Too soon to erect roadside memorial to abortion debate

by Stephen Hui on Sep 18, 2012 at 4:02 pm
Anti-abortion activists put up this “roadside memorial” last night.

In Surrey, a roadside memorial made of hay bales and 100 blue and pink crosses has gone up. But this isn’t a memorial to the victims of speeding, distracted, or drunk drivers. It’s the work of anti-abortion activists.

In a news release today (September 18), WeNeedaLAW.ca claimed responsibility for the protest/publicity stunt, located at Fraser Highway and 188 Street. It’s a national campaign, with a Surrey mailing address, that’s been endorsed by the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, Priests for Life Canada, and other groups.

Campaign director Mike Schouten states in the release: “The roadside memorial in Surrey will assist in bringing greater awareness to what we believe is the role of government, and that is to enact federal legislation that restricts abortion to the greatest extent possible.” Supporters of the campaign are no doubt praying that, with a Conservative majority in Ottawa, Stephen Harper will do just that.

On its website, the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada notes that the “anti-choice movement in Canada is still strong and active”. The ARCC site states: “Anti-choice activists remain committed to various campaigns, such as working to defund abortion, spreading misinformation about abortion, and promoting policies and laws to restrict abortion or make it harder to access.”

The Surrey “memorial” just confirms that, as ARCC says, abortion remains far from a “settled issue” in Canada.

You can follow Stephen Hui on Twitter, Facebook, and Pinterest.

Comments (8) Add New Comment
Morty
Sep 18, 2012 at 10:25 pm
I wonder how many of these self-proclaimed "anti-abortion" types support things that actually reduce abortion rates, like Planned Parenthood, birth control and comprehensive sex education, and how many are really only interested in imposing their religious beliefs on others and denying women control over their own bodies. I'm willing to bet the latter far outnumber the former.

If you oppose organizations like Planned Parenthood, you're not anti-abortion; you're simply anti-choice.
1
1
Rating: 0
my 2 cents
Sep 19, 2012 at 10:11 am
Anti-abortion=Anti-woman=patriarchy Stay the hell out of my vag!
2
2
Rating: 0
Paul Schratz
Sep 19, 2012 at 10:22 am
I'll take that bet. Every pro-lifer I know is active in supporting things that actually reduce abortion rates, like marriage, responsibility, chastity,...you know, those things that promote two-parent families that are the best environment for raising a child. They're also involved in pregnancy centres and adoption programs. They support women in crisis pregnancies. They give of their time and of their money. Find me a single pro-lifer who has shown any interest in "imposing their religious beliefs on others." Pay up.
1
1
Rating: 0
Tara S.
Sep 19, 2012 at 11:58 am
LOL, Chastity??? Are you an ostrich?? This is exactly the first commenters point. Those are NOT things that reduce abortion rates, they are things that some people are into and MOST people are not. More than 75% of sex is NOT done for the purpose of procreation. Welcome to 2012. Furthermore, a 2 parent family does not equal a best environment for raising children, not if it also includes poverty, adultery, physical or emotional abuse. As for "supporting women" in crisis pregnancies - if that means shaming them into carrying to full term an unwanted pregnancy for a life of despair and poverty or even for adoption, have you considered the long term psychological effects that kind of situation has on a woman, no, I didn't think so. Your ignorance underlines the crux of this issue. Wake up and stop kidding yourself that any of your rhetoric HELPS women!! WOW!!
5
1
Rating: +4
prenup
Sep 19, 2012 at 12:29 pm
If woman can choose to have abortion (which I agree) then men should choose to be fathers as well. If they say they do not want to be fathers then they shouldnt be on the hook for child support. A woman spreading her legs is as much at fault as th eguy not keeping his dkc in his pants.

I say both sides should have the right to choose.
2
2
Rating: 0
Jan123
Sep 20, 2012 at 12:11 pm
The real issue is about the definition of the start of a human person. This is a legal matter which should not be decided upon by each individual woman. It is circular reasoning to say that because it is not a human person, a woman can choose whether or not she decides that it is a human person.
2
1
Rating: +1
Xtina
Sep 24, 2012 at 6:50 am

Here's a little number for all the facistas :

"My body's nobody's body but mine,
You have your body and I'll have mine."
I heard it at the daycare .
2
1
Rating: +1
Evan V
Oct 2, 2012 at 11:09 am
I agree with Xtina's comment, "My body's nobody's body but mine,
You have your body and I'll have mine." Just imagine your pre-born child saying inside their mother's womb!
1
4
Rating: -3
Add new comment
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.