Weak Arguments Bother Me

Let me first of state that I am Pro-Life, and I am always up for a good discussion. Today, I was reading the Sun, and when I got to the Editorial section of the Edmonton Sun, I came across an article that angered me. It wasn't that it was for abortion, but that the argument was incredibly weak. Ms. Lyn Cockburn was commenting on how the Federal Conservative government did not include abortion to be included in Canada's initiative proposal to the G8 to decrease the amount of maternal deaths during child birth in the developing world. The first problem with her argument is that it was a Liberal Party motion to include abortion that was defeated by the majority of parliament, not just the Conservatives. As I recall, a couple Liberal MPs voted against their own motion. But being bothered so much, I have decided to pick apart her argument. Here we go.

Ms. Cockburn stated in her article, "Abortion access must be included in plan" (April 6, 2010), that 1 in 7 women in Niger, 1 in 50 women in Sudan, and some 550,000 women die worldwide because of complications during child birth. These numbers are heartbreaking, and I do agree that it is deplorable that many of the women are from the developing world. But I disagree with her argument for abortion to be included in the G8 initiative. What I do not see in her article, is a solid argument for abortion to be included. The problem isn't the child, but the healthcare, and environment the mother is surrounded by. The solution to the high death rate of expectant mothers in these regions of the world would be to improve the quality of healthcare, and availability of basic needs for the mother. Therefore, this initiative is actually providing the needed improvements in those key areas, which is more important than just removing the child. Towards her argument that 500,000 women worldwide would not have access to what the plan is proposing, then what would be the advantage to adding abortion? If the expectant mothers cannot access the clean water, nutrition, and inoculation programs, then how would the abortion doctor be more available? Again, the solution to maternal health in developing countries is not the removal of the child, but to provide an adequate system where the families can plan responsibly, and safely. Ms. Cockburn did have it right however, when she stated that the use of contraception methods would result in far less maternal deaths during child birth, and would ultimately negate many unnecessary abortions.

Ms. Cockburn then proceeded to bash the Conservatives, and Stephen Harper, instead of making a point of why abortion should be included. Actually, the majority of her article is just a rant against the Conservative Party, and Stephen Harper, rather than a case for abortion to be included.

I encourage you to read the article itself, and tell me what your opinion is. If you disagree with me, feel free to share. If you click on the title of this post, it will take you to the article on the Sun's website.

Cheers,

Amos13