Rocket Talk: Can Sunday Subway Service Start Sooner?
Newsstand: November 19, 2009
Gender Studies Coming to a High School Near You
Please Insert Station and Try Again
The Art of Not Knowing
Photo by Lina Aristizabal.
Yesterday, January 21, was the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that decriminalized abortion in the United States. Monday marks the 20th anniversary of Canada's Morgentaler decision, a similar judgment that found the Criminal Code's abortion provision to be in violation of womens' Charter rights.
In the Morgentaler case, Justice Bertha Wilson wrote the following:
The decision whether to terminate a pregnancy is essentially a moral decision, a matter of conscience. I do not think there is or can be any dispute about that. The question is: whose conscience? Is the conscience of the woman to be paramount or the conscience of the state? I believe, for the reasons I gave in discussing the right to liberty, that in a free and democratic society it must be the conscience of the individual.Two decades have passed, and this matter of conscience has become no less disputed. Across the border, abortion laws are once again a hot topic in the presidential elections. In theatres, Juno, Waitress and Knocked Up—and conversely, on the less sunny side, the critically acclaimed Romanian film 4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days—have brought the shashmortion issue to the op-ed pages. And downtown, the pro-lifers have decided to throw in their two metres.
Looming just east of Dundas Square, at the corner of Dundas and Victoria streets, is an out-of-home ad sponsored by the Niagara Region Right to Life. The billboard features a larger-than-life toy soldier, his right cheek adorned with one giant tear. The copy reads, "Some toys will have fewer children to play with this year. Some 100,000 aborted children."
Makes you think, right? Like, say, what the hell would we do with 100,000 extra babies?
But it seems this particular pro-life organization doesn't want you to think about that. Nor do they want you to think of the separation of church and state, or the constitutional rights of women, or the myriad complicated circumstances surrounding unwanted pregnancies.
No. They want you to think of the toys.
In particular, the ad urges, consider the plight of the orphaned toy soldier. Dissed by Britney. Disparaged by peacenik parents. And now desperately, despairingly alone. What will the poor private do? Will he drown in a pool of his own toy tears? Hang himself with a piece of string in his toy bunker? Or, more disturbingly still, will he unite in misery with his orphaned compadres, forming a toy army bent on exacting their revenge on our free and democratic society? Should we be worrying about those 100,000 aborted lives...or fearing for our own?
When Torontoist called the number listed on the billboard to ask these questions—a number belonging not to Niagara Region Right to Life, but to a local organization that calls itself Aid to Women—we were put indefinitely on hold, which gave us lots of time to rethink our position on billboard bans.
By the time we got bored and hung up, we'd decided that we'd be a lot more outraged by this public display of sanctimony if it wasn't so laughably stupid. Toys without children? Boo-freaking-hoo. What about children without toys, without proper food and care, without loving parents and homes? That's a real tragedy. This abortions-make-toys-cry argument is just a bad joke.
Thanks to reader Lina Aristizabal for the tip and photos.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Fitting that it's a poster of a toy soldier, since most of the so-called "pro-lifers" don't seem to have a problem with dropping bombs on children in other countries.
It's a woman's choice. Period.
Awesome, SNP.
To go against the inevitable flood of pro-abortion, ha-ha Xians are stoopid groupthink here for a minute...
I think drugs should be legal too. But I don't think we should encourage people to use them or prop them up as a "good thing". If drugs were legal, I would still expect to see PSAs (or private organizations involved with combating drug addiction) warning of the dangers.
Basically, abortion, in and of itself, isn't really a good thing, nor should it be trivialized. I'm not sure I've got a problem with a billboard saying so. There isn't even anything overtly political about it.
Also ironic that it riles people so much, in a country that's really lacking in only one resource: people.
A billboard? OMGWTFBBQ Visul pullooshuns! Aiiiieeee !!!!
And it's stretched vinyl, too. Seems to have lost half of its flashing from the Cieslok Outdoor days (previous owners)... oh how the mighty have fallen.
We must defend the economy.
