Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Answering the Genocide Awareness Project
This Thursday, March 8th is International Women's Day. This is a day that is supposed to inspire women and celebrate their achievements. But instead of celebrating women, pro-choice students of UBC will instead be gathering to protest a disturbing display by Lifeline which attacks women's rights and aims to send us back to an age when thousands of women died from unsafe, back-alley abortions.
The Genocide Awareness Project is an anti-abortion display consisting of images of Holocaust victims, African American lynching victims, other victims of genocide, and images of fetuses, which promotes the view that abortion is a form of genocide. The display is designed to shock and outrage, as well as shame women who have or are considering exercising their right to access abortion. Students for Reproductive Rights strongly opposes the comparison of abortion to genocide, and for an excellent explanation of why this is an inappropriate, we recommend reading Joyce Arthur's excellent article "No Virginia, Abortion is NOT Genocide".
In preparation for its display, Lifeline has listed a number of questions that it plans to discuss with the public on March 8th and 9th. Students for Reproductive Rights will be there to counter misinformation and promote women's rights. Here, we offer our answers to Lifeline's questions, explaining why abortion must be kept legal.
Question 1:
Should it be legal?
Answer:
Absolutely! Abortion is an essential, legal medical procedure that women desperately need, not only to give them control over their bodies and lives but to preserve and improve the lives of their families. The World Health Organization estimates that 20 million unsafe abortions happen every year, mostly in countries where abortion is illegal. Of these, approximately 68 000 women annually die as a result of complications from these procedures; between 2 and 7 million survive but sustain long-term damage or disease (including sepsis, hemorrhage, and injury to internal organs). Making abortion illegal does nothing to lower the number of abortions that occur, but does increase the number of women who are killed or seriously injured.
The Genocide Awareness Project is an anti-abortion display consisting of images of Holocaust victims, African American lynching victims, other victims of genocide, and images of fetuses, which promotes the view that abortion is a form of genocide. The display is designed to shock and outrage, as well as shame women who have or are considering exercising their right to access abortion. Students for Reproductive Rights strongly opposes the comparison of abortion to genocide, and for an excellent explanation of why this is an inappropriate, we recommend reading Joyce Arthur's excellent article "No Virginia, Abortion is NOT Genocide".
In preparation for its display, Lifeline has listed a number of questions that it plans to discuss with the public on March 8th and 9th. Students for Reproductive Rights will be there to counter misinformation and promote women's rights. Here, we offer our answers to Lifeline's questions, explaining why abortion must be kept legal.
Question 1:
Should it be legal?
Answer:
Absolutely! Abortion is an essential, legal medical procedure that women desperately need, not only to give them control over their bodies and lives but to preserve and improve the lives of their families. The World Health Organization estimates that 20 million unsafe abortions happen every year, mostly in countries where abortion is illegal. Of these, approximately 68 000 women annually die as a result of complications from these procedures; between 2 and 7 million survive but sustain long-term damage or disease (including sepsis, hemorrhage, and injury to internal organs). Making abortion illegal does nothing to lower the number of abortions that occur, but does increase the number of women who are killed or seriously injured.
Question 2:
How does it compare to past atrocities?
Answer:
Abortion in no way compares to past atrocities committed against black slaves, interned Jews, Cambodian Killing Field victims, or any other group that has experienced genocide. Genocide is an intolerable act of hatred against a particular community of people. Abortion is an essential, legal medical procedure that women desperately need, not only to give them control over their bodies and lives but to preserve and improve the lives of their families. Fetuses, lacking any self awareness or ability to feel pain, cannot reasonably be compared to the millions of very sentient people able to feel pain, fear and suffering who were victimized during genocides.
Question 3:
Are the unborn human?
Answer:
The debate about the legality of abortion is often framed as being about whether or not the fetus is a human. What needs to be asked, however, is if any human, whether a fetus or adult, has the right to use another person’s body to live. Let’s consider a hypothetical man, John. John suffers from leukemia, and requires a bone marrow transplantation to survive. Now consider a second man, Matt. Matt is the only person doctors have been able to find as a match for John. John will die without the bone marrow. But does this mean that John has a right to Matt’s bone marrow?
