Live and Let Not

It's a big country. A diverse one with basic values. Canada is also a socially and politically moderate one whose society is more given to relaxed acceptance of changing mores than ardent championing of ideological stances, whether generated by politics or religion.

In Canada a woman's right to seek a safe abortion is now well recognized. No one, not the staunch defenders of a woman's right to choose, nor those in reluctant agreement, claim that abortion represents an ideal form of contraception. It is, rather, the last resort of a woman who cannot cope for any number of reasons, and who does not wish to bear a living child.

Most Canadians feel that there might be limits imposed on abortion procedures, with respect to maturation of the fetus, but there is no real agreement on this on a broad scale.

In a political sense, those who uphold a woman's right to choose fear that if unhampered access is modified to include 'guidelines', it would represent a creeping potential for overturning what currently exists; society's acceptance that there are times and occasions when a woman must make that decision for herself.

That anti-abortion groups were able to muster the presence of 12,000 protesters in the latest of the annual rallies on Parliament Hill is impressive, but not overly so.

It is being claimed that anti-abortion groups feel empowered that the government led by the Prime Minister, expresses ambivalence about federal funds being used to facilitate abortions for women in Third-World countries. That this has occurred is unfortunate. But the greater misfortune would be if much were made of it in the face of the greater good of funding enhanced medical care for maternal and child health in developing countries.

Prime Minister Harper expressed an unwillingness to take any initiative within Canada to disturb the status quo, and so he should. When he states that this is a divisive issue between Canadians he is correct to a degree. But the fact is that the greater balance of Canadians feel to a greater or lesser degree that abortion is a matter between a woman, sometimes her spouse, and her medical practitioner. And there it should stay.

Those who equate abortion with the Holocaust know little of what they speak. In their passion they distinguish themselves and their fervent wish to deny women access to safe medicalized abortions as historical and social ignoramuses. It is not feasible to elevate the status of one issue not remotely resembling that used as a horrendously trivialized example. Abortion in no way resembles the mass murder of living, sensate human beings.

Proportion and perspective are vitally important. That Canada has not seen fit to enact a law on abortion, but yet recognizes the social need of accepting the procedure as an-sometimes medical necessity has worked well for this country's women. Generally speaking, third-trimester abortions are carried out as an extreme measure, when serious maternal health or fetal problems emerge.

And statistics available through the Canadian Medical Association inform us that 14 out of one thousand women in Canada seek abortions, representing less than half the global average. Abortion procedures in Canada are undertaken far less frequently than in the United States. If people with strong religious convictions that lead them to believe that abortion equates with murder insist that everyone must respect their convictions, their position is unacceptable.

Those who deplore the fact of abortion as an accepted necessity, whether to void a pregnancy resulting from incest, rape, or a woman's inability or unwillingness to carry to term, should understand that this is what they can personally reject. For themselves and themselves only. In a free liberal-democracy, there are certain rights pertaining to societal health and well-being available to everyone that no one should seek to tamper with.

Abortion rights is one of them.