Where did these guys get their ideas, from Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer? No children for teh toyz? Off to the Island of Unwanted Toys with them! I suppose they could use the argument that with today's technology, Rudolph's parents could have seen his deformity in the womb and aborted him - boom no more beloved reindeer story! WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE! WE ALMOST LOST RUDOLPH!!!!ONE111!
I quote antifeminist comic artist Dave Sim's Cerebus the Aardvark: "One less mouth to feed is one less mouth to feed". This axiom can be applied to abortion and war equally.
I think it would be interesting to do a study on the volume of lowbrow screed-peddling and bottomfeeding that goes on around Dundas Square. Self-appointed evangelists chanting on the corners, Chick tracts in every transit shelter, anti-abortion billboards.. It's just an intersection, not Sodom!
I guess the little Sri Lankan kids who made all those toys under atrocious sweatshop conditions did it for nuthin' then.
At least they aren't blaring Lil' Markie from a loudspeaker below the soldier...
I take issue, SpaceJack. Abortions aren't harmful. Not only do they not physically affect a woman's reproductive future, people who study mental health now agree that there is no such thing as "post-abortion syndrome".
I think abortions are only harmful when people are coerced into them, or denied them, by partners, parents, etc or when people are forced to get illegal abortions under conditions that put their health at risk. So the conditions of harm are only present when people are ashamed of their decision to abort. Posters like the one above cause that shame, and are therefore more harmful than the abortions themselves.
It's just a reversal on "some kids won't have any toys to play with this year" ad copy that we're used to seeing from the non-profit sector, eliciting a 'wait, what did I just read' response – common in ads. I don't think it's a great ad, but I don't think it's as 'laughably stupid' as you say. The toys aren't the idea being driven home, the statistic is – the way the headline is phrased causes you to pause on that thought. (This evaluation is also coming from a fervent pro-choice supporter – I just see a little too much bias in the way this post came out.)
BTW, there's no h in Morgentaler!
Er, sloanbuller, they are harmful to at least one person. And the "science" of whether or not it's a person yet isn't anywhere near conclusive.
Anyway, that's rich. Villainize those who would dare to express ideas that aren't exactly the same as yours - in the comments section of a small blog, where discussion is supposed to take place, no less. It's not as if we're grandstanding in front of the supreme court here. Good luck with your intellectual development.
lol @ "villainize" – that was a clear and respectful response they gave you, spacejack!
Before I say that I am against abortion I would like to make a disclaimer: I am an extremely left-wing, religion hating, feminist who hates capital punishment and can't stand George Bush.... BUT!!!! I don't understand the position of liberals or conservatives on abortion/capital punishment. If conservatives are pro-life, they should be totally pro-life and against abortions against capital punishment.
If liberals are completely pro-choice and against abortions than maybe the family of the murder victim should be able to choose if the murderer should live or die.
I don't get why people don't see the value of life and feel that the woman should be able to choose. She choose to have sex, and so she makes the choice to risk having a baby. In the case of rape, or if the mother's life is in danger, there should be exceptions, but there is ALWAYS the option of ADOPTION!!!
I also don't think that there should be posters or protests because I think it only offends women who have had abortions and maybe opens some wounds.
I don't think anyone will disagree that not getting pregnant in the first place is a better than getting an abortion.
I don't disagree with abortion. Far from it, but I don't believe it should be trivialized. Yes, things happen that we can't control. Condoms break. People are subjected to sexual assaults, etc. But in normal circumstances, people need to have a level of responsibility when it comes to getting pregnant.
I fear if abortion ever gets trivialized to a point where people will use it as an alternative to condoms or other forms of birth control.
"Oh shit, I'm out of condoms. Meh. If I get pregnant, I can always have it aborted"
That's obviously a very extreme view, but my point being that while I believe that every woman has a right to choose, I also believe that people who are pro life have EVERY RIGHT to advertise their beliefs. Not only is it their right to do so, but I believe they help keep the subject taboo enough to encourage people to make better decisions.
