Look out. Lysiane Gagnon says that Quebecers will be at the barricades to protect Canada's any-time any-reason no-reason abortion freedoms if
"In the very unlikely event the Harper government would be foolish enough to raise the issue of abortion in the Commons."
Sounds like a threat to me.
Ms. Gagnon sounds pretty self-righteously confident. What, with "consensus" from Jean Charest and his National Assembly on abortion, which, don't you know, apparently mirrors Quebec's consensus on abortion (any Quebecers out there like to speak up for themselves?), AND the pillorying of Montreal's Cardinal Marc Ouellet for his brave and principled stand against abortion, Ms. Gagnon does a pretty good stand-up "I am woman hear me roar" primal scream.
But I don't understand this statement:
"Indeed, it’s hardly surprising that a Catholic bishop would condemn abortion. If someone thinks human life starts at conception, then of course he will see abortion as murder whatever the circumstances."
Ms. Gagnon, did you just say what I think you just said? If human life begins at conception then abortion is murder? I don't want to put words in your mouth but does this mean you don't believe human life begins at conception? That maybe it begins at say, 36?
Well no need to argue. Since Science tells us that human life does begin at conception, I guess that's when human life begins and I guess the Cardinal was right after all.
The she says:
"The large majority of practising Catholics are in favour of access to abortion, at least during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy".
Hold the phone please. Stop the presses. Back up. "Practising Catholics" means you practise the Catholic religion. To practise the Catholic religion, you must adhere to Catholic doctrine. Catholic doctrine is against abortion. Got it?
And then we cap the whole thing off with the other end of the bookend, with that threat thing again:
"No government that wants to get re-elected would dare touch the explosive issue of abortion – at least when it concerns Canadian women. The foreign women to whom the Harper government is refusing to fund access to safe abortions don’t vote here, so there is no political cost in denying them a right granted to Canadian women two decades ago. How illogical! And what a scandal it is."
Well, let me see. I am a woman. I am a Canadian woman. I would re-elect the Harper government in a nano-second if Mr. Harper were to "touch the explosive abortion debate". And I would be joined by at least another few million Canadian women.
Sorry Ms. Gagnon, your paternalistic dogma doesn't work for me.
Monday, May 31, 2010
Friday, May 28, 2010
Bishops confirm abortion debate is on
This week Montreal's Cardinal Marc Ouellet and Ottawa's Archbishop Terrence Prendergast spoke out calling for a new abortion debate
Yesterday Charles Lewis said:
"Two senior Catholic Church officials did something remarkable this week, though it barely got noticed and chances are it will easily be forgotten or written off as some weird “Catholic thing” irrelevant to the rest of society. They proposed a way to re-frame the discussion about abortion and it would be to the benefit of many to pay attention to what they had to say before dismissing them because they wear clerical garb...Cardinal Ouellet first acknowledged on Wednesday that we now live in the midst of a “political and legal impasse” when it comes to the abortion debate...
"I am launching an appeal with my Ottawa colleague [Archbishop Prendergast] for an awareness campaign and [for] more programs providing assistance for women in distress in Canada,” Cardinal Ouellet said. “There is a great scarcity of information, support and financial assistance to enable pregnant women to make an informed choice.”
“We know for now the law is not going to change in the short-term,” said Archbishop Prendergast said in a phone interview Thursday. “So what can we do to help women in difficulty now? If you pushed people on the pro-choice side they too would want to see fewer abortions. So we need to ask them to participate. Of course, we would like to restrict abortions and do away with them if we could, but in the short-term we should work together to reduce the number of abortions.”
This is a very positive development in the abortion debate we aren't allowed to have.
The Bishops are not advocating for a complete ban on abortion. They are calling for support for women and incremental changes. This is realistic, hopeful and inclusive of everyone including pro-choice people. The Bishops are showing leadership that our four political leaders refuse to show on abortion.
Even yesterday Gilles Duceppe was back in his own non-leadership role with "the we can't talk about abortion" bandwagon in the House:
"Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government says it does not wish to reopen the abortion debate. Cardinal Ouellet candidly admitted yesterday that he was raising the abortion issue now because the Conservative government had revived the debate by excluding abortion from its maternal health policy for developing countries. Does the Prime Minister realize that because of him and his refusal to include abortion in his maternal health policy for foreign nations the abortion debate is again raging in Canada and Quebec?"
Then Mr. Duceppe says (and I'm going to digress here but I can't help myself...):
"Mr. Speaker...the Prime Minister... must also know that Kara Johnson, who was president of the National Council of the Conservative Party, is a member of Opus Dei, and that Nicole Charbonneau Barron, who will again be a candidate for his party in Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, is also a member of Opus Dei, and that a conservative member invited his colleagues to dine with Opus Dei leaders."
What relevance does being a member of Opus Dei have on this conversation or any conversation? It's like saying "Did you know that Gilles Duceppe dined with Francophones from Quebec?"
To which the correct answer would be in either case...so what?
Our political leaders (with the exception of some MPs who do and will speak out on abortion) show no leadership on abortion because they are politically motivated and not morally motivated.
