problem. To this, we reply that if all the years that abortion providers and clinics have had to live with shootings, bomb scares, threats, stalkings, and other harassment isn’t enough, what will ever convince Dosanjh to take action?
Penny Priddy, BC Minister of Health, publicly denounced the Okanagan letter, calling it "terror tactics." She said that the BC government will "do whatever it takes" to ensure access to abortion services, adding that Victoria is considering measures to ensure the safety of doctors and other health professionals. Priddy confided that she had received an abortion-related death threat while she was women’s equality minister.
The BCCAC sent a letter to Penny Priddy, thanking her for her quick condemnation and encouraging her to work with the Attorney General to protect abortion providers. In addition, the BCCAC asked the Attorney General to take immediate political and legal steps to counter the harassment, and to protect BC doctors from further harassment and the threat of possible violence.
In response to our letter, Priddy has informed regional health boards that to give out names of abortion providers to the letter writers would be a breach of the Freedom of Information Act. She has also informed the RCMP, and instructed the BC College of Physicians and Surgeons, the Registered Nurses Association of BC (RNABC), and the BC Nurses Union (BCNU), not to give any information to the anti-choice groups. Both the RNABC and BCNU have condemned the PRICE letter, saying that Von Dehn’s use of the title "RN" in her letter is a violation of nursing standards and ethics.
I would like you to present to me one tatic that even compares to the many employed by the anti-choice movement. If your cause was so righteous and the work of "god", than tell me why lies, munipulation, misrepresentation, haressment, are their tools of choice. A real truth has no need for them.
You want examples well here is just one of the many tatics they imploy. Don't worry I will post many more.
Anti-Choice Letters Target BC Doctors
Two different anti-choice groups have sent out letters to BC’s health care providers, asking them to inform on their colleagues who perform abortions or refer for abortions.
In late February, the Kelowna Right to Life association sent a letter to all health care providers in the Okanagan region. Then, on March 16th, a group called PRICE (Concerned Nurses for Patients Rights Informed Consent Ethics) sent a letter to doctors in the rest of BC. This letter was signed by Cecilia von Dehn, a non-practising registered nurse who is a prominent anti-choice activist, and who owns the house next door to the Everywoman’s Health Centre, from which she engages in regular protests against the clinic.
Both of the letters are very similar in wording to a sample letter put out by an American anti-choice group, Life Dynamics, of Texas. Judging from the content of their materials, this group appears to espouse violence against abortion providers. They produce a kit that contains letters that can be copied and sent to doctors, building owners, and clinic workers. One letter from Life Dynamics president Mark Crutcher is signed off "Happy Hunting." There is a sample script that anti-abortionists can use to call doctors’ offices, pretending to be the parent of a pregnant 15-year old, in order to find out if the doctor does abortions. The kit even includes a jokebook containing crude and offensive jokes that target abortion providers. A sample joke reads: "What would you do if you found yourself in a room with Hitler, Mussolini, and an abortionist and you had a gun with only two bullets? Shoot the abortionist twice."
Many of Life Dynamics’ initiatives are done under the deceptive name "Project Choice." In fact, Von Dehn (PRICE) included a glossy Life Dynamics brochure in her letter that reports on a survey of American abortion providers that Life Dynamics fraudulently carried out under their "Project Choice" banner. The group convinced doctors and pro-choice groups that they were students doing a research project on anti-choice harassment, and assured anonymity to responding doctors. A former board member of Life Dynamics later revealed that the postage-paid, self-addressed envelopes that the group included with the survey were encoded with invisible ultraviolent ink identifying the abortion provider who received the envelope. The survey results are now being used to embarrass and target the responding doctors and discourage other doctors from performing abortions.
Links exist between this extreme American anti-choice group and the BC anti-choice movement. Life Dynamics president Mark Crutcher mentions Ted Gerk (former director of Kelowna Right to Life) in the acknowledgements of his latest book, Lime 5. And Gerk himself was published in the March issue of The Interim, Campaign Life Coalition’s newspaper, where he enthusiastically praised Mark Crutcher and his Life Dynamics strategies, and encouraged their use in BC.