My comment was more harmful that abortion? I rest my case.
spacejack, i don't think anyone said your comment was more harmful than abortion. i think sloanbuller's phrase, "posters like the one above," was referring to the billboard in the post... although i could be wrong. it happens, you know, once a year or so.
raches:
If liberals are completely pro-choice and against abortions than maybe the family of the murder victim should be able to choose if the murderer should live or die.
Are you serious? I don't know where to begin explaining to you how completely different those scenarios are. Despite the propaganda from the right, being pro-choice isn't remotely like being pro-death-whenever-death-would-be-convenient.
She choose to have sex, and so she makes the choice to risk having a baby.
By driving you accept the risk that you could be killed in a car accident. By walking down the street you choose to risk being shot randomly by some guy in a fight with a bouncer. By going to work you choose to risk being crushed to death if the elevator brakes fail.
You're just shifting all responsibility to the victim. Hit, shot, crushed? Well, you knew what you were getting into!
but there is ALWAYS the option of ADOPTION!!!
In which case you're forcing the woman to be pregnant for 9 months and change her life to accommodate that.
Well, I also don't think the billboard is worse than abortion.
Ryan L - True story: after the abortion ruling back in 1988, some extremely pro-abortion roomates of mine said "Doesn't it just make you want to have sex?!" Granted, it was probably just an offhand comment, but I have to admit it was a bit disappointing. The saying "with freedom comes responsibility" may be a tired cliche, but I think it's very apt here.
For every freedom that we grant ourselves, we need to ensure that our cultural values and behaviour don't undermine it.
I believe abortion should be legal, but that decision is mostly driven by the fact that if it weren't, many women and young girls would resort to coat hangers or worse.
t-rek - I think all that relativism is melting your brain.
First I agree with a woman's right to choice since I am a believer in individual choice and freedom. I may disagree with the position of the ad but they have a right to stand up for and speak of what they believe. To silence these people is as abhorrent as the government making the decision for women. I think the ad is missing the point, poorly done but in a free society people have the constitutional rights to spew their ignorance. Silencing them is as wrong as not allowing a woman the right to choose. Denying ones right in any context is wrong. The best defense to such ignorant positions is education and not silencing the buffoons and denying their right to free speech. How intolerant we become when we are offended but in turn we would expect to be heard and allowed to speak.
spacejack - If you have a comment that isn't in the form of an insult, I'd like to read it.
i fully agree that, as the commenter above says, "in a free society people have the constitutional right to spew their ignorance." i'm not actually suggesting we ban billboards like this. that would make me a pretty poor excuse for a neo-libertarian.
i'm also not going to deny the right of males to have an opinion on abortion, but you'll have to forgive me when i say i'm reading their earnest comments with a half-tonne of skepticism. in the words of florynce kennedy, "if men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament."
Okay t-rek...
"pro-death-whenever-death-would-be-convenient" - how is this not exactly what being pro-abortion is? Unlike a convicted murderer however, the unborn fetus isn't guilty of any crimes. I'm not saying the right-wing view here is airtight, but you haven't come close to making a valid argument against it.
Someone who has consensual sex and gets pregnant is a "victim"? Of a crime??
Choosing the option to give a child up for adoption is being "forced" into 9 months of pregnancy?
First of all, that billboard promotes toy promiscuity. A toy should only play with one child, ever. God says so. And never another toy. That's just sick.
Secondly, Aid To Women, who answered the phone, apparently promote the idea that women who have abortions shouldn't be charged with a crime and incarcerated, they should be put into the mental health system and treated as insane. No trial. No defense.
Thirdly, will someone make a joke about toys playing with children being pedophillic? I'm too damn tired.
too many redic and poorly written "arguments" in the comments here for me to even begin to reply..
so instead, i'll link to the intelligent and informed discussions about abortion that are currently happening over at Jezebel.
Pro-Life Teen Says "I Feel Like We're All Survivors Of Abortion"
Unlike Alveda King, I Am Neither "Reformed" Nor A Murderer
As someone who is both pro-choice and adopted, I'd rather the attention be focused on making people better aware of the domestic adoption options, and to help remove the oft-negative stigma of adopting (mainly that we're all unlovable damaged goods poised to kill our parents while they sleep).