But with a critical mass of grass roots support from the country, including leaders such as the Bishops, maybe we can change the hearts and minds of the country. And maybe our political leaders will follow.
Baby steps. But positive baby steps.
Yesterday Charles Lewis said:
"Two senior Catholic Church officials did something remarkable this week, though it barely got noticed and chances are it will easily be forgotten or written off as some weird “Catholic thing” irrelevant to the rest of society. They proposed a way to re-frame the discussion about abortion and it would be to the benefit of many to pay attention to what they had to say before dismissing them because they wear clerical garb...Cardinal Ouellet first acknowledged on Wednesday that we now live in the midst of a “political and legal impasse” when it comes to the abortion debate...
"I am launching an appeal with my Ottawa colleague [Archbishop Prendergast] for an awareness campaign and [for] more programs providing assistance for women in distress in Canada,” Cardinal Ouellet said. “There is a great scarcity of information, support and financial assistance to enable pregnant women to make an informed choice.”
“We know for now the law is not going to change in the short-term,” said Archbishop Prendergast said in a phone interview Thursday. “So what can we do to help women in difficulty now? If you pushed people on the pro-choice side they too would want to see fewer abortions. So we need to ask them to participate. Of course, we would like to restrict abortions and do away with them if we could, but in the short-term we should work together to reduce the number of abortions.”
This is a very positive development in the abortion debate we aren't allowed to have.
The Bishops are not advocating for a complete ban on abortion. They are calling for support for women and incremental changes. This is realistic, hopeful and inclusive of everyone including pro-choice people. The Bishops are showing leadership that our four political leaders refuse to show on abortion.
Even yesterday Gilles Duceppe was back in his own non-leadership role with "the we can't talk about abortion" bandwagon in the House:
"Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government says it does not wish to reopen the abortion debate. Cardinal Ouellet candidly admitted yesterday that he was raising the abortion issue now because the Conservative government had revived the debate by excluding abortion from its maternal health policy for developing countries. Does the Prime Minister realize that because of him and his refusal to include abortion in his maternal health policy for foreign nations the abortion debate is again raging in Canada and Quebec?"
Then Mr. Duceppe says (and I'm going to digress here but I can't help myself...):
"Mr. Speaker...the Prime Minister... must also know that Kara Johnson, who was president of the National Council of the Conservative Party, is a member of Opus Dei, and that Nicole Charbonneau Barron, who will again be a candidate for his party in Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, is also a member of Opus Dei, and that a conservative member invited his colleagues to dine with Opus Dei leaders."
What relevance does being a member of Opus Dei have on this conversation or any conversation? It's like saying "Did you know that Gilles Duceppe dined with Francophones from Quebec?"
To which the correct answer would be in either case...so what?
Our political leaders (with the exception of some MPs who do and will speak out on abortion) show no leadership on abortion because they are politically motivated and not morally motivated.
But with a critical mass of grass roots support from the country, including leaders such as the Bishops, maybe we can change the hearts and minds of the country. And maybe our political leaders will follow.
Baby steps. But positive baby steps.
Saturday, May 22, 2010
What would the Martians think? (Part 4...why late-term abortions are not inconsequential)
In my Martian series, I wanted to write next about what Dawn Fowler Canadian Director, National Abortion Federation (NAF) says about late-term abortions.
Ms. Fowler says:
"According to data obtained through CIHI, 0.08% of abortions in 2004 were provided after 20 weeks gestation. This percentage does not support the notion promulgated by abortion opponents that women in Canada routinely obtain abortion care up to nine months of pregnancy. In fact, nearly 80% of abortions are provided during the first trimester (12 weeks) of pregnancy."
Then out of the sky drops Margaret Wente’s, tired timeworn throwaway pro-abortion comment regarding this very subject. Ms. Wente says "Virtually no late-term abortions – the rarest and most contentious kind – are performed here".
In other words, that pretty much takes care of the notion of late-term abortions--what other pro-life concerns can we dispense with?
Not so fast ladies.
Let’s look at the statistics from Statistics Canada. Ms. Fowler says that only .08 or 401 late-term abortions were done in 2004. (my more recent 2006 statistics say 464 so I will use these stats).
We know that Canada had at least 464 late-term abortions in 2006. That’s equivalent to a large elementary school of laughing screaming having fun children. Dead. Yanked out of their mother’s womb with a pick-ax to the brain or some such hideous "procedure" (another in a long line of pro-abortion euphemisms).
The reason I say "at least" is because--and you'll never hear an abortion advocate talk about this--Statistics Canada says in a foot note next to the number 55,006:
"Note the large number of induced abortions with an unknown gestation range."
That is correct. There were fifty-five thousand and six abortions in 2006 for which we do not know the gestational age of the fetus. How many of these were late-term abortions? Well it could be one. Or it could just as easily be that all 55,006 were late-term.
Dr. Paul Ranalli is a neurologist and brain physiology researcher at the University of Toronto. He testified as an expert witness on fetal pain before the House Judiciary. Dr. Ranalli worries about the pain felt by the unborn child in late term abortions, and in fact, Nebraska has approved a bill to ban abortion beyond 20 weeks gestation on the basis of fetal pain.