An excerpt from the Kelowna Right to Life letter:
"... Many of these citizens [who are against abortion] want to know who the medical personnel are who participate in abortions. ... We feel that it is our responsibility to make this information available. ... We are asking you to let us know if you are aware of anyone involved in one of the following activities:
performing elective abortions through chemical means
performing elective abortions and calling them D&C’s
performing unnecessary D&C’s to cover up for sloppy obstetrical care
referring women to doctors who are known to perform any of the above"
PRICE’s letter contained the same list, with one more item added to it: "not reporting to proper authorities damage done to aborted women." It also mentions that "We will be continuing and expanding our longstanding boycott of abortionists with our updated list. Abortion is always dangerous and it must be open for public scrutiny." Both letters encouraged informants to remain anonymous.
Bruce Swan, chief operating officer for Vernon Health Services, said that Vernon Jubilee Hospital would never release any names. He also said that a Vernon-based anti-abortion group had in the past, under the Freedom of Information Act, asked for the names of doctors performing abortions at Vernon Jubilee (the only hospital in the Okanagan that does them). All that was released to them was the fact that 322 abortions were performed there in 1996/97.
Kelowna Right to Life is "clearly trying to intimidate doctors" said Dr. Lianne Lacroix, a family physician and member of Planned Parenthood. "It’s like they want to set up a hit list of doctors." She noted that one local doctor has had his life threatened, and other doctors are concerned for their safety. In fact, many doctors are angered and upset over both of the letters and have complained to the Ministries of Health and Attorney General, and local police.
The letters may be in violation of the Access to Abortion Services Act. This Act prohibits the protest of "issues related to abortion services" within 50 metres of facilities that provide abortions, and within 10 metres of doctors’ offices that provide abortions. Since the Act’s definition of protest encompasses written means, and since these letters were distributed directly to doctors’ offices by mail, the letters should fall into the category of prohibited activities under the Act. Outside the access zones, the Act also generally prohibits harassment and threatening conduct that is aimed at discouraging the provision of abortion services.
Campaign Life Coalition, Canada’s national "pro-life" group, has defended the Kelowna Right to Life letter, saying the list would not be made public to prevent it from being "misused." Instead, "callers to the association can ask whether specific doctors do abortions." This claim is naive at best, and dangerous at worst. Any dissemination of names would not only target doctors for harassment, but would create a risk of violent attacks on doctors by radicals in the anti-choice movement.
Ted Gerk, former director of Kelowna Right to Life, and now with the Pro-Life Society of BC, said, "The real issue here is that physicians should be truthful with their patients about whether they do or don’t do abortions." But as a Vancouver Sun editorial rightly pointed out on March 5: "The real issue is that abortion is a legal medical service, yet anti-abortionists continue to try to limit access by making doctors fear for their safety. It is contemptible." We agree. And considering that a national Task Force is investigating the shootings of three Canadian doctors, the sending of these letters amounts to a callous lack of regard for doctors’ safety.
Attorney-General Ujjal Dosanjh expressed his concern about the apparent link between the American group Life Dynamics and Kelowna Right to Life. He said that if the level of harassment of doctors and other abortion service providers continues, he may have to look at legal ways to combat the problem. To this, we reply that if all the years that abortion providers and clinics have had to live with shootings, bomb scares, threats, stalkings, and other harassment isn’t enough, what will ever convince Dosanjh to take action?
Penny Priddy, BC Minister of Health, publicly denounced the Okanagan letter, calling it "terror tactics." She said that the BC government will "do whatever it takes" to ensure access to abortion services, adding that Victoria is considering measures to ensure the safety of doctors and other health professionals. Priddy confided that she had received an abortion-related death threat while she was women’s equality minister.
The BCCAC sent a letter to Penny Priddy, thanking her for her quick condemnation and encouraging her to work with the Attorney General to protect abortion providers. In addition, the BCCAC asked the Attorney General to take immediate political and legal steps to counter the harassment, and to protect BC doctors from further harassment and the threat of possible violence.
In response to our letter, Priddy has informed regional health boards that to give out names of abortion providers to the letter writers would be a breach of the Freedom of Information Act. She has also informed the RCMP, and instructed the BC College of Physicians and Surgeons, the Registered Nurses Association of BC (RNABC), and the BC Nurses Union (BCNU), not to give any information to the anti-choice groups. Both the RNABC and BCNU have condemned the PRICE letter, saying that Von Dehn’s use of the title "RN" in her letter is a violation of nursing standards and ethics.