Friday, April 30, 2010
But there was tough competition today with Judith Timson in the Globe and Mail, Chris Selley in the National Post, and Valerie Percival in the Ottawa Citizen. All complaining loudly over Mr. Harper's Maternal Health care initiative and the fact that it will not cover abortion.
But what was really odd, was that Timson thinks she speaks for me. I wonder why she would think that?
"In exactly whose name has the Harper government decided to withhold funds for access to safe abortion in their international maternal and child health initiative? Not in my name. And not in the names of countless Canadians who have relied for years on safe access to the procedure at government expense...Is that really what we want – to deal with abortion again ? Although there has been a slight drop in the number of Canadians supporting full access to abortion, polls show a majority still support it."
She even admits that fewer Canadians support abortion. Curiouser and curiouser.
But what is more troubling than the pro-abortion types' misguided notion that they somehow speak for other Canadians, is their ever increasing shrillness about "women's rights" and their corresponding complete dismissal of fetal rights.
They don't just dismiss the unborn child and its rights, they pretend that the children who are the victims of abortions don’t exist at all. Like some kind of fairy tale dream world where women have "procedures" but let's not talk about what the "procedure" is doing, or how it is done. And please, please, whatever you do, don't show us any pictures of the "procedure".
Nope. Women's Rights. All for one and one for all.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
His reader said that the vast majority of people who oppose abortion are "fundamentalist religious wackos". McParland said that religion had nothing to do with it. I agree.
But this kind of "reasoning" has never failed to puzzle me. How does the belief, that the killing of a defenceless human is wrong, make a person into a "fundamentalist religious wacko"?
In any event, let's go with the reader's assumption. Let's assume for argument sake that those opposed to abortion are in fact FRWs.
For many FRWs, this is what is called a moral question or an ethical question. Morally, FRWs object to this kind of behaviour. When an act is morally objectionable, FRWs believe it is wrong.
Maybe I should use mathematical constructs to describe this logic for McParland's reader.
if a = b and b = c then a = c
If "killing defenceless human being" = "immoral"
If "immoral" = "don't do it"
Then "killing defenceless human being" = "don't do it"
See how it works? It's easy.
And the best part of morality is that, it isn't just for FRWs. Anyone can use it.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
On the one hand, he has stated many times that he does not support re-opening the abortion debate.
On the other, there are many disturbing signs regarding pro-life advocacy, and freedom of speech issues surrounding abortion.
First, University students are being threatened with expulsion from the University of Calgary for displaying pictures that show what abortion is.
This is not an isolated incident. Similar attacks on freedom of speech are occurring across the nation, including McGill, the University of Ottawa, University of Victoria, York University and others.
In fact, these occurrences are so disturbing, that even the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, a self proclaimed pro-choice organization, is defending the University of Victoria and their right to pro-life advocacy.
BCCLA President Robert Holmes stated in a press release in February 2010:
"Public money should not be used to suppress free speech. A university and student society that target and suppress one set of views on a matter of public debate while smugly asking for more public funds and for the continuation of a law forcing all students to fund the student society commit an affront to democracy."
Second, pro-life caucus chair, MP Rod Bruinooge, introduced a private member's bill last week, called Bill C-510 or "Roxanne's Law,". This bill seeks to protect women from coercive abortions. The Prime Minister's office has stated that the government will not support the bill.
Third, the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada have come out strongly opposing Bill C-510 to the point of actually suggesting the criminalization of pro-life activities. Coordinator Joyce Arthur stated:
"The entire anti-choice movement has been trying to force women into pregnancy and motherhood for decades, by working to outlaw or restrict abortion. Perhaps we need to protect women from this coercion by criminalizing anti-choice activism!"
Fourth, I learned through Access to Freedom Information this year, that Arthur's other extreme pro-abortion group, the Pro-Choice Action Network, received a $27,400 grant to write an extremely vitriolic report, discrediting and condemning Crisis Pregnancy Centres in BC.
The report attacks these CPCs by using innuendo, anonymous sources and pro-abortion biased research. I also learned that Crisis Pregnancy Centres have never received government funding.
Why would our government fund extreme pro-choice propaganda but not fund groups that help women keep their child or put it up for adoption?
Finally, and this is old news but a crucial fact nonetheless: since the 1988 Morgentaler decision we have had no protection whatsoever for the unborn; a woman in Canada can have an abortion legally up until the moment of birth, for any reason, or for no reason at all.
What these events tell us, is that without debate, we are in fact promoting abortion.
