Petition Statement:

We promise to never vote any express or implied consent for the legalization or any other Government support for deliberate abortion.  We will vote for the protection of pre-born children or not vote at all.

Premise: People of eternal accountability have a moral need to keep ourselves innocent of the atrocity of deliberate abortion, by refusing to condone it in any way, including refusing to vote any kind of support for its legalization or Government funding to start or even to continue.

Resources: Please check the Election Authority (usually mentioned on your voter's card) to see all your options each election, and investigate them, before voting day.  Please don't allow the News to arbitrarily narrow your view of the options to just two or three.  Please don't allow the polls to determine who leads but voters on voting day alone.

Background (last updated 21 July, 2023):

It is our duty to use our vote as a tool to end the atrocity of abortion.  

It is more important to recognize the atrocities of today than the atrocities of the past, because of the opportunity to stop the ones of today.  However, stopping the atrocities of today tends to require a re-framing of perception to even recognize them, since to have been permitted, they are usually disguised, and often protected.

Although our society performs abortions behind closed doors and everyone seems to have an opinion on it, unfortunately, in a society which promotes choice but not understanding, it's not everyone who understands what it is they have that opinion on.  We do well to first ground ourselves in the most realistic possible presentation of the issue, such as images showing the reality of what abortion physically is.  Moreover, abortion is best seen and understood through an ultrasound, such as in the documentary, The Silent Scream or as depicted in the following animation based on a real-life testimony:

Please don't let anyone tell you that pregnancy isn't a human child, because if you ever agree to that you've betrayed humanity and fallen into the same mental trap of many other people throughout history who went along with genocide because they were convinced the victims where somehow not human.  The species of a pregnancy of a human is either human or else it's not a pregnancy. 

The term used to refer to the pre-born child implies the rights of that child, so that the wording alone is its own victory or defeat for life. The dictionary definition of the word 'child' includes the pre-born state (please see this link and please click 'see more' to see all parts of the definition), so it is accurate.  As for the word 'fetus', it's a word which applies to nearly the entire animal kingdom and so is excessively vague.  It is dehumanizing to use that term without the world 'human' in front of it to denote the species of animal life we're talking about: crucial because the human species has special protections in our society if so recognized, but not if not so recognized.  You should not agree to any portrayal of another human being as a mere animal by omitting acknowledgement of the human species in the choice of biological term.  In fact, dehumanization has been the foundation of condoning genocide throughout history (such as dehumaniztion of Jews in Nazi Europe before their slaughter or dehumanization of Tutsis as 'cockroaches' before their slaughter in Rwanda).  Neither does age of development, even if it is just a day, determine whether a being is human species or not.

Another metal trap is allowing abortion to be called 'healthcare' when it doesn't care health at all but is only about destroying a human life and is not in the direct pursuit of any other goal.  Rather deliberate abortion is assassination.  Yet society accepting the label 'healthcare' for abortion services has won it undeserved legitimacy, funding, and protections.

Please remember that the abortion issue is not about whether a child should be allowed to exist or not: that's the conception issue.  The abortion issue is about whether a child who already exists should be allowed to continue to live or be born.

The foundation of the abortion issue is the assumption that humans are only a cost.  This isn't true, and we should beware lest the same viewpoint come down on all of us.  Humans have potential to do things, create things, and change things, and we do it individually.  The value of a new person is more precious than we can judge, and the potential value for society lost in abortion is immeasurable, as well as that person's sacred life.

It is important not to condone deliberate abortion even for rape, because the actions of the father don't make the child worth more or less; neither should vengeance be taken on the child for what the father did.  Furthermore caving in on the rape issue has been used as a wedge to collapse a weaker pro-life argument (failing to care about life as a result of rape exposes that you don't really care about human life but only your own arbitrary distinctions).

Neither should deliberate abortion be legalized to keep abortions 'safe', because we don't need to make assassination safe.  Rather we have a duty to deter it, and any attempt by us to make it 'safer' makes us accomplices.

Someone must be held responsible for a choice to abort a child (or human fetus).  Deliberate abortion should be legally recognized and prohibited as murder because is a procedure purposed for ending (not preventing) the life of a pre-born human (who already lives), and because we have a moral responsibility to ensure that our laws reflect morality.  Since abortion is a kind of assassination, those who perform or attempt it should be held criminally responsible on that level.  Pregnant women are entitled to a choice but not entitled to carry out some choices, not entitled to immunity from responsibility for that choice, and not automatically entitled to public support for that choice.  All freedoms should have moral limits where they intrude on the rights of others.  Abortion criminalization does restrict the freedoms of pregnant women, but only to protect the life of pre-born children.  Furthermore, abortion criminalization protects pregnant women who actually want to bear their child from pressures of anyone who may want them to abort, and forced abortion has been done by Governments in recent history.

Our society should especially not hesitate to criminalize abortion when already making so many laws to restrict so many potentially moral activities.  For example, in Toronto it is illegal to cut down a tree on your property without Government permission, to a penalty of a fine of up to '$100,000 per tree, but abortion is not only legal but protected from protests by bubble zones.  In some places places, like Singapore, where abortion is legal at any age, it is illegal to feed wildlife, not even birds.

