Featured Image
Famed Canadian abortionist Henry Morgentaler
Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete


PhD candidate aims to ‘normalize the experiences of abortion providers’

Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete

Abortion logic always creeps me out. An abortion ideologue ultimately believes it’s OK for women to have their pre-born children killed. They ultimately believe it’s OK for a strong dominant human being to kill a weak vulnerable one. Take what PhD candidate Jessica Shaw from the University of Calgary recently wrote about abortionists being targeted for “harassment and violence”:

However, women have had and will continue to have abortions regardless of their morality, regardless of their legality, regardless of what the foetus may or may not be, and regardless of whether they are offered in safe medical settings, or in clandestine conditions. The need for abortion is present for people in every social class, every region, and every belief system.

Shaw’s piece appeared last week in ActiveHistory.ca. She’s doing her doctoral research on what she calls “understanding and normalizing the experiences of abortion providers in Canada.”

Let’s begin by flipping the tables and imagine if someone said this about stealing, lying, racism, or rape:

However, men have and will continue to rape regardless of its morality, regardless of its legality, regardless of what sexual exploitation may or may not be, and regardless of whether it is done in a home, or in clandestine conditions. Rape is present for people in every social class, every region, and every belief system.

Changing the noun reveals how ludicrous Shaw’s statement actually is. Just because something is happening all the time doesn’t mean there’s a need for it or that it should become socially accepted.

Does Shaw actually think there’s a “need” for abortion in every belief system? Maybe if you adhere to some diabolic belief system you have a “need” for abortion, but for the major religions of the world, including Christianity, abortion is condemned in the strongest possible language.

Shaw continues:

In Canada, abortion providers are often stigmatized as single-issue activists whose entire identities are described with the derogatory title ‘abortionist.’  By some, they are imagined to be anti-woman, anti-child, and anti-family, and because of this, they are targets for harassment and violence. In reality, abortion providers are mothers, fathers, grandmothers, grandfathers, daughters, sons, partners, lovers, and friends.

Um, hello, abortion providers are called ‘abortionists’ because that’s what they do, they perform abortions. Similarly, someone is called an anesthesiologist because they administer anesthetics for surgical procedures. There’s nothing derogatory here. Or maybe Shaw has subconsciously let slip her realization there’s something dirty about abortion that makes the words ‘abortionist’ appear to her as something negative.

And no, abortionists are not “imagined” to be “anti-woman, anti-child, and anti-family,” they are in fact such. They’re “anti-women” inasmuch as abortion consists in the most abominable assault on a woman’s motherhood and natural design to be a nurturer of new life. Abortionists are “anti-child” inasmuch as they brutally end the lives of countless pre-born children through abortion. They’re also “anti-family” in as much as they destroy family members through the same procedure.

And yes, it’s sad and a bit scary that abortionists are “mothers, fathers, grandmothers, grandfathers, daughters, sons, partners, lovers, and friends” who make their livelihood on destroying someone’s son, daughter, grandson, granddaughter, potential partner, potential lover, and potential friend. Killing vulnerable humans for a living must surely color every other relationship an abortionist has with other people. Can a serial killer ever really be a good mother or father?

I agree with Shaw that abortion “evokes strong political and emotional reactions.” And it should. Any time someone’s life is on the line, it should evoke such reactions. Otherwise, we’ve become calloused and desensitized to the needs of other people. After all, what we’re really dealing with here is a human life worthy of respect, protection, and rights just as much as anyone else’s life. Unfortunately, this is something the PhD candidate has conveniently managed to overlook in her piece. 

Share this article