Yet polls consistently show that a majority of Canadians want at least some protection for the unborn. As recently as March 2010, a survey done for the Manning Centre for Building Democracy by Harris Decima showed that 60% of those surveyed strongly agreed that abortion is morally wrong.
Even the judges in the Morgentaler decision agreed that protection of the fetus was a valid objective and said it was up to Parliament to do this. Parliament never has.
It shouldn't matter where one stands in the debate, whether pro-choice or pro-life. In a democratic country, surely we can all agree that debate and freedom of speech are the cornerstones of our shared values. No subject should ever be taboo.
Canada has no abortion laws to protect the unborn; abortion advocates want to criminalize pro-life activities; the Universities want to shut down all pro-life debate and free speech on campuses; tax dollars pay for pro-abortion evangelism.
Mr. Harper is in a unique position as our duly elected Prime Minister and holds enormous power and authority in this country. He may not fully realize the influence he has had on the abortion debate but these signs are very troubling.
I am not calling for Mr. Harper to support or oppose abortion. I am asking him to tell the country that he supports debate on all topics including abortion.
Saturday, April 24, 2010
In lecture 4 Helping The Church: Exerting Influence Fr. Groeschel states at about 17:00 minutes:
"sometimes the people who claim to represent a division in the Catholic Church have absolutely no-one behind them at all. For instance 'Catholics for Choice' is a paper organization supported by powerful foundations in favour of abortions who are known to be anti-Catholic. CFC has no membership at all....the objectionable people there are very well known foundations that you buy commercial products from, who are supporting the enemies of the Church"
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
As Fr. Groeschel says, the Church will survive. The Church has already experienced the worst that could happen, back on the first Holy Thursday when the men Jesus had chosen Himself, deserted Him and one betrayed Him.
It can't get worse than that.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
In this press release from the Abortion Rights Coalition, Joyce Arthur and friends call us anti-choice. Eleven times.
But we are very pro-choice, don't you know?
The problem is, abortion advocates have this funny habit of not being able to make a complete sentence when they ask a question, as in: "Don't you support a woman's right to choose?"
To which I must logically answer, well, what is she choosing?
This question can't logically be answered because it isn't a sentence. It only has a subject and a verb but no object. I do support a woman's right to choose many things—like dying her hair purple, like choosing to be a belly dancer, like taking a trip to Tanzania. I think I might even support a woman's right to choose whether or not to inject the deadly botulism organism into her face. As long as she doesn't hurt anyone else, I support all her choices.
I am pro-choice.
But it seems when people talk about a woman's right to choose, they're not talking about these things. What they're talking about—and they assume that by not finishing the sentence we won't notice—what they're talking about is a “woman's right to choose to kill her unborn child”.
So no, I don't support that choice. Why? Because that's the willful destruction of a defenceless human being.
Then the two-thirds-of-a-sentence advocates will say, but it's not a human being. Well then, what is it? It's not a dog or a pig or a goat. What a woman's fetus is, is a member of the species homo sapien (as are you and I) before exiting its mother's womb. Her fetus is human and it is a being. Some people have a problem with this concept. Why, I don't know. It's not that difficult.
Then they'll say, well the mother is more important than her unborn baby. Another disingenuous statement.
Am I more important than you? No. Are you more important than an old man who wanders around with dementia who can't take care of himself, can't feed himself, and pees in his pants? No.
So then they'll say, it's part of her body and she can do what she wants with her own body. Wait a minute. There's one more ground rule we must establish before we continue this conversation.
We aren't allowed to lie.
You can't say the unborn child is part of her body because it isn't. It is a separate being.
When you ask yourself these questions, and when you're honest with yourself when you answer them, the answers are really quite simple. Your heart will give you the answer. All you need to do is, listen to your conscience and vocalize what it tells you.
So let's finish the sentence, and then we can answer the question.
We aren't anti-choice. We are pro-choice.
Monday, April 19, 2010
Mr. Harper's spokesman Dimitri Soudas said:
"the government's policy is that we will not initiate or support legislation that reopens the debate on abortion.”
And this has been Mr. Harper's mantra ever since he took power.
But why can't we debate abortion? Isn't this a democratic country where free speech and debate are the cornerstone of our shared values?
From the evidence, lots of people want to debate abortion and they are debating it. That most certainly is a fact that can't be denied.
I just read Charles Lewis's piece "MP’s bill takes aim at ‘coerced abortions" on the National Post's "Holy Post" blog, and as of writing there were 145 comments (oops, up to 147 now) to this one single article on abortion.
And every time the topic comes up, there are oodles and oodles of articles and comments all over the blogosphere.