Most people are uncomfortable with the idea of forced-organ donation. Bodily autonomy, the right of a person to decide what is done to his or her body, is one of the most important rights we have. Whether a fetus is a person is a philosophical and religious question, and the religious beliefs of one group should never be imposed on others not sharing those beliefs. But whether we believe that a fetus is a person entitled to the rights granted to persons under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or not, no person, born or “unborn”, has the right to use a non-consenting person’s body for survival.
Question 4:
What about a woman's right to choose?
Answer:
Abortion is an essential, legal medical procedure that women desperately need, not only to give them control over their bodies and lives but to preserve and improve the lives of their families. According to a study by the Guttmacher Institute, women who have abortions overwhelmingly cite their understanding of responsibilities of parenthood and family life when making their decisions. Three-fourths of women cite concern for or responsibility to other individuals; three-fourths say they cannot afford a child; three-fourths say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or the ability to care for dependents; and half say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner. Women are completely capable of understanding the complexities of abortion and the factors in their lives which lead them to consider abortion. They are autonomous beings who have the right and the ability to make decisions in their lives.
Friday, January 28, 2011
Happy Anniversary!
Happy anniversary SRR! Today marks 23 years since Canada's abortion law was struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional after a long battle by Dr. Henry Morgentaler. This date marks an important landmark in women's rights in Canada, and the importance of women being able to access safe, legal abortion cannot be stressed enough.
In 1969 Parliament passed a bill allowing some abortions to be performed in hospitals as approved by a Therapeutic Abortion Committee in the event of endangerment to a woman's life or health. As a result, abortion access was applied unevenly across the country; while some hospitals would approve almost all abortions, others would allow very few, and abortion was largely unavailable to women outside major cities. After many years of hard work by abortion provider Dr. Henry Morgentaler, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the 1969 law was a violation of section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. According to Chief Justice Brian Dickson, "Forcing a woman by threat of criminal sanction to carry a foetus to term unless she meets certain criteria unrelated to her own priorities and aspirations, is a profound interference with a woman's body and this a violation of her security of the person."
But as the recently defeated Bill C-510 illustrates, the fight to ensure a woman's right to control her body is far from over. As we look to our past and celebrate this historic landmark, we must continue to affirm our commitment to fight for reproductive rights. I would like to thank Dr. Morgenaler for his invaluable contributions to women's rights, and encourage all supporters of reproductive rights to continue their fantastic work!
In 1969 Parliament passed a bill allowing some abortions to be performed in hospitals as approved by a Therapeutic Abortion Committee in the event of endangerment to a woman's life or health. As a result, abortion access was applied unevenly across the country; while some hospitals would approve almost all abortions, others would allow very few, and abortion was largely unavailable to women outside major cities. After many years of hard work by abortion provider Dr. Henry Morgentaler, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the 1969 law was a violation of section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. According to Chief Justice Brian Dickson, "Forcing a woman by threat of criminal sanction to carry a foetus to term unless she meets certain criteria unrelated to her own priorities and aspirations, is a profound interference with a woman's body and this a violation of her security of the person."
But as the recently defeated Bill C-510 illustrates, the fight to ensure a woman's right to control her body is far from over. As we look to our past and celebrate this historic landmark, we must continue to affirm our commitment to fight for reproductive rights. I would like to thank Dr. Morgenaler for his invaluable contributions to women's rights, and encourage all supporters of reproductive rights to continue their fantastic work!
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
On Single Mothers
Today as I was reading the paper while waiting for the bus, I was quite disturbed by a feedback comment submitted to 24 Hours regarding the NDP's Jenny Kwan's call to reinstate certain exemptions for single mothers. In response to the article, a person whose name we will not republish on this blog wrote back chastising impoverished women for daring to have children, and argued against the government making any effort to assist mothers who struggle to provide for their children. She writes:
It is beyond reprehensible to suggest that we should punish children by withholding financial support for their parents in order to impress some sort of moral lesson on the mother that she should not have had sex or become pregnant. Because if we content ourselves with saying "she shouldn't have gotten pregnant - she can deal with her own problems" it is invariably children who will end up suffering. Many single parents are faced every day with the choice of buying food for their families, or paying to keep a roof over their heads. By the reasoning espoused by the response - that it is not the responsibility of the government to assist these families - I suppose children should consider the financial position of their parents before having the temerity to be born. And as was noted above, it is entirely possible that a mother might have a child when she is experiencing relative financial stability, and then later find herself struggling to make ends meet due to unforeseeable circumstances. What do we say to these women? That they should have expected and planned for a recession in the economy before becoming parents?
