Time Immortal

Reader Drumna Parx writes (on the day when Henry Morgentaler is to receive his Order of Canada, no less!):

Abortion might have saved the lives of some women who were raped, sick or went out drinking too often and were promiscuous…but I guess I am missing the point when you speak of child poverty. Thousand of immigrants have swarmed this country and have children left and right without any problems. Our governement is providing for them even more than it ever gave us. Those welfare services helping children, single mothers and poor families exist and whether or not Morgentaler had abortion legalized doesn’t seem to make much difference at this point!

Now, I confess that I’m at something of a loss as to which article Ms. Parx might be referring to here, if any. I’m also not entirely sure of her tone; I would hope that nothing I have said recently could be mistaken for something which is supportive of abortion, because that would be very far indeed from the truth of my thoughts and opinions. I’m wondering if she is perhaps thinking of Count Roland’s recent article, or perhaps my comments on the wretched concerns of Dr. Andre Lalande, who fears that the example of Sarah Palin might motivate more women to keep unborn babies that, in his opinion, they might not be “ready” to have.

As though one is ever “ready” to have a baby. Sorry, but if that’s your standard, you’ll die childless.

Abortion very likely has not “saved the lives” of any woman who was raped or who had to cope with the aftermath of a drunken romp, because the overwhelming majority (99%+) of pregnancies resulting from such things will probably progress normally, as pregnancies are wont to do. I will grant that in some medical cases, it is impossible to save both mother and child…although I’m not sure that such a surgery could rightly be termed an “abortion,” given that both mother and child would probably be saved were it possible. And given the pace at which medical technology is advancing, it may one day be possible, and then perhaps within my lifetime.

But I think Ms. Parx does raise an interesting point about Immigration and economics. If I am not misinformed, one of the “justifications” trotted out in defence of the odious practice is that it acts as a shield for economically disadvantaged women to prevent them from having to bear the cost of an unexpected baby (admittedly, raising a child is not exactly cheap). Except that in Canada, it is both very easy to game the public welfare system, and very easy to live at a reasonable standard on the public dime, even if one is raising a child. We don’t quite have the cradle-to-grave welfare that is so commonly found in European countries, but we come fairly close.

I spoke of gaming the welfare system, and the issue of having children is applicable here as well; more children equates to more welfare claimants, for example. Indeed, if one wants to rake in more than one’s reasonable share of the public purse, one would do well to have a few children, preferably by different fathers (why not boost one’s “victim” cred at the same time?), in order to maximize one’s potential “earnings.”

The government pours out huge amounts of dollars into those who are either unable or unwilling to work, so much so that many supposedly “poor” families have amenities that even a working family (such as my own) cannot afford; having sold big-screen televisions for a year or two, I can speak to this more directly than some others could hope to.

And indeed, at a glance, it does not seem to be the case that women who supposedly fit into the category of “economically disadvantaged” are the ones procuring all that many abortions, given the number of children that such women often seem to have. In many parts of the U.S., abortion is used as a method of birth control, and then by more well-off women. The same is true of immigrant communities, except perhaps where female children are concerned.

I don’t know…certainly, in my limited amount of work with the pro-life movement here in Alberta, I’ve not encountered too many arguments grounded in economics and demographics, but it might make for an interesting study.

As to Morgentaler’s reception of the award today, I’ve not much to say, except to note that it seems that cowards think alike.

Update: Welcome, Steynians!