Abortion activists such as Joyce Arthur of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada like to pretend that they are advocates for “freedom of choice.” They spend much of their time attempting to perpetrate the farcical idea that they are champions of liberty, while smearing those who believe human beings have human rights from the very beginning of their lives are “anti-choice.” But every once in awhile the mask slips a bit, and we come face to face with the reality of Arthur’s actual worldview: A totalitarianism devoted entirely to ensuring that our society maintains the right to kill pre-born children in the womb at all costs.
Joyce Arthur, for example, does not want Canadians to know that Canada has no abortion laws, and campaigned aggressively to have billboards that simply stated “Canada Has No Abortion Laws” taken down, despite the fact that this statement is unambiguously true. In the wake of a wave of physical assaults perpetrated against pro-life activists, many of them young women, Arthur noted that her organization does “not oppose violence at protests on moral grounds.” This came as no surprise to pro-lifers, because Arthur had told the Canadian media in the past that peaceful pro-life activists were essentially to blame for the violence abortion supporters inflicted on them.
And now, Arthur has taken her intolerance and her totalitarianism one step further. In response to a CBC Opinion column titled, “Conversations about abortion should include everyone—yes, even teenage boys,” this post appeared on the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada’s Facebook page (and I’ve taken screenshots so they cannot attempt to edit their words following criticism, as they did after their statement on violence was released):
We disagree. Yes, everyone should be included in conversations but no, not everyone is entitled to an opinion.
No, the Covington boys did *not* have the right to attend the March for Life, because no one should. Nobody should have the right to march in the streets to take away bodily autonomy.
She writes “To suggest protecting one group’s rights..requires an attack on another group’s rights or … only leads to further oppression and conflict” as though they’re equal. The right to bodily autonomy is not the same as letting boys be hateful. These are not both rights. In fact, one is in opposition to respecting rights.
This is trash.
Got that? Not only do young men not have the right to have an opinion on abortion—even when their own offspring are in question—but nobody has the right to attend a March for Life. The hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children who marched in defence of the lives of pre-born children do not, according to Arthur, have the right to express their opinion in public. To disagree with her in public, Arthur says, is to be “hateful,” and thus the right to freedom of expression should be eliminated. In fact, those who would defend the right to freedom of expression itself have even that opinion labeled as “trash” by the charming Ms. Arthur.
I genuinely wish that Joyce Arthur would get more media airtime and that more members of the press would call her up to explore her fascinating and airtight worldview with her. Even when she is quoted sympathetically, she almost always reveals her true mindset, and displays for all to see the small-minded and oppressive person that she is. If she had her way, the right to freedom of expression would be eliminated to prevent criticism of her strange worldview, the destruction of human life in the womb would be celebrated as a great human achievement, and violence against those who did dare speak up on behalf of those voiceless children would be dismissed as justified because they were asking for it.
After all, their opinions were showing.
________________________________________________
For anyone interested, my book on The Culture War, which analyzes the journey our culture has taken from the way it was to the way it is and examines the Sexual Revolution, hook-up culture, the rise of the porn plague, abortion, commodity culture, euthanasia, and the gay rights movement, is available for sale here.
5 thoughts on “Canada’s leading abortion activist says pro-lifers should have no right to March for Life”
Anon says:
I really don’t get why Joyce ‘Let No Fetus Defeat Us’ Arthur seems to have so much influence with the media and politicians. Her coalition (of about half a dozen cat ladies with way too much time on their hands) neither has lots of money nor the support of most Canadians.
This is from their Facebook page: “Is it common practice for ARCC to ban people they don’t agree with?”
Let us break it down for you: yes.
We can have disagreements and learning moments in this community. No one is perfect. But we are not a space for debate. It’s very clear in our community guidelines that will delete your anti-choice comments and ban you. Why? Because we can. Because this is a community and people trust us to keep it safe. Abortion access and bodily autonomy are NOT up for debate. So please take that trash elsewhere.
Banning someone from your Facebook page is no big deal. I don’t really care that they do that. It’s their page. It is ARCC advocating to shut down Marches for Life–THAT is something else entirely.
I know you and I don’t really agree politically, but it looks like ARCC was a little misleading in their quote snippets here.
This is the original:
“To suggest protecting one group’s rights and value requires an attack on another group’s rights or value is erroneous and only leads to further oppression and conflict.”
This is the quote snippet:
“To suggest protecting one group’s rights..requires an attack on another group’s rights or … only leads to further oppression and conflict”
The point the original author was making was actually hidden in the quote snippet.
Just a couple of days ago, the ARCC told people to report pro-life Facebook pages just because they are pro-life in an attempt to take them down. Kindly take your hypocrisy and shove it where the sun don’t shine.
I really don’t get why Joyce ‘Let No Fetus Defeat Us’ Arthur seems to have so much influence with the media and politicians. Her coalition (of about half a dozen cat ladies with way too much time on their hands) neither has lots of money nor the support of most Canadians.
This is from their Facebook page: “Is it common practice for ARCC to ban people they don’t agree with?”
Let us break it down for you: yes.
We can have disagreements and learning moments in this community. No one is perfect. But we are not a space for debate. It’s very clear in our community guidelines that will delete your anti-choice comments and ban you. Why? Because we can. Because this is a community and people trust us to keep it safe. Abortion access and bodily autonomy are NOT up for debate. So please take that trash elsewhere.
Banning someone from your Facebook page is no big deal. I don’t really care that they do that. It’s their page. It is ARCC advocating to shut down Marches for Life–THAT is something else entirely.
Hey Jon,
I know you and I don’t really agree politically, but it looks like ARCC was a little misleading in their quote snippets here.
This is the original:
“To suggest protecting one group’s rights and value requires an attack on another group’s rights or value is erroneous and only leads to further oppression and conflict.”
This is the quote snippet:
“To suggest protecting one group’s rights..requires an attack on another group’s rights or … only leads to further oppression and conflict”
The point the original author was making was actually hidden in the quote snippet.
Just a couple of days ago, the ARCC told people to report pro-life Facebook pages just because they are pro-life in an attempt to take them down. Kindly take your hypocrisy and shove it where the sun don’t shine.