I don't think either side is arguing that abortion isn't a horrible thing to have happen and that the desirable thing wouldn't be that it didn't have to exist, but if it's made illegal, it's still going to occur, and much more dangerously.
Reducing the amount of abortions happens through opportunity and education, which must include updated information on how adoption is happening today—which (for non-Crown wards) is 100% up to the mother what happens to their child, who gets to adopt it, and what level of information changes hands. The demonization of pregnant teens has to stop, just as the attacks on those who choose to walk into a clinic must stop. Pregnant women need to be able to completely consider the options they have—and what support system needs to exist—without fearing being branded with a scarlet letter.
What the most fervent pro-life campaigners fail to see is that their own actions/religions/beliefs play a huge part in the shame experienced with unwanted pregnancies. In addition, the misinformation and misguided stigma that is directed at adopted kids leaves many people feeling that adoption isn't an option, whether they are planning to have a child or planning to get rid of one.
There also comes a point where it becomes none of our business what a woman choses—and that's the point when the issue becomes reality rather than theory. So much of the abortion issue is so compounded by negativity, anger, and fear that people forget it's not just about the fetus, but also the woman who hosts it. She needs to feels empowered, respected, and free of judgment in order to make a decision that is right for her, and potentially, a baby.
Billboards with maudlin toy soldiers aren't helpful, other than making an accidentally pregnant woman feel like shit.
The ad may be a bit silly, agreed. But the argument is not "what about the toys?", that's just the device employed to try and attract your attention.
You could make almost every single ad on TV or a billboard seem ridiculous but mocking a literal interpretation of it.
The point of the ad was clearly to draw attention to the sheer number of abortions that take place in Canada every year.
Agreed though, the toys thing is a bit awkward, lol.
won't any-one think of the toys?
AHAHAHAHAHA - I'm glad you posted this. I noticed it this morning on the streetcar and almost cracked up. I highly doubt they're going to win anyone over to their side with a ridiculous ad like this. Oh no, thosse poor inanimate plastic objects! What a tragedy!
It's been up for a few weeks, I've been loving/hating it on my way home for work for a while, glad to see it's finally getting the mockery it deserves.
The one thing that confuses me is the whole "niagara region right to life" bit. If they are from the niagara region, why do they have a 416 phone number?
* That was badly phrased... The phone number was the one thing that confuseD me until I read this post. Glad that mystery's solved.
Wow, that is one horribly stupid ad.
That billboard has had many anti-abortion ads on it, I noticed the frequency during the free films in Dundas Square this summer. They have those types of signs up there regularly.
I agree the billboard is not very tasteful and I think that the abortion protests by religious nuts are wrong but I agree with Marc that the number of abortions should be reduced through positive initiatives, like free access to birth control and birth control education.
I met a girl who had four abortions and was using abortion as birth control. I don't think that abortion should be illegal but I feel like there should be some restraint when granting them.
spacejack (and raches):
Pro-choice doesn't mean pro-death. To start, being pro-choice means you believe women should have the right to determine what happens to their bodies, and not have that sort of thing dictated by the government. Choosing death for someone else isn't the same at all. Your right to control your body obviously doesn't include other peoples' bodies, so "choosing" death for criminals is out of the picture.
Just to be clear: A woman who chooses to exercise her rights and get an abortion isn't choosing death for someone else. There is no someone else involved.
"Blaming the victim" is just a phrase. It means blaming someone for something they couldn't control. Birth control of all sorts can fail, even when used as directed. Perhaps you think a woman should be forced to raise a kid because the condom broke, but I don't.
Enforcing adoption as the alternative to abortion still means forcing the woman to carry the unwanted foetus to term and change everything about her life for those 9 months, which obviously violates her rights to control her body.
Ideally there would be no need for abortion, but we don't live in an ideal world so it's irrelevant.