The suggestion that mothers should simply move to more affordable areas is equally short-sighted. Is the commentator under the impression that there is currently a plethora of affordable housing in Vancouver that these mothers could easily access if they so chose? We currently have one of the highest costs of living and one of the lowest minimum wages in Canada. To suggest that struggling single mothers and their children have no place in Vancouver is horrible. Recently, we managed to find over $1 billion to pay for the Winter Olympics, ostensibly under the premise of showing to the world the love and pride we have for our country. What does it then say when we would deny disadvantaged children in Canada any assistance we can give them? Is that how we show our love for our country? By telling the children of our nation that they are neither wanted nor our responsibility to care for?
The idea that anyone should have the right to dictate to a woman when she should or should not have children is exactly the mentality that anti-choice advocates promote when they suggest that society should be allowed to force women to carry to term pregnancies they do not wish to. As supporters of reproductive rights, we must defend a woman's right to all her options, whether that is abortion, adoption or parenting. It is never the place of strangers to tell women when it is the proper time to have children, and it is my hope that readers of 24 Hours will have realized the deeply problematic nature of the comment.
I don't think single mothers should be getting government extras. If you can't afford a child on one income in Vancouver, don't have children or move to a more affordable area. Procreation isn't our God-given right...people still have to be accountable for their behaviors. So all of you women need to stop making excuses and deal with your own problems. The government can't be responsible for every man, woman and child. Where are the fathers of these children anyway?What callous disregard for the children that this comment seems willing to throw under the bus in a rush to condemn women for having children at a time that she does not feel is appropriate. The suggestion that women who cannot afford children should not have them is not only patronizing in the extreme, but also quite useless: these women already have children. What purpose is served through this ridiculous moralizing? Does it help these children to inform their mothers that they should not have gotten pregnant in the first place? For that matter, is it the place of a complete stranger who knows nothing of a woman's situation to be dictating to her when it is and it not acceptable to have a child? The fact is, circumstances change, sometimes beyond our control. Family members get sick, creating an unexpected financial burden. Parents get laid off from jobs, resulting in an unexpected loss of income. There are many things that can lead to financial hardships.
It is beyond reprehensible to suggest that we should punish children by withholding financial support for their parents in order to impress some sort of moral lesson on the mother that she should not have had sex or become pregnant. Because if we content ourselves with saying "she shouldn't have gotten pregnant - she can deal with her own problems" it is invariably children who will end up suffering. Many single parents are faced every day with the choice of buying food for their families, or paying to keep a roof over their heads. By the reasoning espoused by the response - that it is not the responsibility of the government to assist these families - I suppose children should consider the financial position of their parents before having the temerity to be born. And as was noted above, it is entirely possible that a mother might have a child when she is experiencing relative financial stability, and then later find herself struggling to make ends meet due to unforeseeable circumstances. What do we say to these women? That they should have expected and planned for a recession in the economy before becoming parents?
The suggestion that mothers should simply move to more affordable areas is equally short-sighted. Is the commentator under the impression that there is currently a plethora of affordable housing in Vancouver that these mothers could easily access if they so chose? We currently have one of the highest costs of living and one of the lowest minimum wages in Canada. To suggest that struggling single mothers and their children have no place in Vancouver is horrible. Recently, we managed to find over $1 billion to pay for the Winter Olympics, ostensibly under the premise of showing to the world the love and pride we have for our country. What does it then say when we would deny disadvantaged children in Canada any assistance we can give them? Is that how we show our love for our country? By telling the children of our nation that they are neither wanted nor our responsibility to care for?
The idea that anyone should have the right to dictate to a woman when she should or should not have children is exactly the mentality that anti-choice advocates promote when they suggest that society should be allowed to force women to carry to term pregnancies they do not wish to. As supporters of reproductive rights, we must defend a woman's right to all her options, whether that is abortion, adoption or parenting. It is never the place of strangers to tell women when it is the proper time to have children, and it is my hope that readers of 24 Hours will have realized the deeply problematic nature of the comment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