Mary Ellen Douglas, national organizer for Campaign Life Coalition is quoted in the LifeSiteNews article above, as saying she thinks Harper will do whatever he can to put a stop to Bruinooge's bill.
“They're not going to let it go to any kind of a vote,” she said. “That's Harper. That's what he did with the unborn victims of violence bill.” “He's said that all along,” she added. “He won't allow this to come up, period. He's determined not to let anything pro-life come up, because he's pro-abortion.”
So what do we know?
We know that Mr. Harper's refuses to re-open the abortion debate.
We know that many Canadians want to debate abortion.
We know that Canada has no abortion laws.
So does Mr. Harper have a hidden agenda after all? And could that ubiquitous hidden agenda be in fact, that Mr. Harper actually is pro-abortion?
Friday, April 16, 2010
The Honourable John McKay P.C., M.P. Scarborough-Guildwood, sent me a reply. Here it is.
April 14, 2010
Dear Ms. Maloney:
Thank you for your letter on the recent motion regarding maternal health and family planning. I realize that the position I took may seem controversial to some, but for me this was a moral issue, and I stand by the decision I made.
Maternal and child health is an issue that is very important to me. I have travelled extensively with various NGO’s to the developing world and seen firsthand the difficult conditions that women and children face. Therefore I support the focus on improving child and maternal health and I understand the grave need for family planning programs.
In regards to the services included with family planning, I would refer to the World Health Organization definition which defines family planning as a means to “allow individuals and couples to anticipate and attain their desired number of children and the spacing and timing of their births. It is achieved through use of contraceptive methods and the treatment of involuntary infertility.” They further describe the benefits of such treatment as “A woman's ability to space and limit her pregnancies has a direct impact on her health and well-being as well as on the outcome of each pregnancy.”
These types of programs will allow women who wish to spread out their pregnancies to do so safely and responsibly and without harming themselves or their children. I have no qualms with supporting such an initiative. I do however have serious issues with the idea of having our international aid go towards funding abortions. Regardless of one’s beliefs, I believe that we must all work together to find common ground, and dramatically reduce levels of abortion worldwide. The issue that drives abortion is that women see no reasonable alternative. For those who are committed to a pro-life position, they must also commit to providing alternatives whereby the perceived need for abortion is reduced to an absolute minimum. If women are provided with comprehensive family planning services, as well as resources and support after the child has been born, I believe that we will see a real reduction in the number of abortions internationally. This can be seen as a positive step towards improving international maternal health.
To conclude, I remain committed to the basic human value of the sanctity of life, and for that reason I voted against the recent motion. I do however still support the intent of this motion of improving the lives of women in developing countries and providing them with safe and effective family planning options. I hope that regardless of whether one defines themselves as pro-life or pro-choice we can come together to provide effective solutions for women faced with these issues, and put aside our differences in order to make a real impact on international health.
Once again thank you for your letter on this important issue; I appreciate you sharing your views with me.
The Honourable John McKay P.C., M.P.
Wazny got comments from Joyce Arthur and he states:
"Arthur maintains the bill steps on the toes of a successful system that's already in place and undermines the good work pregnancy support groups do. Counsellors at clinics are on the front-lines educating people on the rights of the woman, outlining the choices they have and how the decision to see the pregnancy to term is theirs and theirs alone."
I am confused where Arthur says she supports "pregnancy support groups". Is this the same as "crisis pregnancy centres"? I doubt it, because as I have written previously, Arthur isn't very fond of crisis pregnancy centres. She calls CPCs, "fake clinics", "anti-choice Christian ministries", and warns women to "beware" CPCs because they "deceive" women.
On Arthur's application form for SWC funding, she wrote that one of the goals of the report was to:
"Promote and/or establish, feminist-based options for women, i.e., pro-choice options counseling and post-abortion counseling services and by doing so: enable women to access appropriate health and social services, enhance the effectiveness of feminist based organizations and agencies in regards to women's reproductive health and rights...”
Yes, I'm quite sure that Arthur hasn't had a change of heart about CPCs.
So I'm left wondering. What does Arthur mean by "pregnancy support groups". Could she be referring to those counsellors, who work at those clinics, which make abortion their business--you know abortion clinics?
If so, I'm really not sure a woman looking for "pregnancy support" would be wise to get counseling at an abortion clinic. I think she might come out not pregnant anymore.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
"you have to believe that a fetus is not human in the moral sense." http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/04/13/kelly-mcparland-putting-abortion-advocates-in-a-box.aspx
Joyce Arthur responds to this in a letter to the National Post.
