Pro Choice - This is why Canada should not re-open the abortion debate

Today, Conversative MP, Stephan Woodworth wants to open the debate around the definition of when human life begins and admits it is to re-open the issue of abortion rights in Canada.

I don't like where he's going with this.

While I think that biological arguments could be made that human life begins at conception, another biological and ethical argument can be made that a zygote/embryo/fetus depends on the life of it's host (the mother) who is an autonomous human being with rights and freedoms. The life of the zygote/embryo/fetus has serious impacts on the life and health of the mother. Our criminal code recognizes this and protects the rights of the autonomous human being. Therefore we do not need to to change our criminal code definitions - precisely because it endangers the rights, health, and well-being of autonomous human beings.

Coincidently, the author of "What Pale Blue Dot?" wrote about why she is pro-choice and I couldn't agree with her more.

Because I know that pregnancy kills, and more pregnancies kill more, and I believe in a woman's right to ensure her own survival (if for nothing else but to care for existing children), I strongly believe that women should have affordable, safe access to any and all measures to prevent and terminate pregnancy and the social support to utilize these measures.  Women should be in absolute control of when and under what conditions they put their lives at risk to bear a child. (emphasis mine) And we should value their lives enough to respect that agency.

For comparison, the death rate in any abortion procedure between 1993 and 1997 was .6 per 100,000 (Kaiser, 2002).  This makes ANY abortion, including late term, overall ten times safer than pregnancy and childbirth.  As it happens, this rate is still accurate, with more risky surgical abortion risk at .625 per 100,000 (NAF, 2006).
The takeaway on this is pregnancy is risky.  It may be less risky in wealthy nations when women have access to excellent medical care.  But it is always risky.  Women should be free to only take on this risk willingly and enthusiastically.  (emphasis mine) As such, all family planning services, contraceptive and abortive, are basic lifesaving healthcare and should never be denied to women.
Any denial of this lifesaving care is to presume that the life of a woman is less important than that of her potential offspring.

What bothers me most about pro-life activists is that they sure do seem to care a hell of a lot about the unborn than the living.

Please write your MPs and ask them to honor promises made by Stephan Harper that he will not allow this debate to be re-opened.

Freedom

This news story is so moving. I think that as we move towards a more tolerant society, we need to protect freedom of expression. The story is how a  Thompson Rivers University student, Sooraya Graham, a Canadian woman who is also Muslim and chooses to wear a niqab and abaya took a photograph trying to portray an image through art that Muslim women - even those who wear traditional dress are normal.

This is Canada, she is Canadian, and she has the right to express herself through this medium and the fact a a Muslim man complained should not have resulted in her photo being censored. As her professor says, it is an example of what art should do - make you think and consider the world through a different lense.

I`m not saying the Muslim student group who were offended by the photo can`t express their reasons, but I am saying that that offense should not silence the voice of their fellow students - who is one of their own faith. I will say though that the reactions of the offended student group and Saudi Arabia`s embassy does say alot about their own views on women`s rights - both to freedom of expression and personal freedoms such as whether to allow others to take photos of you...while you are fully clothed...folding laundry. Strange that such as everyday occurrance can be so thought-provoking...and so offensive?!...as to make news....in Canada!

Today, although Sooraya and I are far apart on religious issues - I want her to know that I support her rights and freedoms. I think her photo is very compelling on so many levels. In fact, I`m even a little glad that this controversy happened - because now even more people will see your work and hopefully stop and think about their own biases.

It Gets Better at Brigham Young University

I never went to BYU but I used to be a Mormon. I remember standing up to an institute teacher once when he expressed sadness that a politician had to resign because he said he wanted to turn back the clock and not only make same-sex marriage illegal again but also bring back sodomy laws. I expressed my belief that while same-sex marriage wasn't allowed in our church that I thought it was fine if other churches and the state wanted to do it and that turning back the clock was wrong. I remember emphasizing that our church was supposed to honor free will and that I thought that didn't mean legislated our preferences for marriage and sex. My teacher disagreed with me. I left the church a few months later, not for this reason, for many others, but I'm glad that things are getting better and that at least GLBT Mormons are at the very least able to say who they are and that they aren't getting expelled for it anymore and can even form a community. Good for these brave young people, (who are creating change from within, they are the pioneers not their supposed inspired leaders). I do truly hope it gets even better and that of it doesn't you can feel free to leave this organization behind if it continues to lag behind the more progressive parts of society I accepting you and allowing you to form the family of your dreams, whatever that looks like to you.

Who Really Has the Moral High Ground Here?

I've been following the request for public education free of religious instruction - as guaranteed by law - in Morinville. It's been a great story and I really admire the parents for what they have done to date and the progress that has been made. These parents have stood up to authority, with the law on their side, and solutions are on the way to Morinville- hopefully since it has been done in such a clumsy manner by our government.

Following the Morinville story lead me to following the stories around the new Education Act in Alberta as well. And in truth, it seemed like a good piece of legislation to me. It was so close to being passed, but then the call for an election halted its progress - due in large part to an effort by parents, who were concerned that teaching their kids about human rights, took away their rights to teach them whatever they wanted either in home schools or religious schools. See here, here, and here for more information.

However, I`m concerned that what is really happening is that forces, similar to those behind the religious right in the US, is trying to erode our public education system and our success as a country in protecting diversity and human rights. I`m sorry but if these kinds of movements and special interest groups means we`ll end up with Rick Santorums in Canada - then I`m not interested.

The Alberta Human Rights Act and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms are great legislation, not perfect, but pretty awesome. They do protect those rights that need it the most - yes, the rights of homosexuals, racial and ethnic minorities, and religious and nonreligious folks.

Parents don`t need to worry that they cannot teach their children their own religious views - those rights and freedoms are firmly protected.

From the Charter:

Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;

(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and

(d) freedom of association.

And so while if you believe that being homosexual is a sin - you have every right to believe that and express that - but you do not have the right to discriminate against homosexuals - because they are humans who have rights too - the right to believe they are NOT sinners and the right to express that - and the right to not be discriminated against on the basis of who they love.

So, does the religious right have the moral high ground here? Hello, they are protesting teaching human rights and canadian law to their children - somethings that the Minister of Education said the act won't even force them to do! Their religion has them questioning whether or not to uphold laws and legislation that protect everyone - and Canada's unique multi-cultural, plural society.

I find these enshrined rights to be full of values that I can support.

From the Charter

Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

From the Alberta Human Rights Act:

WHEREAS recognition of the inherent dignity and the equal and

inalienable rights of all persons is the foundation of freedom,

justice and peace in the world;

WHEREAS it is recognized in Alberta as a fundamental principle

and as a matter of public policy that all persons are equal in:

dignity, rights and responsibilities without regard to race, religious

beliefs, colour, gender, physical disability, mental disability, age,

ancestry, place of origin, marital status, source of income, family

status or sexual orientation;

WHEREAS multiculturalism describes the diverse racial and

cultural composition of Alberta society and its importance is

recognized in Alberta as a fundamental principle and a matter of

public policy;

WHEREAS it is recognized in Alberta as a fundamental principle

and as a matter of public policy that all Albertans should share in

composition of society and that the richness of life in Alberta is

enhanced by sharing that diversity; and

WHEREAS it is fitting that these principles be affirmed by the

Legislature of Alberta in an enactment whereby those equality

rights and that diversity may be protected:

The Act goes on to clarify that freedom of belief and expression are protected. There is nothing wrong with teaching children about the laws, acts, and charter. It's typical social studies. The religious right is just wrong on this issue and I have to wonder - to what end?