What's that old chestnut about not agreeing with what you say, but defending to the death your right to say it?
This post is just petty.
The ad may be heavy handed, but it doesn't warrant special attention - except that it touches on a hot button issue, bound to stir up a comment storm.
Women have the right to have an abortion in this country, and special interest groups have the right to try and dissuade women from having abortions. This is not news.
Nobody's wanting to "enforce" adoption (I don't think?), but like I said, many people don't view it as a viable option. Just recently, I had a discussion with a couple who was trying to get pregnant and couldn't, who knew that I was adopted, who flatly said to my face that they would never adopt because you never know what you're going to get and they wanted their child to look like them—which, to me, is pretty flawed reasoning, especially when you'd rather go through a decade of failed fertility treatments and grief, desperate to have a child.
And then there is organized religion, which is one of the most vocal and active elements against abortion, yet they're often against birth control and morning-after pills, and they sanctimoniously treat girls who've become pregnant accidentally or out-of-wedlock like immoral gutter whores. It should also be noted that these people aren't jumping to adopt all of these unwanted children themselves...[whispering] especially the "dark" ones!
My point is that unwanted pregnancy doesn't have only a binary solution, and that the social shame associated with it is counter-productive. Women need safe, non-judgmental, legal access to abortion, just as they need to be properly informed of what happens with today's adoption process, both without finger-wagging and tongue-clucking. If she feels she has the physiological and emotional strength to stick it out for nine months and that her accidental fetus has the potential to become an amazing, selfless gift for someone else, she may be less likely to terminate.
Christ on a stick. Can I just clarify that the term isn't "pro-abortion"? It's pro-choice. Pro-CHOICE. Hardline Pro-Lifers coined the term "pro-abortion".
(And yes, it IS important to distinguish the two, as the implications of the two terms are drastically different.)
Whether you're for it or against it - that's up to you - but at least get the terminology right, if you're going to participate in a proper discussion about it.
What's most important is that this post has made Google Ads on Torontoist run a "Pro-Life Merchandise!" ad. ick.
I got "Yorkie Adoption," "Fix Your Marriage," "Family Budgeting," and "Your Parrot Will Love You."
ooh wait, now I have "Buy Abortion Apparel"
UM. what is abortion apparel? A t-shirt saying "I no longer have the golden ticket"?
I read this post in Google Reader, and at first I thought I was reading my Jezebel subscription. Excellent.
Marc, please tell me you shot back with if a couple is truly desperate for a child, they will take any normal, healthy child because loving and raising him or her is what matters. What’s with these selfish parents who would rather give birth than adopt just because they want a hybrid of themselves? As for their concern with not knowing what they’d be "getting", their birth child may very well carry more "defective" genes or be more susceptible to disease or whatever it may be than the adopted child.
Well, it's kinda what I was saying about this strange stigma attached to adoption. I've dealt with it all my life, even though adoption isn't the secret shame it was a few decades ago. People don't intend to be malevolent, but they're ignorant.
Statistically, adopted children are as healthy or healthier than genetic children, partially because their histories are known and agencies adopt-out healthy kids. Your chances of having a genetic child with pre-existing problems are higher. Since adoptive parents have to be screened, capable and healthy themselves, adopted kids almost always get into solid, loving, and supportive homes. As for the "you never know what you're gonna get" argument, it's the same way with your own kids, no?
There are sooooooooo many people out there who want children so much and who wait for years to adopt, and I think that if adoption was better promoted as a more positive and beautiful thing, some women might choose to carry the child to term who otherwise might not. And if she chooses to terminate, she shouldn't be tarred and feathered and dragged through the streets, mainly because she's hurting enough and it's really none of our business.
By the way, I'm also not discounting how emotionally painful it is for a woman to know she is carrying a child to term only to have to surrender it. That probably sucks more than anything, but at least some good can come out of it for someone else.
In related news, this article from the current issue of Sway outlines the severe shortage of black and bi-racial adoptive/foster parents in the GTA, as well as some of the issues behind adopting children who may have different skin tones and ethnicities than yourself.