Being pro-life is about protecting innocent babies, not controlling grown adults.
I used to be pro-choice. I knew I would never choose to have an abortion myself, but I didn’t care what anyone else did. That was until I educated myself on abortion. Learning the procedure of both medical and surgical abortions has solidified my position as pro-life.
Currently in Canada, abortion is legal for those above the age of 12 through all stages of pregnancy. A baby even in the ninth month of pregnancy can be aborted by surgical abortion.
This is not something I will ever get behind.
There are extremists on both the pro-choice and pro-life “sides” of the conversation. Some pro-life advocates want to control other’s intimacy habits and use the pro-life movement as justification.
I personally believe that birth control and contraceptives should be made more accessible, so abortion doesn’t have to be used as such.
A CTV News article posted in 2022 reported the Canadian federal government gave an additional $3.5 million dollars to abortion access, on top of the millions already budgeted.
Most abortion clinics don’t provide maternal support, offering abortion as a “solution” to pregnancy. For example, Planned Parenthood—a health clinic—is a resource if someone is looking to have an abortion, but they don’t provide the necessary resources to raise a child. If some of the money going toward abortion access were reallocated to pregnancy centres supporting pregnant people, to services to aid those with children, or to bettering the adoption system, abortion wouldn’t be seen as the only way to address unwanted pregnancy.
The pro-choice stance that unplanned pregnancy destroys pregnant people’s lives is another major issue.
The narrative that unplanned pregnancy will limit career advancement or accessibility is, unfortunately, both extremely misogynistic and frequently true. This is another issue we need to tackle.
Rather than telling people abortion is the only way to be able to reach their dreams and goals, we need to provide support to working parents (particularly mothers) and show them they’re more than capable of following the path they want to alongside their pregnancy.
There is misogyny rooted in abortion—it allows men another excuse to treat women like they don’t matter. Countless stories have surfaced online of men forcing women into abortions because they don’t want to be fathers.
If a new life is formed from a hookup, they can just pressure their partner to terminate it and continue with their toxic ways.
I understand abortion won’t go away in a day—there’s too much support for it. However, I would like to propose that we take on the Heartbeat Act. This act, currently in some U.S. States, bans abortion once a fetus’ heartbeat is detected.
Biologically, life begins at conception, but when do we begin to value life? It’s common to excuse abortion as only harming a clump of cells, but we’re all a clump of cells. Why is a wanted human more valued and “alive” that an unwanted one?
Rory is a third-year physics student and The Journal’s Senior Sports Editor.
All final editorial decisions are made by the Editor(s)-in-Chief and/or the Managing Editor. Authors should not be contacted, targeted, or harassed under any circumstances. If you have any grievances with this article, please direct your comments to journal_editors@ams.queensu.ca.
Pro-life Canadian man
Bravo Rory, it’s brave Canadian women like you who are finally beginning to realize what’s at the heart of the abortion issue: It’s not women’s autonomy, but a new human life. Our Charter says that “everyone has the right to life.” We need to make our Canada a place where “everyone” includes the preborn!
As a side note, keep doing your research on contraception and its link to abortion. Did you know that abortion activists even admit that most abortions are a result of failed contraception? Here are some useful tips for you. https://bit.ly/3SyTtgf
Zedrick Serson
Fetuses do not have rights. They cannot independently exist outside the mother’s womb. Shame on the Journal for platforming this, and shame on its author for allying themselves with groups that want to take away her rights too.
Craig Young
I used to be a conservative evangelical Christian until I recognised the fundamentalist contempt for critical inquiry, individual freedom, equality, human rights, civil liberties and basic democratic institutions. It meant I had to educate myself about abortion rights and what the anti-abortion movement really stands for- forcing rape and incest survivors to bear the consequences of their grievous trauma, withholding vital emergency medical care from women who urgently need it even if the pregnancy isn’t viable, prohibiting even early forms of termination like medical abortion, and forcing sectarian, antiscientific religious tyranny on us all.
An art history alum
Rory, you are absolutely entitled to your personal values and your perspective on what is wrong in the world. But you are deluding yourself to claim that you are pro-life because you are pro-woman. You are not. Your observation that pregnant women and mothers do not receive adequate support is correct and supported by empirical data. You state “The pro-choice stance that unplanned pregnancy destroys pregnant people’s lives is another major issue,” and then go on to note that this is misogynist and frequently true. How can a true statement be misogynistic? I think that you are telling us that you don’t like how the world is. You tell us how you would like it to be. But you seem to assume that your ideal world will obviate the need ( I suspect you actually mean the right) of women to terminate pregnancies they don’t want. I am posting to assert that unless you acknowledge women’s absolute right to bodily autonomy ( and the oft-raised spectre of late term abortions is statistically, a red herring), you are not pro-woman. You are pro-your-own-expectations-of-women. To be “Pro-woman” requires acknowledgement that women are individuals with their own values and aspirations, who may, and are entitled to make different choices that those you would choose. If your desired changes to supports mean women may choose to keep a pregnancy, that would be great. But some may make a different choice, and you should respect that.
PhD alum
Thanks to both Rory and the Journal for the article. I am amazed that the viewpoint was even printed because the sad reality is that university forums are too often intolerant of views opposed to the liberal norm. Differing opinions are controlled and suppressed because a critical discourse is too terrifying. Let’s hope that the result of this article is instead rational and civil debate. “An art history alum” wrote that late term abortions are a red herring. According to the CDC, 0.9% of abortions (in the USA) are performed after 21 weeks gestation. “Craig Young” mentions abortions due to rape or incest. USA Today reports that those cases make up 1.5% of abortions, so a similar number to late-term abortions. Thus, all of those categories are red herrings, or they’re not. If anyone has Canadian statistics on those categories please share them.
A female Queen's student
I agree that more funds should be allocated to help cover costs for raising children. But your article fails to make an effective argument. All of the things you’re asking for — more accessible contraceptives, more support for parents, more money being funnelled into the adoption system — are reasonable. But they are not exclusively pro-life ideas. We should be advocating for these kinds of changes while also advocating for a woman’s right to choose. You also say that society gives women the impression that unwanted pregnancies hinders their career success, and that this is not the case, but then immediately go on to say that this is the case by asserting that pregnant women face difficulties furthering their careers. And finally, your article title is contradictory. There is no way to be pro-life and pro-woman because by supporting pro-life policies you are advocating for women’s rights to be taken away. Regardless of your intentions, I believe there is no way to be fully pro-life and pro-woman. The two things cannot go hand in hand because ultimately the only people you are punishing by restricting abortion are women. Putting all the focus on the fetus is also a ridiculous point to argue, because it is not the fetus that has to suffer through pregnancy for nine months. Obviously there are psychological and emotional ramifications to abortion, but have you stopped to consider the impact that taking an unwanted pregnancy to term can have on a woman? Also, your point about abortion being “misogynistic” makes no sense. Why are you more concerned about men forcing women to have abortions than men forcing themselves onto women? Why are pro-lifers so preoccupied with prescribing this “misogynistic” label to abortion? I’ll tell you why, it’s a distraction from how contradictory and biased your analysis is. I’m honestly surprised the Journal allowed this sort of thing to be published, because it gives pro-lifers (mainly the men) something to use against women. If a woman goes against what is considered to be a women’s view (ie. being pro-choice), then certainly more men can use that as an opportunity to be misogynistic in their pursuit of a world that is pro-life. So perhaps your stance is more anti-woman than you might have thought.