A recent and rather gutsy National Post article mused about the lack of open debate in Canada concerning abortion. According to the article, the issue is just as divisive in Canada as in the USA, but rarely receives the kind of mainstream media attention or even town-hall style debate that happens between well organized groups in the United States.
A few days later, the National Post illustrated exactly why most Canadians (particularly politicians) are loathe to debate abortion in the public square.
The letter’s author, Philip Ney (reportedly a doctor) stated by scolding the National Post for referring to camp opposing abortion as “anti-abortionistsâ€. Ney’s reasoning is that it is polite discourse to refer to groups as they refer to themselves – in this case, “Pro-Lifeâ€. Mr. Ney then immediately flouts his own rules by referring to doctors who perform abortions as “anti-lifeâ€, when he knows very well they would prefer to be called pro-choice. Ney makes no bones about his pro-life stance, but ironically never stops to consider whether the constant sniping between pro-life and pro-choice is part of the reason why few doctors want to perform abortions. Ney’s assertions in combination with his status as an MD should give pause to any woman wanting to speak with her doctor about having an abortion – a sermon might be dispensed where impartial counsel was expected.
Hence, the reason for the muted debate in Canada is simple: any position taken will eventually lead to demonizing of the highest order. People who oppose abortion absolutely can look forward to being slandered as a bible-thumping Neanderthals who view women as barefoot chattel. Supporters of abortion-on-demand will in kind be cast as child-hating murderers hell-bent on ushering in the second holocaust. The majority of people who hold views between the aforementioned extremes can expect sniping from both sides as well as from the other shades of grey.
The intensity of the debate is heightened by the nature of its abstraction – one side is arguing on behalf of individual rights while the other is arguing for sanctity of life. The Christian-influenced democracies of the West were formed and refined in adherence to both ideals, and a large percentage of any truly “Western†society is likely to turn cold at the prospect of heavily sacrificing one for the other. Ignoring either principle en masse has led to some of the West’s greatest tragedies, most notably slavery and the Holocaust.
Thus, it’s no great surprise that the pro-life camp argue we are in the midst of another such tragedy, while the pro-choice camp maintains that, without their vigilance, we could roll back into another one. Mix in a little religion (lacking direct instruction in its scripture) with science (lacking a universally accepted answer to when “life beginsâ€) and you’ve got a topic that will continue to be avoided by a nation more at ease with rational discourse than with the dramatic conflicts common south of the border.
The interesting thing I find when discussing this with most folks is that so many are under the impression that we actually have some kind of restriction on abortion in Canada. When they find out the truth, they’re shocked, but not enough to do anything about it. Sad.