Scott Masson (Phd, University of Durham) teaches at Tyndale University College, is a fellow with the Ezra Institute of Contemporary Christianity, and a pastor at Westminster Chapel in Toronto. He just completed a five-part series for The Bayview Review discussing the issue of gestational limits for abortion; the series was sparked by reader response to a piece he wrote for LifeSiteNews titled, “Biblically Speaking, Gestational Approach Unapproachable.” This is something that pro-life supporters have taken different stands on, and Scott has a definitive position that he argues forcefully. You’ll want to read all five essays in order to get to his practical advice for the pro-life movement, especially for the cause of unity among pro-lifers and for wise steps on bringing legislation to Canada.
Part 1: Gestational Limits on Abortion and the Pro-life Movement
Part 2: Are Gestational Limits on Abortion Really Pragmatic?
Part 3: The Utilitarian View of the Sanctity of Life in Gestational Limits
Re: Masson’s practical suggestions, Canada has a lower abortion rate than the US, so perhaps we should just leave well enough alone versus adopting American measures?
Does it? Since Ontario has refused to release abortion data to the public, can we really know how high the abortion rate is? Even if the abortion rate is lower than in the US, does this mean we should do nothing and let the murders continue?
We might call his measures American, but how do we know that the American measures are responsible for a higher rate of abortions? At this point, that is sheer speculation at best.
Apart from actual evidence, it seems that restricting funding and reducing abortions will reduce the abortion rate. (As an example of this, abortion rates in the States prior to legalization were much lower than they are now.)
Ontario has pretty much the same laws as the rest of Canada, I see no reason why your claim about this should imperil any other data about the topic.
I am calling the measuring American because versions of them show up in various places in the United States. It’s no different than calling baseball American. We don’t know that the measures described *cause* a higher abortion rate, but it seems to suggest that they don’t really succeed in effecting a lower one either. Seems like another government regulatory boondoggle, only this one is supported by my conservative friends!
Restricting funding might reduce the number of abortions performed professionally by a doctor…. Not the same as reducing the number of abortions.
Dan wrote: “Restricting funding might reduce the number of abortions performed professionally by a doctor.” Doing abortions is a violation of the Hippocratic oath and is the historical reason why the medical profession obtained a better reputation than sorcerers, since the iatros refused to kill for money, while the pharmakos regularly used his magical powers to kill.
Thus, a doctor as a professional who kills is a bit of a confusion of categories–unless doctors who kill are professional in this sense (hoping this image will work, in case it doesn’t here is the link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0110413/ ):