"This is incorrect. The pro-choice view is woman-focused, and we take no view on the fetus (or should not). The status and moral value of the fetus is moot because it's a matter of subjective personal opinion, and the only opinion that counts is the pregnant woman's... But most pro-choice people do not want to ban the practice because that means removing personal autonomy in favour of society's values. Being pro-choice means supporting women's choices even when we don't agree with them -- the hallmark of a truly free and democratic society."
(First of all, notice that Arthur says "we". She is apparently speaking for all pro-choicers. I wonder if in fact she actually does speak for all pro-choicers. They might want to speak up for themselves if they don't agree with her, because what she is saying is pretty scary but that’s just my opinion.)
So let’s dissect her statements.
Arthur says she takes "no view" of the fetus. She is view-less of the fetus. It is nothing to her. Similar to an eraser I guess, as in "I have no view of this eraser".
I wonder if Arthur has a moral view of say, a duck, as in "I have no moral view of this duck so I think I’ll whack it"?
Then she says:
"The status and moral value of the fetus is moot because it's a matter of subjective personal opinion".
If moral value is a subjective personal opinion, that means if I say that murder is okay, because I say it’s okay, then it’s okay, right?
Or, if I say that it is okay for me to steal from you and therefore when I tell the judge it’s all right for me to steal your car, he’ll say "No problem, since morality is subjective, and you think it’s okay, hey I’m good with that. You’re free to go".
Next she says:
"But most pro-choice people do not want to ban the practice because that means removing personal autonomy in favour of society's values."
Now she’s contradicting herself. All of a sudden society has values. How can society have values (i.e. all society shares a value) if values are personally subjective? You really can’t have it both ways Joyce.
And the clincher:
"Being pro-choice means supporting women's choices even when we don't agree with them -- the hallmark of a truly free and democratic society."
So to back to the murder example, if a woman’s choice is to say, kill her husband, then I must support the woman’s choice to murder her husband, which then results in a "truly free and democratic society". Got it.
There you have it folks, moral relativism at its finest.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Of course, sex selection is a huge global problem as identified in a recent cover story in The Economist:
"In China the imbalance between the sexes was 108 boys to 100 girls for the generation born in the late 1980s; for the generation of the early 2000s, it was 124 to 100. In some Chinese provinces the ratio is an unprecedented 130 to 100. The destruction is worst in China but has spread far beyond. Other East Asian countries, including Taiwan and Singapore, former communist states in the western Balkans and the Caucasus, and even sections of America’s population (Chinese- and Japanese-Americans, for example): all these have distorted sex ratios. Gendercide exists on almost every continent. It affects rich and poor; educated and illiterate; Hindu, Muslim, Confucian and Christian alike."
Note that this story is prefaced with the fact that the Economist is pro-choice, yet they call this tragedy Gendercide.
Kelly McParland argues in the National Post that:
"if the right to choose is absolute, what's the big deal about sex selection...if a fetus isn't human, its sex becomes irrelevant. You can't have it both ways."
Touche. Now that we've gone down the slippery 24/7 abortion slope, for those who think unborn babies aren't human, why should we even care if 100 million babies are destroyed through sex selection?
Then we have Joyce Arthur who claims that it is 'paternalistic' to withhold information such as gender from the pregnant woman:
"To restrict people's freedoms, withholding information in that way, I think is unethical and unnecessary and is not going to prevent anything," Ms. Arthur said. "It's a little bit paternalistic and authoritarian."
That's rich -- this from someone who screams at informing women of the true risks of abortion, and the well-developed stage of the fetus.
Arthur doesn't want the doctor to withhold the sex of the baby from the mother. But please, do refrain from telling the same mother about the excruciating pain for the baby in a second trimester abortion, or how the mother will increase her risk of breast cancer, or...etc. etc. etc.
Yup, you can't have it both ways.
Monday, April 12, 2010
In typically Dawkinsesque fashion, Dawkins began his most recent attack on Catholics with some pretty slanderous statements against Pope Benedict that were presumably warm up exercises for his and Hitchens' current campaign to attack religion.
I have a better idea.
Let's arrest Dawkins and Hitchens. For international crimes against humanity. For the religious persecution of over 1 billion Catholics in the world.
The International Criminal Court's definition of crimes against humanity--which Dawkins et all hope to use against Pope Benedict--includes religious persecution.
"The definition of crimes against humanity contained in the Nürnberg Charter included the requirement that the prohibited acts be committed in connection with crimes against peace or war crimes. A decision has yet to be made as to whether the definition of crimes against humanity contained in the Statute will also include such acts when committed in peacetime. In this regard, the Yugoslavia Tribunal stated, 'it is by now a settled rule of customary international law that crimes against humanity do not require a connection to international armed conflict...Persecution against a group on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural or religious (and possibly gender) grounds".
