Rona Ambrose, elected representative of women’s rights in Edmonton, Canada, recently voted for a bill calling to re-examine when life actually begins. This bill, if executed, would re-open the abortion debate, which until now had been as firmly shut as a politician’s wife’s legs.
The definition of the beginning of life is currently birth. When you come out, kicking and screaming, all red faced and gross, you are issued a certificate of birth. That’s when your birthday is, that’s the date they put on your headstone when you’re dead. There is no document the ultrasound technician signs saying your heart started beating. That’s enough for me to close the book on the debate.
Now that I’ve gotten the whole “This bill is an idiotic idea concocted by moronic fanatics who can’t get over the fact that they lost the first time around” argument out of the way, I’d like to talk about Rona Ambrose. She voted for this ridiculous bill, and she’s catching quite a bit of flack for it.
Personally, at first I was outraged as well. “She is supposed to advocate for us! What is she doing voting for that bill!?” But then I actually listened to what she had to say about her vote.
“I have repeatedly raised concerns about discrimination of gurls by sex selection abortion,” she tweeted. “No law needed, but we need awareness!”
Do I think she should’ve risked the creation of this ludicrous bill to create awareness of a growing problem? No. But hell, it worked. Everyone, from feminists to news anchors, to teachers and young people have turned their attention to her, and now she brings this issue up. Good job! There is no better way to get peoples’ attentions than a little paradoxical sensationalism. And nothing is more contradictory than the Minister of Women’s rights voting for a bill that could re-open the abortion war.
Again, maybe not the best way, but it got the job done. Now, she’s going to have to push hard to get the issue of sex selection abortion a talked about issue, even more talked about than the petition to have her resign.
Recent studies have found that the ratio of male to female births among Asian immigrants holds steady to what it is in many of their home countries – countries that have a high rate of sex selection abortions. What this tells me is that whatever values they have regarding females holds fast and true. She is trying to bring awareness to the fact that, while we do not need legislation arguing over when a life truly begins, we do need legislation arguing against female discrimination through abortion.
The anti-choice ringleaders out there would easily argue, “well if you just abolish abortion you can prevent female discrimination through abortion!” But the flaw in that logic is that in abolishing abortion you discriminate against females. We don’t have a bunch of stuffy politicians on Parliament Hill fighting to keep vasectomies from happening; if a man’s ability to have a child can be snuffed out, why can’t a woman make that same decision? And for those who say “It’s not a matter of rights, but a matter of murdering the fetus” I will refer you back to my birth certificate.
The way to prevent female discrimination through abortion is not to hinder abortions, but hinder the ability to make sex selection decisions. Many pro-choice organizations agree that withholding the knowledge of the sex of the fetus is the best way to go. This could eradicate the issue; simply introduce a bill that would make disclosing the gender of a fetus illegal. Not hard, and you don’t have to re-hash the abortion debate. Done!
Rona Ambrose, if you’re listening, I suggest you use the furor you’ve created to your advantage and put an end to this debate before it’s born.