Carleton Lifeline: Opposition is worth it if the truth is revealed
By Ruth Lobo

In December 2006, media reports from across Canada, from local radio stations in Ottawa to national newspapers, were replete with stories and editorials about opposition against the pro-life movement at Carleton University from the Carleton University Student Association (CUSA).
           
Though the extent of the opposition was stressful and somewhat disappointing, it would be a lie to say that Carleton Lifeline did not expect a degree of conflict to occur while trying to reinstate the pro-life presence on campus. Known throughout the country as the “Last Chance U,” Carleton University’s relativistic and liberal approach to university life is no secret. With this mentality in mind, coupled with an understanding that the pro-life movement as a whole is based upon controversial ideas, the pro-life group Carleton Lifeline approached the university in the fall of 2006 ready to advocate for life. As expected, a plethora of disagreements were had.
           
Beginning in October of 2006, Lifeline organized a debate on the subject of whether or not elective abortion should be legal in Canada. After a stimulating debate and various probing questions directed at both individuals, it was shown, if nothing else, that there is still a tremendous amount of interest and concern among youth on the topic of elective abortion.
           
About a month and a half after the debate, Carleton University Students Association (CUSA) put forward a motion to make their union pro-choice. This would conveniently ban any group on campus that they deem “anti-choice.” Though Lifeline was told many times not to take this motion as a direct attack, it was obvious that CUSA believed the pro-life movement presented a number of threats. Lifeline’s approach to the issue contains the implicit messages “abortion should not be a choice” and “an unborn fetus is a human being.” In the eyes of CUSA, the pro-life group had come to represent a discriminatory anti-choice group that did not believe in women’s rights and did not even consider the traumatic implications of an unplanned pregnancy.

CUSA’s motion suddenly brought the ideals of today’s youth into focus.   Among them are human rights, convenience, instant gratification and relativism: One deserves rights because each person deserves their own relative opinion protected. Instant gratification and convenience are needed to uphold the justification for believing a different truth and not deserving negative consequences for actions.
           
Aside from the fact that muzzling the pro-life voice at a university presents numerous freedom-of-speech problems that would make any democrat pull their hair out, it is neither ethical nor just for a woman at Carleton University to be making an uninformed choice about her pregnancy. Not to mention that there would be no advocating for the human rights of the unborn child.
           
Carleton Lifeline does not seek to re-criminalize abortion in any way. They simply advocate that an unborn child deserves the same rights as a child outside the womb. They advocate for human rights, beginning at conception through to natural death. They advocate for the rights of women around the world and firmly believe that abortion is degrading to women. Lifeline desires desperately to ensure that women are informed about their pregnancy and know exactly what having an abortion means, feels and does to a woman emotionally, physically and mentally.
           
Much of the opposition that Lifeline received came from a campus institution called the Womyn’s Center.  The Womyn’s Center opposes the view that abortion should be eliminated as a woman’s choice, and therefore any restriction on a woman’s right to have control over her body is seen as an out right act of hate.
           
It is important to understand why this mentality is illogical and fallible: Does having abortion as a legal choice for women directly mean that they are making a more informed choice? Logically, no, for a few reasons. Making abortion legal has meant that the individual is not informed of the law set in place within Canada--under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the rights entailed to an individual are restricted as soon as they harm another individual. Of course, this would mean that one would have to believe that a fetus is a human being and therefore deserves the same rights as anyone else.
           
There is a second fallacy in the reasoning that restricting a woman’s right to a legal abortion is an act of hate— biological ignorance. For a world that depends so much on empirical and scientific evidence, to ignore the biological evidence that a fetus growing in the womb is a human being is outrageous and very surprising. Based on both these fallacies, it is easy to see the illogical rational of the pro-choice movement.
           
Abortion clinics do not spell out the negative effects of having an abortion. They are not shown videos of what is about to happen, nor are they told of the aftermath. One would have thought that the Womyn’s Center would want the pro-life presence on campus because it helps women and does not hinder them.
           
The underlying question carrying through this whole ordeal was: Do students at Carleton University care about what is going on? It would be unfair to say “yes” and unfair to say “no.” There has been an overwhelming amount of interest shown by both pro-life and pro-choice students. There have been many questions asked and many opinions shared through the campus newspaper. When CUSA held a meeting to vote on whether to incorporate the pro-choice motion into their constitution, there was over one hundred students present waiting to ask questions and demanding clarification. These students came from a wide spectrum of groups, including the Gay and Lesbian societies, the debate society, Christian groups, and of course the Womyn’s Center and Carleton Lifeline.
           
Although the motion to deny “anti-choice” groups club status was ratified by CUSA members, Lifeline recently received club status and funding from the union at the beginning of January, as the new semester began. The implications of the pro-choice mandate will only be made clear over the course of the semester, as the motion was based completely on the perspective of a committee of five.
           
It is through controversy that one comes to understand themselves and the world around them. It is through opposition that one begins to understand who they are and what they believe. The situation at Carleton University became a pivotal moment in the lives of students because their attention was sparked and their interests peaked. Their student voice had come alive. If the pro-life movement and Carleton Lifeline must suffer in order for young people to define who they are and know what they believe, then so be it. Every attack, every disappointment, every opposition and every threat suddenly holds infinite worth if it enables the truth to be told and true colors to be shown. If courage is what you lack, know this: Life is waiting to begin.

Ruth Lobo is a second year psychology student at Carleton University and secretary for Carleton Lifeline.