It's time to turn the tables on these radical atheist extremists.
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Right off the bat, "Catholics" do not support abortion, so saying "we as Catholics...urge you to reconsider this position and remedy it at the earliest possible opportunity" is an illogical sentence, so it must be thrown out.
Then the group quotes some US undefined study saying 97% of Catholics use contraception, but no reference to who did the study or when. So we can throw that out too.
Their letter then states:
"Bishops around the world have reaffirmed the right of Catholics to follow their consciences on the birth control decision. In the wake of the Vatican’s 1968 declaration on the impermissibility of contraceptive use, Canadian bishops released a statement saying that Catholics who tried ‘sincerely but without success’ to follow the teaching ‘may be safely assured that whoever honestly chooses the course which seems right to him does so in good conscience.’"
This comes from a Winnipeg Statement issued in 1968 by Canadian Bishops. But in 2008, a pastoral letter by the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops called Liberating Potential was issued, and was in conformity with Humanae Vitae:
It invited all to "to discover or rediscover" its message and then stated:
"Abortion, sterilization and contraception are in opposition to the Creator’s intention at the heart of sexual intercourse, preventing, if God so desires, the creation of a unique soul for the unique body that the spouses help to form."
This pastoral letter supersedes the Winnipeg Statement, so again, we can ignore the part that says that Canadian Bishops support contraception.
But then the letter writers make the inevitable pro-choice magical leap from contraception--which was just a red herring that these "Catholics" hoped we wouldn't notice---to the heart of what this letter is really all about, abortion:
"Maternal mortality can be alleviated through wider access to comprehensive reproductive health care services. It is a basic human right and a matter of social justice to provide women and men access to family planning and abortion services and information to prevent unplanned and high-risk pregnancies. "
So we’ve come full circle. Since Catholics don’t support abortion (as I pointed out at the outset), we--and Mr. Harper--can confidently throw out the whole letter without even breaking into a sweat.
Monday, April 5, 2010
In January 2010, I argued that we should applaud and support these CPCs, not ridicule and deride them: http://www.lifenews.com/int1440.html
Even though there are tons of reasons why Canadians should support Crisis Pregnancy Centres, I have learned an even more scandalous piece of information about Pro-Can and their sorry report.
By way of Access to Information and Privacy (ATIP) requests to Status of Women Canada (SWC), I found out that this extreme radical group received funding from SWC to the tune of $27,400 to write this abortion manifesto. I also learned that SWC has never given any funding to CPCs.
And there's more.
First, on Pro-Can's Application for funding, under "Goals and Objectives" appears this gem:
``[the goal of this project is to] ..publicly expose the anti-woman and anti-feminist agenda of CPCs...and by doing so, work to mitigate discriminatory attitudes towards women...work to promote institutional change by ensuring that health organizations such as hospitals, clinics, and doctors' offices do not inappropriately refer women to CPC's, and instead have feminist-based alternatives to which they can refer women."CPCs are clearly not anti-women or anti-feminist. And please don't tell me that Canadians expect our doctors to refer pregnant women to abortion clinics ``instead`` of CPCs. How outrageous is that?
Second, funding was supposedly provided because there was a "public education" component to the grant. A report that demeans and attacks crisis pregnancy centres, based on biased research can hardly be considered "public education".
Third, Pro-Can never publicly acknowledged the funding they received. Yet, on their Application form, under the heading "Declaration and Undertaking" the applicant clearly makes the following declaration:
"I am authorized by the organization to sign this application. I am taking responsibility to ensure that the organization agrees to the following declaration and undertaking...The organization agrees to publicly acknowledge any financial or other assistance provided by SWC".
Fourth, in SWC's Recommendation for Approval under "If Applicable, how does this initiative link to government wide priorities and international commitments" is the following very disturbing statements:
"As stated by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. V. Morgentaler (1988), under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, women have the right to therapeutic abortions but when crisis pregnancy centres disseminate misinformation to pregnant women, they in effect circumscribe women's full Charter rights. Through this initiative, the government of Canada is fulfilling its court ascribed duty to ensure women have full reproductive choice by informing the public of the diversity of perspectives on abortion."
As everyone knows, the Morgenatler ruling only struck down the existing abortion law; it never granted a "full Charter right" to abortion. So funding to Pro-Can was recommended based on a false premise.
If CPCs save lives, and abortion destroys lives; why did our government fund these radical feminists, but not crisis pregnancy centres?
That, my friend, is the $27,400 question.