Tell me, pro-abortion people with your disinterested comments about late-term abortions--does the extreme pain suffered by these unborn children during their late-term abortions bother you even a little bit?
Our Martian friends asks incredulously:
"You mean to say, you destroy between 464 and 55,006 of your offspring yearly, that are fully formed viable human beings, in an excruciating painful manner, and then tell people it is of no consequence?" Yes.
Part 1...Women's "Rights"
Part 2...When the truth isn't the truth
Part 3...Translating Dr. Henry Morgentaler
Part 4...Why late-term abortions are not inconsequential
Ms. Fowler says:
"According to data obtained through CIHI, 0.08% of abortions in 2004 were provided after 20 weeks gestation. This percentage does not support the notion promulgated by abortion opponents that women in Canada routinely obtain abortion care up to nine months of pregnancy. In fact, nearly 80% of abortions are provided during the first trimester (12 weeks) of pregnancy."
Then out of the sky drops Margaret Wente’s, tired timeworn throwaway pro-abortion comment regarding this very subject. Ms. Wente says "Virtually no late-term abortions – the rarest and most contentious kind – are performed here".
In other words, that pretty much takes care of the notion of late-term abortions--what other pro-life concerns can we dispense with?
Not so fast ladies.
Let’s look at the statistics from Statistics Canada. Ms. Fowler says that only .08 or 401 late-term abortions were done in 2004. (my more recent 2006 statistics say 464 so I will use these stats).
We know that Canada had at least 464 late-term abortions in 2006. That’s equivalent to a large elementary school of laughing screaming having fun children. Dead. Yanked out of their mother’s womb with a pick-ax to the brain or some such hideous "procedure" (another in a long line of pro-abortion euphemisms).
The reason I say "at least" is because--and you'll never hear an abortion advocate talk about this--Statistics Canada says in a foot note next to the number 55,006:
"Note the large number of induced abortions with an unknown gestation range."
That is correct. There were fifty-five thousand and six abortions in 2006 for which we do not know the gestational age of the fetus. How many of these were late-term abortions? Well it could be one. Or it could just as easily be that all 55,006 were late-term.
Dr. Paul Ranalli is a neurologist and brain physiology researcher at the University of Toronto. He testified as an expert witness on fetal pain before the House Judiciary. Dr. Ranalli worries about the pain felt by the unborn child in late term abortions, and in fact, Nebraska has approved a bill to ban abortion beyond 20 weeks gestation on the basis of fetal pain.
Tell me, pro-abortion people with your disinterested comments about late-term abortions--does the extreme pain suffered by these unborn children during their late-term abortions bother you even a little bit?
Our Martian friends asks incredulously:
"You mean to say, you destroy between 464 and 55,006 of your offspring yearly, that are fully formed viable human beings, in an excruciating painful manner, and then tell people it is of no consequence?" Yes.
Part 1...Women's "Rights"
Part 2...When the truth isn't the truth
Part 3...Translating Dr. Henry Morgentaler
Part 4...Why late-term abortions are not inconsequential
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
What do victimized women think?
The press is buzzing over Cardinal Marc Ouellet's comments that abortion is a "moral crime" and that it is unacceptable even in the case of rape. The National Post knows there is nothing new here and that Cardinal Ouellet is simply "reiterating conventional Church doctrine on the subject of abortion."
So what about abortion in cases of rape and incest? Surely we all agree that abortion in these cases is perfectly justifiable, right? But has anyone ever actually researched that question and provided an answer?
Amy Sobie, editor of The Post-Abortion Review, a quarterly publication of the Elliot Institute has:
"Our research shows that most women who become pregnant through sexual assault don't want abortion, and say abortion only compounds their trauma...Typically, people on both sides of the abortion debate accept the premise that most women who become pregnant through sexual assault want abortions. From this "fact," it naturally follows that the reason women want abortions in these cases is because it will help them to put the assault behind them, recover more quickly, and avoid the additional trauma of giving birth to a "rapist’s child…it is commonly assumed that rape victims who become pregnant would naturally want abortions. But in the only major study of pregnant rape victims ever done prior to this book, Dr. Sandra Mahkorn found that 75 to 85 percent did not have abortions. This figure is remarkably similar to the 73 percent birth rate found in our sample of 164 pregnant rape victims. This one finding alone should cause people to pause and reflect on the presumption that abortion is wanted or even best for sexual assault victims...although many people believe that abortion will help a woman resolve the trauma of rape more quickly, or at least keep her from being reminded of the rape throughout her pregnancy, many of the women in our survey who had abortions reported that abortion only added to and accentuated the traumatic feelings associated with sexual assault...This is easy to understand when one considers that many women have described their abortions as being similar to a rape (and even used the term "medical rape), it is easy to see that abortion is likely to add a second trauma to the earlier trauma of sexual assault...Research also shows that women who abort and women who are raped often describe similar feelings of depression, guilt, lowered self-esteem, violation and resentment of men. Rather than easing the psychological burdens experienced by those who have been raped, abortion added to them…"
Maybe we should ask victimized women how they feel, instead of taking the word of abortion advocates.
