Kathryn Johnson attempts to lambaste members of the pro-life movement as being merely "pro-fetus", offering up a variant of the classic "you're not pro-life; you're just pro-birth" canard that has been enjoying some curious and undeserved popularity of late. I say "undeserved" because in truth, it is a very false canard, and its use more often than not demonstrates either a lack of critical thinking on the part of the person using it, or else ignorance on the part of that same person as to exactly what the pro-life movement encompasses.
One wonders if Kathryn Johnson is aware of the various services, groups, and ministries that exist – both local to the Edmonton region, as well as across North America and the world – to provide care and support to women who do "choose life" for their babies. One wonders if Kathryn Johnson has ever donated baby clothes to the Gianna Centre, or contributed to a diaper bank in the region? Has she donated money, baby formula, or clothes for small children to the Terra Centre? If so, then good on her; if not, might I suggest that she is in no place to lecture members of the pro-life movement as to what they do and do not stand for? Because, in the main, it is people who align with the pro-life view who staff, run, and support – with time and treasure – these services and many more like them. Which, in turn, is why most of us who do identify as pro-life tend to just laugh off the "pro-birth" canard when it is used; we are far too busy helping out young mothers and their babies to be bothered to be offended.
Johnson also focused her ire on the teaching of abstinence as part of sexual education in Catholic schools, scolding that this "message is outdated and evidently results in unwanted pregnancies." Here, too, Johnson is speaking from a position of some ignorance, and the available data does not support her conclusion. She also bemoans that "no empathy is brought to the carriers of unwanted or unsafe pregnancies", but the reality of a risky pregnancy is not – in and of itself – sufficient grounds to permit the elective termination of the young human life at the core of that pregnancy. In all but a vanishingly small number of cases, a risky pregnancy can be prematurely ended without terminating the baby (though early delivery may be necessary), ectopic pregnancies being a notable exception. But it would be the height of dishonesty to treat the surgical removal of an ectopic pregnancy as being the same – morally, ethically, or statistically – as an elective abortion.
That said, I will express agreement with Johnson that some of the proposed solutions to "unplanned" children are inadequate, and I will point to Hungary as an example of how the enactment of pro-family policies by the state can do wonders for reducing the rate at which women will consider or seek out abortions. These policies include expanded maternity support, paid childcare leave, tax benefits for families, housing allowances, tax allowances for young couples that marry, vacation benefits, free holiday camps for children, subsidized utility costs, and school supply subsidies. After putting all of these in place, Hungary saw its abortion rates drop by more than a third, and its divorce rates drop by about quarter; marriage rates in the country also shot up by about a third. And these are policies that we in the pro-life movement can and should champion in Canada, too.
Ray Sanborn, St. Albert
