By Barbara McAdorey

They made us laugh; they made us cry; they made us fume. And in the end, the speakers at the 2003 national, pro-life conference in Edmonton made us, I hope, even more determined to try to make Canada a just and caring country – made us want to be “silent no more,” just as the women who have experienced the pain of abortion are becoming “silent no more.”

Courageous, post-abortive women told us their stories. Silence filled the room as they bared their pain, allowing us to share in their grief. As post-abortion researcher Dr. David Reardon (the keynote speaker at Saturday night’s banquet) believes, it will be through such women that society will eventually come to its senses regarding abortion. When we see the damage abortion inflicts on women, compassion will compel us to reject the abortion “solution” to a crisis pregnancy – to see it for the “poor choice” it really is.

We were reminded by two young dynamos from Alberta, Mark Isinger and Joanne Pollack, that love takes action. We arm ourselves with knowledge, but “what good is a weapon in your hand if you’re not going to use it?” asked Mark. We shouldn’t let our fear of telling the world stop us from telling the world. Their proclamation, “Blessed are the peacemakers, not the chickenhearted!” was met with an enthusiastic uproar from the audience. And in quoting Blessed Mother Teresa, the young speakers told us that it is not so much what we do that counts, but how we do it: “Christ does not call us to do great things; he calls us to do small things with great love.” Mark says we need to convert people’s hearts before we can convert the law. And what better weapon to convert hearts than love?

We heard from two MPs when the political panel took the stage. Liberal MP Pat O’Brien said that government “can be and must be a force for good.” He is committed to seeking the input from his constituents on a regular basis. Canada is a nation built on compromise and compromise is necessary, he tells his audience, but adds, “certain core moral beliefs I will not compromise on in good conscience.” All human life is sacred and we must avoid killing except in certain situations like self-defense. He is not afraid to disagree with his constituents when he believes they are wrong. “You have to be consistent and honest with constituents, and let the votes fall as they may.” He tells us that he has been ostracized by other Liberal MPs. “If the price for your friendship is I can’t have my own views, then the price is too high.”

Canadian Alliance MP Stockwell Day echoed the same sentiment. “Speak the truth, and be prepared to pay the price,” and added that our message of truth must be wrapped in love. He talked about French philosopher Jean Jacques Rousseau’s concept of the “general will.” Rousseau assumed wrongly, Mr. Day says, that all people are basically good. Rousseau believed that if the majority agree on something, that is what is good for society. “If you are not of that majority, you are probably not good, bad for society, and should be removed,” Stockwell Day paraphrases Rousseau. But settling problems with democracy, says Mr. Day, can be as vicious as settling problems with guns and swords. “Where there is envy and selfish ambition, there will be disorder and every evil thing.”

Richard Doerflinger from the US Conference of Catholic Bishops gave us some insight into how advances in biotechnology have brought us to where we are today in his talk, “Cloning and Beyond.” The first IVF baby was born in 1978, and as early as 1979, there was talk about funding research on embryos obtained through IVF. In 1998, scientists managed to get stem cells out of an embryo and grow them in a dish. They hailed this as the “fountain of youth,” and in a few years, they’d have cures for diseases! Well, researchers then realized that treatment would cause an immune reaction, and so what they needed were genetically matched cells. Enter genetic cloning. In a process called Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer, an embryo is created from a cell taken from the patient. This embryo will be a genetic copy of the patient, so the embryo’s stem cells will not be foreign, so there will be no rejection. Scientists say that the result of such cloning is an “unfertilized blastocyst” and that this clone will only be used for “therapeutic” purposes (that is, to treat diseases), not for reproductive purposes. Because these cloned embryos are not allowed to be implanted and grown to term, scientists have, in essence, defined a new class of human species that it is a crime not to destroy.

Advances in biotechnology have given rise to three paradoxes, Doerflinger tells us:
1. Scientists talk of balancing medical and ethical considerations. In the name of good, we have brought about the death of ethics.
2. The same ethic today that allows us to kill a baby to treat Alzheimer’s, will be used tomorrow to kill the Alzheimer’s patient.
3. By creating children in the lab, we objectify human beings. Scientists want to end up with a designer baby, a superior human being, the “post human being.” We, who have created them as objects, may end up being their slaves.

He leaves us with some chilling questions. Cloning needs eggs. Where will these eggs come from? Will we pay poor women to donate their eggs? Will we take them from aborted baby girls?

Janet Epp Buckingham, a lawyer with the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, traced the history of important court rulings that have helped to slip our society into its current sad state:

In the 1988 Morgentaler case, the Supreme Court found that the abortion law as it existed in the criminal code infringed on a woman’s right to life, liberty, and security of the person under the Charter, although the court did leave the door open for a new law to be created. Also in 1988, Joe Borowski challenged the existing law saying that it didn’t protect the unborn enough. But the Supreme Court scheduled Borowski after Morgentaler, so by the time it got to the Supreme Court, it was moot.

In Tremblay vs Daigle in 1989 in which a boyfriend tried to get an injunction to stop his girlfriend from getting an abortion, the Supreme Court ruled that a fetus doesn’t have a right to life.

In 1990, Bill C-43, a new abortion law to replace the one struck down – it would allow abortion during the first trimester, only if the health or life of mother was in danger during the second trimester, and was very restrictive in the third trimester – was passed in the House of Commons but defeated in the Senate by about one vote.

In 1997, Winnipeg Child and Family Services asked the court if a mother has a duty to her unborn child and could be restricted from using drugs. The court said “No” and was unwilling to put restrictions on pregnant mothers.

In the 1999 Sullivan and Lemay case involving the death of a baby during delivery, the court ruled that two midwives could not be charged with negligence causing death because the baby was not born alive. The judges said they were making that ruling because they were concerned about the implications for abortion.

And now in Morgentaler vs New Brunswick, Morgentaler is raising issues of “medical necessity” and the “right to abortion.” We have no right to any other care in Canada. This has far-reaching implications, Janet tells us. Could a patient scheduled for heart surgery be bumped if a woman wants an abortion?

If such injustices make us angry, then hopefully this anger will only strengthen our resolve to never give up – to always have hope and faith that we can turn our country around. But as Janet asks, are we facing Mission Impossible? In terms of the law, we have to look at an incremental approach, she says. There are four areas of hope:
1. Protection of Conscience. Three cases have settled, all in favour of the health care professional. There is room in Canadian law for a strong establishment of protection of conscience.
2. Constant presence in important court cases. The pro-life side did not intervene in the 1988 Morgentaler case, but we need to be present in these cases and argue for life.
3. Outlaw late-term abortions. It is not that we would be allowing the other types of abortions, it is that we would be restricting this type of abortion.
4. Abortion funding. The Maritimes are on our side on this (and so is most of the Canadian public according to the latest Leger/LifeCanada poll.)

In addition, Janet says there are a few things we need to ponder:
Unity is essential;
Diversity is not a bad thing– we need everyone with their own distinct contribution;
We need to act in courts, government, and media.

Many more speakers imparted their knowledge, insights, and enthusiasm to us. CD recordings of all sessions are available through Alberta Pro-Life – so you don’t have to miss a single word of wisdom! – BM