July 14, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – In Canada, abortion is discussed in two primary ways. First, Liberals use the abortion issue to accuse Conservatives of having a hidden pro-life agenda to split the Conservative base. This happens, inevitably, during every single election. Concurrently, the Canadian media insists that when Conservatives lose elections, it is because they are too anti-abortion and are thus “scaring” the voting population. No evidence of this is ever provided, and this assertion can be used even when the Conservatives have a proudly pro-abortion leader like Erin O’Toole.
In fact, abortion at home and abroad has, under the Justin Trudeau government, become a fundamental part of the Canadian identity. Stephen Harper had his maternal care initiatives overseas; Justin Trudeau sends tens of millions of tax dollars to abort babies in developing nations (including those nations where abortion is still illegal). When abortion is brought up, it is as a wonderful aspect of women’s healthcare that everyone has a God-given right to.
This means that even popular pro-life legislation commanding support from a broad swathe of the public is condemned as an attack on “reproductive freedom.” Two bills from Saskatchewan MP Cathay Wagantall, for example, were used as evidence by the Liberals that the Conservative Party was “anti-choice.” One of these bills involved instituting criminal penalties for men who murder pregnant women or assault them so that their pre-born child dies, and the other was a ban on gender-selection abortion. Even these common-sense initiatives were deemed dangerous.
So it is interesting to hear the silence when a story emerges that proves how abortion is not only a violent act that takes the life of a child — it is often a weapon used by deadbeat parents who wish to rid themselves of the responsibility of a child. For example, there is the horrifying case of a Winnipeg man who is accused of abducting and stabbing his toddler daughter to death.
As it turns out, the stabbing was not this father’s first attempt on his daughter’s life. The CBC — a very pro-abortion media outlet — obtained court records that revealed the man assaulted the child’s mother during her pregnancy, hoping that the baby would die as a result. He also tried to force her to drink “a poison of some sort, a liquid … He put his hands against me and forced it into my face and I realized that [was] what his intention was … he wanted me to smell it so it would actually kill the baby. He wasn’t listening to me. I told him no, but he forced it on me.”
In fact, the first thing the man said when he discovered that she was pregnant was that she needed to get an abortion. “That was the first thing he said. He said he didn’t want to have anything to do with it and then he thought, yes, he wanted to abort the baby and he started to plan and I had told him, no, I don’t want to. But he said he wants to — he was going to force me to, and then he tried to. Frank said his only goal was to abort the baby.” At one point, he asked her to “remove the baby.”
This, it must be pointed out, is precisely the sort of thing Cathay Wagantall’s legislation sought to address.
Even the media, when covering this story, recognizes that the alleged killer’s attempt to have the baby aborted is relevant to his murder of the toddler. That is for the simple reason that the pre-born baby and the toddler were the same person — his daughter.
His daughter did not magically become a person when she passed through the birth canal, as Canadian law ludicrously holds. She was a person then, and he tried to kill her. When she made it out of the womb alive, he tried again — and is now being tried for murder. Same girl — different location. If she’d been dismembered in the womb, it would have been a wonderful “choice” celebrated by Justin Trudeau and his colleagues, even if she was aborted just because she was a girl. But because her father killed her later, he will likely go to prison.
Please SIGN this important petition asking the UN to call for an unequivocal ban on sex-selection abortion - abortions which are procured purely because the parents want a baby of one sex (usually, male) and not the other.
All abortions are wrong**, but the UN's agency which monitors the world's population, UNFPA, just issued a report stating that sex-selection abortion is a violation of human rights.
Unfortunately, the same report also says that, "bans on sex selection...infringe reproductive rights, including access to safe abortion."
This is a classic case of the United Nations speaking out of both sides of its mouth, showing its glaring hypocrisy in the process.
Where are the self-professed 'feminists' at the UN when it comes to sex-selection abortion?
Their contradictory philosophy allows for the slaughter of girls in the name of women's rights!
And now, with this petition, we're going to hold them accountable.
With this petition, we say to the UN: You can't have it both ways. Either you will defend females against the violence and discrimination of abortion, or you won't.
SIGN this petition and urge the UN to call for a definitive ban on sex-selection abortion, and defend the right of all girls and boys to be born.
The UNFPA, itself, estimates that there are 140 million fewer girls in the world today because of sex-selection abortion. Of course, this leads to a massive imbalance between the sexes in places where sex-selection abortion is widely practised, especially in China and India.
And, as the UNFPA admits, the imbalance between the sexes has the side-effect of increasing other activities which also adversely affect women, like human trafficking and prostitution.
Again, where are the feminists on this critical issue?
The UN claims that bans on sex-selection abortion are ineffective, but we all know that the law is a teacher. As such, legal bans would actually contribute to the cultural change supposedly sought after by the UN.
So, it's time for the UN to put up or shut-up, and call for a worldwide ban on sex-selection abortion.
Thank you for SIGNING this important petition and holding the UN accountable for every baby killed as a result of sex-selection abortion. We urge the UNFPA to call for a definitive ban on sex-selection abortion with effective enforcement.
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
'UN Population Fund defends ‘right’ to abort female half of population' - https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/un-population-fund-defends-right-to-abort-female-half-of-population
'UN Population Fund officially adopts pro-abortion mandate despite US objections' - https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/un-population-fund-officially-adopts-pro-abortion-mandate-despite-us-objections
UN Abortion Newspeak - 'An 'arbitrary' approach to human life' - https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/the-united-nationss-newspeak-on-abortion
UNFPA State of World Population 2020 - 'Defying the practices that harm women and girls undermine equality' - https://www.unfpa.org/sites/default/files/pub-pdf/UNFPA_PUB_2020_EN_State_of_World_Population.pdf
**LifeSite believes that abortion - the intentional killing of an innocent pre-born human being - is never necessary and always gravely immoral. By asking the UN to call for a ban on sex-selection abortion, we are not, in any way, endorsing abortion for any other reason. By way of this petition, we are highlighting how, by its own statements, the UN's position on abortion, and, in this case, sex-selection abortion, is actually anti-reason and anti-woman. The UN seems to believe that they must advocate for abortion at any cost.
* Photo Credit: SHUTTERSTOCK.COM
This awful story reminds me of a case from 2005, when a young Canadian woman strangled her newborn baby boy to death and threw his body over the fence into her neighbor’s yard. In 2011, her murder conviction was “downgraded” to infanticide, and she was given a suspended sentence — because the Edmonton judge said Canada’s pro-abortion ideology made her deed understandable. “While many Canadians undoubtedly view abortion as a less than ideal solution to unprotected sex and unwanted pregnancy,” the judge wrote, “they generally understand, accept, and sympathize with the onerous demands pregnancy and childbirth exact from mothers, especially mothers without support.”
In other words, by strangling her son this young woman had merely performed a very late-term abortion. So did the Winnipeg father who allegedly murdered his toddler. Canada accepts that parents can kill their children and lays out the framework for when they can do that. But occasionally, Canadian judges sympathize with those who kill their children a tad too late. Perhaps, if the Winnipeg man gets the right judge with the right views on abortion, he too will find mercy where his child found none.