One woman, Kathleen wrote:
"I, having lived through rape, and also having raised a child 'conceived in rape,' feel personally assaulted and insulted every time I hear that abortion should be legal because of rape and incest. I feel that we're being used by pro-abortionists to further the abortion issue, even though we've not been asked to tell our side of the story."
So what about abortion in cases of rape and incest? Surely we all agree that abortion in these cases is perfectly justifiable, right? But has anyone ever actually researched that question and provided an answer?
Amy Sobie, editor of The Post-Abortion Review, a quarterly publication of the Elliot Institute has:
"Our research shows that most women who become pregnant through sexual assault don't want abortion, and say abortion only compounds their trauma...Typically, people on both sides of the abortion debate accept the premise that most women who become pregnant through sexual assault want abortions. From this "fact," it naturally follows that the reason women want abortions in these cases is because it will help them to put the assault behind them, recover more quickly, and avoid the additional trauma of giving birth to a "rapist’s child…it is commonly assumed that rape victims who become pregnant would naturally want abortions. But in the only major study of pregnant rape victims ever done prior to this book, Dr. Sandra Mahkorn found that 75 to 85 percent did not have abortions. This figure is remarkably similar to the 73 percent birth rate found in our sample of 164 pregnant rape victims. This one finding alone should cause people to pause and reflect on the presumption that abortion is wanted or even best for sexual assault victims...although many people believe that abortion will help a woman resolve the trauma of rape more quickly, or at least keep her from being reminded of the rape throughout her pregnancy, many of the women in our survey who had abortions reported that abortion only added to and accentuated the traumatic feelings associated with sexual assault...This is easy to understand when one considers that many women have described their abortions as being similar to a rape (and even used the term "medical rape), it is easy to see that abortion is likely to add a second trauma to the earlier trauma of sexual assault...Research also shows that women who abort and women who are raped often describe similar feelings of depression, guilt, lowered self-esteem, violation and resentment of men. Rather than easing the psychological burdens experienced by those who have been raped, abortion added to them…"
Maybe we should ask victimized women how they feel, instead of taking the word of abortion advocates.
One woman, Kathleen wrote:
"I, having lived through rape, and also having raised a child 'conceived in rape,' feel personally assaulted and insulted every time I hear that abortion should be legal because of rape and incest. I feel that we're being used by pro-abortionists to further the abortion issue, even though we've not been asked to tell our side of the story."
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Let the debate begin
The Calgary Herald reports Canada women's groups feel chill over abortion policies, that some women's groups aren't happy that their 24/7 any-time, any-reason, no-reason, abortion "rights" are under threat. They aren't happy that people are finally getting to debate abortion in Canada.
It's about time.
The Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada (ARCC) isn't very happy with Rod Bruinooge's private member bill C-510 which would make it a criminal offence to coerce a woman into having an abortion. ARCC says the problem of coercion does not occur on a grand scale, and that bill C-510 "should be scuttled in favour of a bill prohibiting the much more common practice of coercing a women into childbirth."
(How does ARCC know coerced abortion doesn't happen on a grand scale and that it is much more common practice that women are coerced into giving birth? This falls under the category of: if an abortion advocate says its true, then by golly, it must be true.)
There is a huge difference between coercing a woman into having an abortion and coercing a woman into giving birth. The first destroys life, the second doesn't. The two choices are not morally equivalent. The choice to destroy life should never warrant the same protection as the choice to protect life.
What ARCC doesn't seem to comprehend is that the Supreme Court Justices unanimously agreed in their, abortion advocates' oft-quoted, much-loved, 1988 Morgentaler decision, that the state has an interest in the protection of the fetus. The Justices said this because they understood that the fetus is not worthless, that it has value.
Oh and one more thing. Bill C-510 would protect the mother and her unborn child. You know, the child the woman has chosen to keep? But that's not good enough. Abortion advocates like ARCC only support choice when the choice is abortion.
It's about time.
The Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada (ARCC) isn't very happy with Rod Bruinooge's private member bill C-510 which would make it a criminal offence to coerce a woman into having an abortion. ARCC says the problem of coercion does not occur on a grand scale, and that bill C-510 "should be scuttled in favour of a bill prohibiting the much more common practice of coercing a women into childbirth."
(How does ARCC know coerced abortion doesn't happen on a grand scale and that it is much more common practice that women are coerced into giving birth? This falls under the category of: if an abortion advocate says its true, then by golly, it must be true.)
There is a huge difference between coercing a woman into having an abortion and coercing a woman into giving birth. The first destroys life, the second doesn't. The two choices are not morally equivalent. The choice to destroy life should never warrant the same protection as the choice to protect life.
What ARCC doesn't seem to comprehend is that the Supreme Court Justices unanimously agreed in their, abortion advocates' oft-quoted, much-loved, 1988 Morgentaler decision, that the state has an interest in the protection of the fetus. The Justices said this because they understood that the fetus is not worthless, that it has value.
