NRL News

The Abortion Lobby’s “Achilles Heel”

by | Dec 10, 2012

By Dave Andrusko

MP Mark Warawa

Whenever I need to update myself on the ever-changing abortion debate in Canada, there are a handful of columnists I immediately turn to. One is the National Post’s Barbara Kay.

On Friday she wrote an intriguing piece headlined, “Abortion trips on its Achilles heel.” By that Kay is referring to sex-selective abortion and the box into which it places “liberals” who are uncomfortable being in the awkward  position of sanctioning the ultimate discrimination: killing unborn babies because—and only because—they are female.

So, as Kay points out, they are squirming in response to Conservative MP Mark Warawa’s  “M408”—a motion to “condemn discrimination against females occurring through sex-selective pregnancy termination.” After all, it is what it is: the baby is the “wrong” sex and is therefore eliminated.

Kay does a nice job of pointing out the almost laughable inadequacies of the justification the Liberal Party’s interim leader offers for refusing to support the motion. Bob Rae said, “We’re a country that’s against discrimination and everybody understands that…But I think the way [Warawa] is doing it is an attempt to break down this very basic consensus in the country that this is essentially a private matter.”

What an opening! The imaginary “consensus” is over a policy in which there is NO law on abortion and in which the unborn does not become a human being until birth!

But at least one respected 2011 poll found that 92% opposed sex-selective abortions “and a January 2012 Angus Reid poll found about two-thirds of respondents (about half of them women) favoured laws prohibiting sex-selective abortion,” Kay writes.

“Sex-selective abortion is the Achilles heel of feminism,” Kay writes. “A systematic culling of embryos on the basis of sex ridicules the very notion of ‘choice,’ particularly since it is well known that abortion according to cultural prejudices often leaves no practical choice to the pregnant woman at all. She takes her abortion orders from her patriarchal authority figures.”

And, as we have written about dozens of times, world demographics are being radically changed by the use of ultrasound to target and abort unborn females. Remember there are 105 boys born for every 100 girls, absent outside “intervention.”

“But in countries like Korea, for example, the ratio was headed to 120 boys for every 100 girls until a concerted effort was made to move back toward normal ratios,” Kay observes. “Today the ratio is about 107 to 100, which is a hopeful sign that intervention of the kind Mr. Warawa is proposing – that is, expressions of disapproval of the practice – can restore a saner and more ethical perspective.” Worth noting, however, is that other countries where sex-selective abortions are rampant have not made that move toward “normal ratios.”

If you haven’t been reading our stories on the situation in Canada, it’s important to see Warawa’s proposed motion in the larger context. As Mike Schouten, Campaign Director for, put it,  “Why is it now acceptable to debate abortion? What has changed?” According to Schouten

“Well for one we need to acknowledge the efforts of Kitchener Centre Member of Parliament, Stephen Woodworth  and his private members motion to look at the definition of a human being. The subsequent commentary surrounding this motion has been characterized as a ‘debate about having a debate’ and in reality this is what transpired over the nine month period between Motion 312’s birth and death.

“Another reason abortion is more acceptable to discuss is the growing awareness that Canada stands alone among all other democracies as having no legal restrictions as to when a women can request a receive one. The end result is that an abortion debate is no longer viewed as unthinkable, but rather it is entirely acceptable if not a sensible one to have. Journalists may not be racing to catch up with this issue with the speed at which they go after say, Justin Trudeau [the charismatic son of the  late former Canadian prime minister Pierre Trudeau], but it’s certainly receiving the attention that has been lacking for many years.

“Abortion legislation may still be seen as highly improbable in Canada, but all Canadians should be encouraged that debate is accepted and the level of it is rational, acceptable, and sensible. …By focusing on the common ground shared by the majority, public opinion is changing and a shift in policy is surely within reach.”

To come full circle it is useful to have pro-abortionist absolutists so wedded to abortion on demand that occasionally they blurt out the truth—that even the slightest recognition that the unborn is one of us is anathema.

In 2008 they beat back a bill to make it a criminal offence for someone to attack a woman with the intent of killing her unborn child. In the most revealing quote, perhaps of all times, Joyce Arthur, executive director of the  Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada, explained her opposition. She told the National Post.

“If the fetuses are recognized in this bill, it could bleed into people’s consciousness and make people change their minds about abortion.”