Friday, July 3, 2009

The Revenge of the Aborted?

“Canadian families do not make babies like they used to. A dramatic decline in fertility in recent decades, combined with an aging population, has the potential to transform every aspect of Canadian society, from schools and housing to social attitudes toward family.” [1]

In the National Post there were four articles over four days examining the dearth of a younger generation in Canada. Nowhere in these articles was the issue of abortion raised as a factor in this issue of a “childless culture.” Instead we saw the words “low fertility” used to describe the lack of a younger generation. Abortion in Canada surely has had a role in the cause of “low fertility” and less children going to school.

“With Canadian families producing fewer babies than ever, school officials in every province have to figure out what to do with thousands of empty classrooms built for Baby Boomers and their children but left vacant by the generation that is following in much smaller numbers.” [2]

The issue of schools closing in some places was raised because of declining enrollment. Yet, the teachers unions are on record as favoring abortion. We are also told there is a scarcity of skilled workers, and the Canadian Labor Congress (CLC), which claims to speak for all its members, is on record as supporting “choice” on abortion. One could argue that trade unions which depend on a constant supply of new members are in fact cutting their own throats by supporting the killing of the child in the womb under the banner of “choice.” Are they in fact supporting the killing off of future members?

There are over 100,000 abortions a year in Canada. If one goes back to the year 1992 where there were 102,085 [3] abortions and this number has been increasing yearly ever since, one could say on average from 1992 until 2005 we have killed off at least 1.3 million innocent lives that would have gone to school, perhaps been future union members and future taxpayers in society.

Now governments at the provincial and federal levels are raising the alarm about having an imbalance of elderly people and more retirees, which will put more strain on our healthcare system. “In less than a decade, seniors will outnumber children in Canada; in just 15 years, deaths may outnumber births.” [4]

So what will the solution be if “deaths outnumber births”? How will society deal with the “problem” of too many seniors many of whom could be retired and in poor health? We have seen the issue of euthanasia being raised recently in parliament, but of course that is only for people who want to die. And of course euthanasia could never be “acceptable.” Could it? Well, at one time abortion was considered a heinous crime, and those who practiced it were considered pariahs. Now the abortionists are hailed as “practitioners” of “choice.” And the killing of the child in the womb is sacrificed on the altar of political expediency as a “right.” So will it be “expedient” to exercise “choice” on our burgeoning elderly population and call it “death with dignity”? After all, when the killing of the child in the womb is now “normal” who is to say that killing people out of the womb and in the “golden years” of their lives could not also become “normal.”

There is an old and wise saying, “We reap what we sow.” Over the last number of years we have sown death in Canada through abortion. Society’s acceptance of abortion has given credence to the idea that parents can kill their unborn children if they are deemed to be unwanted. Now, some born children may start killing their parents if they believe them to be unwanted. Could this be called the revenge of the aborted?

Stephen J. Gray
February 25, 2006.

Note: To see the truth about abortion go to