Oh and one more thing. Bill C-510 would protect the mother and her unborn child. You know, the child the woman has chosen to keep? But that's not good enough. Abortion advocates like ARCC only support choice when the choice is abortion.
Sunday, May 16, 2010
What would the Martians think? (Part 3...Translating Dr. Henry Morgentaler)
The next speaker at the 20th Anniversary of Regina v. Morgentaler Of What Difference? Reflections on the Judgment and Abortion in Canada Today. was Dr. Henry Morgentaler:
"In 1988 the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that women have the right to make choices concerning their own reproductive health. I am proud to have played such a pivotal role in that decision. "
The tragedy of these kind of euphemistic statements is they don't really tell us what the person is actually saying. To our Martian friend listening, she would have been confused. I will translate the meaning of these statements for her:
"In 1988 the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that our existing abortion law had some problems with it, so our Justices struck the law down. This meant that from now on, there would be no abortion law in Canada. If a woman now chose to get rid of the human fetus in her womb, there is nothing that can be done to stop her from doing this. Therefore a woman can freely choose to allow her doctor to take the life of her unborn child and dispose of its remains. I am proud to have played such a pivotal role in that decision. "
Then Dr. Morgentaler says:
"I also believe that the world is a kinder, gentler place for women in Canada because they do have the right to make choices."
Translation:
I can't translate this. I tried. I can't figure out how a woman depriving her unborn child of its existance will make our world a kinder gentler place for her. And it will not be a kinder gentler place for her child as her child will now be dead.
Dr. Morgentaler says next:
"Over the years, I have developed a near perfect surgical procedure."
Translation:
"Over the years I have removed many many unborn children from the wombs of their mothers. Because of this extensive experience in aborting these fetuses, I have become very adept at doing it with precision."
Next he says:
"I believe that the documented decrease in crime today is directly related to the fact that women can now make choices concerning their own reproductive health. I believe that our society is a better society today than it was thirty years ago."
Translation:
"I believe that the documented decrease in crime today is directly related to the fact that women can now choose to rid themselves of her unborn child. There is no way that I can actually relate these two occurrences because I have no way of knowing how many Einsteins, Pasteurs or Mother Teresas I have aborted and how many women's lives have been ruined by their abortions."
Dr. Morgentaler's final statement:
"I have made a contribution to a safer and more caring society where people have a greater opportunity to realize their full potential." This statement is not translatable.
Part 1...Women's "Rights"
Part 2...When the truth isn't the truth
Part 3...Translating Dr. Henry Morgentaler
Part 4...Why late-term abortions are not inconsequential
"In 1988 the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that women have the right to make choices concerning their own reproductive health. I am proud to have played such a pivotal role in that decision. "
The tragedy of these kind of euphemistic statements is they don't really tell us what the person is actually saying. To our Martian friend listening, she would have been confused. I will translate the meaning of these statements for her:
"In 1988 the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that our existing abortion law had some problems with it, so our Justices struck the law down. This meant that from now on, there would be no abortion law in Canada. If a woman now chose to get rid of the human fetus in her womb, there is nothing that can be done to stop her from doing this. Therefore a woman can freely choose to allow her doctor to take the life of her unborn child and dispose of its remains. I am proud to have played such a pivotal role in that decision. "
Then Dr. Morgentaler says:
"I also believe that the world is a kinder, gentler place for women in Canada because they do have the right to make choices."
Translation:
I can't translate this. I tried. I can't figure out how a woman depriving her unborn child of its existance will make our world a kinder gentler place for her. And it will not be a kinder gentler place for her child as her child will now be dead.
Dr. Morgentaler says next:
"Over the years, I have developed a near perfect surgical procedure."
Translation:
"Over the years I have removed many many unborn children from the wombs of their mothers. Because of this extensive experience in aborting these fetuses, I have become very adept at doing it with precision."
Next he says:
"I believe that the documented decrease in crime today is directly related to the fact that women can now make choices concerning their own reproductive health. I believe that our society is a better society today than it was thirty years ago."
Translation:
"I believe that the documented decrease in crime today is directly related to the fact that women can now choose to rid themselves of her unborn child. There is no way that I can actually relate these two occurrences because I have no way of knowing how many Einsteins, Pasteurs or Mother Teresas I have aborted and how many women's lives have been ruined by their abortions."
Dr. Morgentaler's final statement:
"I have made a contribution to a safer and more caring society where people have a greater opportunity to realize their full potential." This statement is not translatable.
Part 1...Women's "Rights"
Part 2...When the truth isn't the truth
Part 3...Translating Dr. Henry Morgentaler
Part 4...Why late-term abortions are not inconsequential
Thursday, May 13, 2010
The Best of: Ottawa's Pro-Life March for Life
Today's Annual March for Life in Ottawa had 12,500 peaceful marchers, sometimes singing, sometimes being taunted by handfuls of abortion advocates.
Best picture of the day: A whole whack of pro-life MPs. Many of whom are members of the ultra "secretive" pro-life caucus. Oh. Except they were standing in front of the aforementioned 12,500 marchers on Parliament Hill. Hmm...