We should not be timid in demanding abortion criminalization for the protection of pre-born life, as though we are intruding too much on others' choice.  The other side has already made barbaric and one-sided laws restricting our freedom of peaceful expression. These laws generally designate a 'zone' around abortion clinics, in which no one is permitted to discourage abortion (while encouraging it remains permitted).  Problematic for pro-life activists is that the location of abortion clinics, and which hospitals offer abortion, is rarely obvious at a glance, making you need to actually look up the location of possibly related medical facilities, for if you might be standing near one, before you voice any pro-life opinion.

For example, Ontario's 'Safe Access to Abortion Services Act, 2017, S.O. 2017' includes this:

3 (1) While in an access zone established under section 6 for a clinic or facility, no person shall,
(a) advise or persuade, or attempt to advise or persuade, a person to refrain from accessing abortion services;
(b) inform or attempt to inform a person concerning issues related to abortion services, by any means, including oral, written or graphic means;
[and it goes on with more restrictions]

It's so medieval that anyone (the law doesn't even exempt the attending physician) informing another person, in any way at all, about abortion services (not even the patient), is a crime, within a certain distance from an abortion clinic ('bubble zone').  This makes informed consent of the patient nearly impossible!

Of course, since if you can restrict one type of protest you can restrict another, the 'bubble zone' legislation has started to be used to criminally charge other types of protests in the same area.

The abortion issue tests our society in the following ways:
i) our definition of human life
ii) the accuracy and specificity of terms we use to refer to human life, and the terms we tolerate others to use when portraying human life
ii) our yardstick for determining when homicide is justified
iii) our tolerance for the level of cruelty of methods of execution (such as dismemberment of the child in D&E second trimester abortions)
iv) our mental ability to view what we know happens behind closed doors to be just as real as if it was done in front of our eyes
v) our commitment to defending the innocent and prioritize their needs over our own
vi) our commitment to defining human rights of others rather than just our own
vii) our commitment to fairness in our laws
viii) our stewardship with public resources and how we direct them

Voting is the right of citizens in a democracy, and it is a worthy tool not only to encourage pro-life legislation, but first and least to avoid any show of consent for deliberate abortion.  In particular, if the abortion issue is not mentioned in the election platform of any party, and if arbitrary abortion is already legal under that Government, their platform would imply no change on this issue, and so your vote would imply your consent for arbitrary abortion to continue legally.  That's a responsibility on you, and one which you should want to avoid.   Secret ballot systems do not shield you from your eternal spiritual accountability before your Creator, who sees all, however secret.  When you vote in defense of innocent life, even if it does not succeed to make any direct difference to that end, it will always evidence you before God as morally innocent of the bloodshed.  In the long term, your innocence is your surest foundation of your eternal freedom, and your sacrifice to protect the innocent is your surest foundation for your eternal reward.  What goes around comes around eventually.

Regarding any conflicting election issues, it makes no sense to worry about virtually any other priority before you vote pro-life.  If a candidate condones deliberate abortion, then they don't have enough moral integrity that you should trust them with anything else: certainly not to rule over you, and especially not in a political system where they are free to break their promises.  However if you vote for a pro-life candidate, that's someone with more moral integrity to trust with all issues, including when they decide issues affecting your life, and you would morally deserve something good to come your way for your defence of the innocent.  In other words, by such principles, you actually get more for yourself out of voting for a pro-life candidate, even if it means ignoring your personal priorities, than voting for a pro-abortion candidate to rule over you, even if they promise you the world.

What if there's simply no election candidate offering a pro-life platform?
i) Please double-check that with the election authority.  The News has a tendency to not actually show you all the options which are on the ballot but the election authority will, often with a link to their website (where you can read or search their policy platform for topics or keywords).
ii) If there's still no pro-life option, you might figure you tried and the option isn't there so to vote on your own personal priorities.  Nevertheless, as already discussed, you should avoid voting for political platforms which even imply (even by silence) that it is their intent for an existing legality or Government support of abortion will continue.  If a platform does, you have an obligation to abstain, even from all options if necessary, the same as if all the options were to kill your own mother: it's not good enough to give your consent to what you know is wrong just because whoever made the options didn't give you a good one.

Ultimately, this is either going to be a world where everyone has value or no one does (this is an even more fundamentally important concept than whether there is war or peace, which also depends on the value of human life). With your vote, you choose.  If we want a better world, we need to build a society where everyone is valued, and that begins with not permitting pre-born children to be arbitrarily and disposed of with Public support.  In fact, condoning the legalization of arbitrary killing of any other innocent human risks, by legal precedent, opening the legality to kill everyone else.  In other words, it's a trap to be lured into condoning the killing of innocents because it would immediately imply that killing you must be even more justified (assuming you are less innocent than a pre-born child).  Please hear St Theresa of Calcutta speak on it from 9:05 f the following video:

You can either vote in selfishness for killing or you can vote in love for life.  Either way, your choice will set the stage of rights for everyone, including you.