Best T-Shirt of the day "ABORTION: The leading cause of death in America"
And last but not least, the Best quote of the day comes from former Prime Minister Joe Clarke. As we were heading into 240 Sparks St. to get a bite to eat we traversed through Holt Renfrew when we saw him. The three of us introduced ourselves, and Mr. Clark, always the politician asked us where we were from and where were we going. We told him we were going to the Pro-Life March. You know, the one against abortion? He started to look kind of uncomfortable and he said to us: "We're not going to have this debate right here" and he was gone.
I should have asked him, when would be a good time to have this debate? How about my people call your people?
Best picture of the day: A whole whack of pro-life MPs. Many of whom are members of the ultra "secretive" pro-life caucus. Oh. Except they were standing in front of the aforementioned 12,500 marchers on Parliament Hill. Hmm...
Best T-Shirt of the day "ABORTION: The leading cause of death in America"
And last but not least, the Best quote of the day comes from former Prime Minister Joe Clarke. As we were heading into 240 Sparks St. to get a bite to eat we traversed through Holt Renfrew when we saw him. The three of us introduced ourselves, and Mr. Clark, always the politician asked us where we were from and where were we going. We told him we were going to the Pro-Life March. You know, the one against abortion? He started to look kind of uncomfortable and he said to us: "We're not going to have this debate right here" and he was gone.
I should have asked him, when would be a good time to have this debate? How about my people call your people?
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
The truth speaks for itself
The CBC reports that Anti-abortion display was misconduct at the University of Calgary. The students apparently failed to comply with requests to ensure the safety of students by showing the Genocide Awareness Project which displays aborted fetuses. This project graphically shows what abortion is.
The students in actuality, are being discriminated against. Like all of our university students across Canada who speak and show the truth about abortion.
If it were in fact true that this was a safety issue, then obviously the CBC would never display the posters on their website. The CBC would never risk the safety of its readers.
So what is the problem with the powers that be at the University of Calgary?
They are afraid of the truth.
The students in actuality, are being discriminated against. Like all of our university students across Canada who speak and show the truth about abortion.
If it were in fact true that this was a safety issue, then obviously the CBC would never display the posters on their website. The CBC would never risk the safety of its readers.
So what is the problem with the powers that be at the University of Calgary?
They are afraid of the truth.
Monday, May 10, 2010
What would the Martians think? (Part 2...When the truth isn't the truth)
Vicki Saporta, President and CEO, National Abortion Federation (NAF) provided the opening remarks to the celebration of the 20th Anniversary of Regina v. Morgentaler Of What Difference? Reflections on the Judgment and Abortion in Canada Today.
Ms. Saporta stated: "This landmark decision has undoubtedly protected the health and saved the lives of countless women, and was named as one of the most important and influential Charter cases of the last 25 years."
To say that the lives of countless women have been saved because of abortion is not quite true. Less than 5% of all abortions are because of rape, incest, fetal and maternal problems. That means that 95% of abortions are performed as a means of birth control, not to save women's lives.
It is the lives of the unborn killed by abortion that women like Ms. Saporta never talk about. About 100,000 each year in Canada. Even if Ms. Saporta is referring to the lives of women who died before abortion was legal, those numbers (44 in the five years before 1969) doesn't come close to the 100,000 annual killing of fetuses.
Then Ms. Saporta says
"In fact, abortion is the only time-sensitive and medically necessary procedure excluded from the list of services on the inter-provincial billing agreement."
Abortion is excluded because as stated above at least 95% of them are not medically necessary. Abortion advocates will always say that abortions are medically necessary. I say, prove it.
Next she says:
"The Canadian Medical Association’s policy of allowing physicians to refuse to refer patients for abortion care is a clear violation of CMA’s own Code of Ethics, which requires physicians to:
• Consider the well-being of the patient;
• Practice medicine in a manner that treats the patient with dignity; and
• Provide patients with the information they need to make informed decisions
about their medical care.
The CMA’s policy treats women unfairly and impedes women’s access to care."
Jeff Blackmer of the CMA states:
"CMA policy states that "a physician should not be compelled to participate in the termination of a pregnancy." In addition, "a physician whose moral or religious beliefs prevent him or her from recommending or performing an abortion should inform the patient of this so that she may consult another physician."
Insisting that doctors be allowed to follow their conscience is a fundamental right for doctors. I would never want be advised by my doctor on any matter, knowing that he had parked his conscience at the door that morning.
What is disturbing about Ms. Saporta's comments, and others like her, is that they say things "like abortion is medically necessary" by simply slipping them into the conversation as if it were true. Then they repeat them over and over and eventually people just start believing they are true.
Take Dr. Bernard Nathanson for example. He was responsible for over 75,000 abortions before he finally had a change of heart. He said that slogans like "Women must have control over their own bodies." were made up. That they fabricated the results of fictional polls to simply show what they wanted us to believe.
I suggest you google Dr. Nathanson's name. You won't see his name come up on any pro-choice websites. I don't imagine the abortion advocates were too happy when he started telling the truth.
I think at this point, our Martian friend at the back of the room must be really confused. "You mean the truth isn't always the truth?"
Part 1...Women's "Rights"
Part 2...When the truth isn't the truth
Part 3...Translating Dr. Henry Morgentaler
Part 4...Why late-term abortions are not inconsequential
Ms. Saporta stated: "This landmark decision has undoubtedly protected the health and saved the lives of countless women, and was named as one of the most important and influential Charter cases of the last 25 years."
To say that the lives of countless women have been saved because of abortion is not quite true. Less than 5% of all abortions are because of rape, incest, fetal and maternal problems. That means that 95% of abortions are performed as a means of birth control, not to save women's lives.
It is the lives of the unborn killed by abortion that women like Ms. Saporta never talk about. About 100,000 each year in Canada. Even if Ms. Saporta is referring to the lives of women who died before abortion was legal, those numbers (44 in the five years before 1969) doesn't come close to the 100,000 annual killing of fetuses.
Then Ms. Saporta says
"In fact, abortion is the only time-sensitive and medically necessary procedure excluded from the list of services on the inter-provincial billing agreement."
Abortion is excluded because as stated above at least 95% of them are not medically necessary. Abortion advocates will always say that abortions are medically necessary. I say, prove it.
Next she says:
"The Canadian Medical Association’s policy of allowing physicians to refuse to refer patients for abortion care is a clear violation of CMA’s own Code of Ethics, which requires physicians to:
• Consider the well-being of the patient;
• Practice medicine in a manner that treats the patient with dignity; and
• Provide patients with the information they need to make informed decisions
about their medical care.
The CMA’s policy treats women unfairly and impedes women’s access to care."
Jeff Blackmer of the CMA states:
"CMA policy states that "a physician should not be compelled to participate in the termination of a pregnancy." In addition, "a physician whose moral or religious beliefs prevent him or her from recommending or performing an abortion should inform the patient of this so that she may consult another physician."
Insisting that doctors be allowed to follow their conscience is a fundamental right for doctors. I would never want be advised by my doctor on any matter, knowing that he had parked his conscience at the door that morning.
What is disturbing about Ms. Saporta's comments, and others like her, is that they say things "like abortion is medically necessary" by simply slipping them into the conversation as if it were true. Then they repeat them over and over and eventually people just start believing they are true.
Take Dr. Bernard Nathanson for example. He was responsible for over 75,000 abortions before he finally had a change of heart. He said that slogans like "Women must have control over their own bodies." were made up. That they fabricated the results of fictional polls to simply show what they wanted us to believe.
I suggest you google Dr. Nathanson's name. You won't see his name come up on any pro-choice websites. I don't imagine the abortion advocates were too happy when he started telling the truth.
I think at this point, our Martian friend at the back of the room must be really confused. "You mean the truth isn't always the truth?"
Part 1...Women's "Rights"
Part 2...When the truth isn't the truth
Part 3...Translating Dr. Henry Morgentaler
Part 4...Why late-term abortions are not inconsequential
Sunday, May 9, 2010
A challenge to the media in Canada
Joseph Ben-Ami makes one of the most cohesive arguments as of late In defense of Canada’s “No Abortion Policy” in foreign aid
"If polling tells us anything about Canadians' attitude to abortion, it’s that they are overwhelmingly troubled by it, but deeply divided over what to do. In view of this lack of consensus, a case can be made that the government’s decision is entirely consistent with the feelings of Canadians on the subject, especially since that decision does not prevent individuals from supporting an international pro-abortion agenda if they so choose....like Planned Parenthood are perfectly able to raise money on their own and spend it as they please, without government interference. The fact that they don't - or can't - raise private money despite in many cases having charitable status, is a strong indication of how little Canadians actually support their agenda. This is an important aspect of the overall story, yet a search of the record could not find a single report that includes it. Not one."
If our media could put their own possible biases on the back burner for one day, I have a challenge for them. Why not come out this year and witness thousands of peaceful, respectful people, of all stripes, colour and age, who march every year in the annual March for Life this Thursday May 13?
"If polling tells us anything about Canadians' attitude to abortion, it’s that they are overwhelmingly troubled by it, but deeply divided over what to do. In view of this lack of consensus, a case can be made that the government’s decision is entirely consistent with the feelings of Canadians on the subject, especially since that decision does not prevent individuals from supporting an international pro-abortion agenda if they so choose....like Planned Parenthood are perfectly able to raise money on their own and spend it as they please, without government interference. The fact that they don't - or can't - raise private money despite in many cases having charitable status, is a strong indication of how little Canadians actually support their agenda. This is an important aspect of the overall story, yet a search of the record could not find a single report that includes it. Not one."
If our media could put their own possible biases on the back burner for one day, I have a challenge for them. Why not come out this year and witness thousands of peaceful, respectful people, of all stripes, colour and age, who march every year in the annual March for Life this Thursday May 13?
Last year there was virtually no media coverage and there were at least 12,000 soaking wet marchers.
This would provide a single glaring, not to be misunderstood snapshot of our lack of consensus on the legal accident that created fully-funded, any-time, any-reason, no-reason abortion in this country.
Friday, May 7, 2010
What would the Martians think? (Part 1...Women's "Rights")
I just completed reading 20th Anniversary of Regina v. Morgentaler Of What Difference? Reflections on the Judgment and Abortion in Canada Today. This was a feminist symposium in 2008 to celebrate (their word) the twenty year anniversary of the Morgentaler court case; the case that opened the flood gates for fully funded nationally available abortion that gave women their "right" to abortion on demand.
(As I've stated elsewhere, the ruling never actually granted a Charter right to abortion but abortion advocates like to pretend it did. They believe that if they say something long enough and often enough, people will think it’s true.)
After I read the document I was left with a feeling of immense sadness.
This phenomenal increase in women’s rights was accomplished by a corresponding elimination of all rights to the unborn child.
The word "Rights" is used 75 times in the document: it talks about Charter rights, Sexual rights, Reproductive rights, Equality rights, Human rights, Abortion rights, Women's rights, Fundamental rights and Our rights--all as they relate to women.
The only nod to father’s rights was preceded by a "so-called" as in "so-called fathers rights", the common derogatory term we use when we want to belittle or make fun of something.
Any mention of the unborn or fetal rights was again always in the negative sense as in:
"if we acknowledge the current ascendant discourse is one of the unborn child, then we as feminists and supporters of choice for women must re-insert the women in the social vernacular, and start again from the premise that the pregnant woman and the unborn child speak with one voice, and that voice is hers."
It's always about the woman.
I imagined a Martian sitting at the back of the room watching the proceedings and listening to the speeches as one half of this foreign human species--the half that is the carrier of the offspring of the species--celebrated their rights to be allowed to kill the newest members of their own species.
(to be continued...)
Part 1...Women's "Rights"
Part 2...When the truth isn't the truth
Part 3...Translating Dr. Henry Morgentaler
Part 4...Why late-term abortions are not inconsequential
(As I've stated elsewhere, the ruling never actually granted a Charter right to abortion but abortion advocates like to pretend it did. They believe that if they say something long enough and often enough, people will think it’s true.)
After I read the document I was left with a feeling of immense sadness.
This phenomenal increase in women’s rights was accomplished by a corresponding elimination of all rights to the unborn child.
The word "Rights" is used 75 times in the document: it talks about Charter rights, Sexual rights, Reproductive rights, Equality rights, Human rights, Abortion rights, Women's rights, Fundamental rights and Our rights--all as they relate to women.
The only nod to father’s rights was preceded by a "so-called" as in "so-called fathers rights", the common derogatory term we use when we want to belittle or make fun of something.
Any mention of the unborn or fetal rights was again always in the negative sense as in:
"if we acknowledge the current ascendant discourse is one of the unborn child, then we as feminists and supporters of choice for women must re-insert the women in the social vernacular, and start again from the premise that the pregnant woman and the unborn child speak with one voice, and that voice is hers."
It's always about the woman.
I imagined a Martian sitting at the back of the room watching the proceedings and listening to the speeches as one half of this foreign human species--the half that is the carrier of the offspring of the species--celebrated their rights to be allowed to kill the newest members of their own species.
(to be continued...)
Part 1...Women's "Rights"
Part 2...When the truth isn't the truth
Part 3...Translating Dr. Henry Morgentaler
Part 4...Why late-term abortions are not inconsequential
Monday, May 3, 2010
The truth is a funny thing
Jen Skerritt in the Winnipeg Free Press reports on Women who had abortions report more depression, drug abuse: Study published in the Canadian Journal of Psychology
Pro-lifers have been talking about the psychological effects of abortion for years.
But Natalie Mota, a University of Manitoba graduate student who was the study's primary author says:
"You absolutely cannot say from this data that an abortion causes mental illness. There's an association present, but whether the mental illness comes before or after needs to be further examined."
Reminds me of the Abortion Breast Cancer Link which pro-abortion advocates also completely discounted until the main stream media started reporting on it.
Looks like the truth is leaking out. It can only contain itself for so long.
Pro-lifers have been talking about the psychological effects of abortion for years.
But Natalie Mota, a University of Manitoba graduate student who was the study's primary author says:
"You absolutely cannot say from this data that an abortion causes mental illness. There's an association present, but whether the mental illness comes before or after needs to be further examined."
Reminds me of the Abortion Breast Cancer Link which pro-abortion advocates also completely discounted until the main stream media started reporting on it.
Looks like the truth is leaking out. It can only contain itself for so long.
Sunday, May 2, 2010
Human rights on front page at the National Post
Thanks to the National Post for publishing the article yesterday, Abortion: The debate politicians are afraid to reopen. In a pro-choice country where abortion debate is not tolerated, where the pro-abortion advocates and media are shrill and strident, where our most defenceless citizens have no protection and are eliminated like so much unwanted garbage, and where if someone were tallying the score it would be abortion 100, unborn children 0, I commend the National Post for publishing this article.