Thursday, Aug 30, 2012
The ABC’s of Motion M-312 – Abortion, Bioethics & the Canadian Medical Association
Thursday, August 30, 2012 at 2:53PM
By Don Hutchinson
Let’s not debate abortion just now. I won’t deny that both the EFC and I are unabashedly pro-life. Such a denial would be foolish because that position is both well stated and well documented. But let’s not debate abortion or euthanasia or assisted suicide or any of those other pro-life issues just now. Let’s consider Motion M-312 as introduced by Kitchener Centre MP Stephen Woodworth:
That a special committee of the House be appointed and directed to review the declaration in Subsection 223(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada which states that a child becomes a human being only at the moment of complete birth and to answer the questions hereinafter set forth;
that the membership of the special committee consist of twelve members which shall include seven members from the government party, four members from the Official Opposition and one member from the Liberal Party, provided that the Chair shall be from the government party;
that the members to serve on the said committee be appointed by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and the membership report of the special committee be presented to the House no later than 20 sitting days after the adoption of this motion; that substitutions to the membership of the special committee be allowed, if required, in the manner provided by Standing Order 114(2); that the special committee have all the powers of a Standing Committee as provided in the Standing Orders; and that the special committee present its final report to the House of Commons within 10 months after the adoption of this motion with answers to the following questions,
(i) what medical evidence exists to demonstrate that a child is or is not a human being before the moment of complete birth?,
(ii) is the preponderance of medical evidence consistent with the declaration in Subsection 223(1) that a child is only a human being at the moment of complete birth?,
(iii) what are the legal impact and consequences of Subsection 223(1) on the fundamental human rights of a child before the moment of complete birth?,
(iv) what are the options available to Parliament in the exercise of its legislative authority in accordance with the Constitution and decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada to affirm, amend, or replace Subsection 223(1)?
Mr. Woodworth is also a pro-lifer. He’s made no secret of that. However, his motion is not about abortion (some call it the “a-word” because they seem to fear even uttering it under their breath) but about a bigger question, “How does Canadian law define ‘human being’ and how does that definition impact Canadian life beyond a sub-paragraph in the Criminal Code?” Not only is a big question being asked, but it’s being asked in the House of Commons where the Canadian legal definition of ‘human being’ resides, according to the Supreme Court of Canada’s interpretation of our constitution.
Mr. Woodworth hasn’t proposed a change in the law, but a study of the law by a committee of MPs composed and functioning in the usual manner and structure of Parliamentary committees (plenty of opportunity for pro-lifers and pro-choicers to be appointed members and/or alternates) – with the committee to report back to Parliament, also in the usual manner of Parliamentary committees.
For those who have expressed concern that this is a backdoor to reopening the debate on the a-word, it is simple enough to observe that the debate on abortion has not stopped in Parliament (with well over a dozen related private members actions by either motion or bill over the last two decades) – where the Supreme Court of Canada said in R v Morgentaler (1988) the debate belongs; the Supreme Court of Canada has continued to hear cases dealing directly with maternal rights issues, the (non-existent) rights of the pre-born child and the interest of the state in the life of a pre-born child; and, the debate has continued in public through voices on both sides of the issue with strong commentary in the traditional and non-traditional media on an ongoing basis. I fully expect that there will be those who would wish to make submission to the committee who will address the issue of abortion. But the questions posed are bigger than abortion and the mandate is more fundamental to Canadian law.
The motion proposes a study of a key matter for bioethics. I was on the elevator in our building with an obviously pregnant woman and the following brief conversation took place:
Me: Congratulations. I see you’re pregnant. Are you hoping to have a human being?
Woman: What?
Me: As the law currently stands in Canada, your baby isn’t considered a human being until he or she fully emerges from your body. I’m a lawyer studying this issue and am interested in your reaction to finding out your child isn’t a human being yet.
She looked quizzical as she left the elevator. I elected not to follow, discretion perhaps being the better part of valour.
As a matter of simple bioethics, the status of the child in the womb is important to medical considerations and scientific experimentation (including eugenics, sex selection, assisted reproduction and legal debates over stored genetic materials). That brings me to the C in this list of the simple ABCs.
On August 15, 2012, the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) passed a resolution that states:
The Canadian Medical Association favours maintaining subsection 223 (1) of the Criminal Code, which states that a child “becomes a human being within the meaning of this Act when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother […].”
This resolution could easily have been drafted and proposed by the Canadian Medical Protective Association (CMPA) – the insurance and legal defense side of medical practice in Canada. Who else would have come up with such a self-serving idea? The CMPA has been representing doctors in the courts for over a century – including arguing that there is no entitlement to damages for medical actions that result in the death of a child that does not survive to become a human being as defined in subsection 223 (1) of the Criminal Code. For those doctors engaged in surgery on the child in the womb, abortion procedures (where care is taken to make sure the child will not breath outside the mother’s body and become a human being lest it be entitled to protection under the law) and other pre-birth foetal engagement, the measure of legal protection is seemingly absolute as long as the child does not completely proceed in a living state from the body of its mother.
Doctors and scientists are dealing with genetic material, embryos and pre-born children as human, in the context of a law that says “not human beings.” The CMA’s own guidelines note that at 20 weeks gestation the child is capable of becoming a legal “human being,” i.e. it can survive outside the mother’s body, and as such it is ethically wrong to perform an abortion after that point. (It’s kind of bizarre that we Canadians are living with a law that describes a child as a “child” while in the womb but not a “human being” until it has emerged from its mother’s body as subsection 223 (1) does.)
Mr. Woodworth’s motion raises the question, “Are we living with an arbitrary legal fiction about what is and is not human?” As such, the proposed committee would have the opportunity to examine when being human begins, including recent efforts to advocate that “human being” should begin at some point after birth; as in Holland for infanticide of children born with evident “defects” or as suggested in this article from the Journal of Medical Ethics, perhaps as late as 3 years after birth.
I agree with Margaret Somerville, director of the McGill University Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law, “that we need to recover our sense of amazement, wonder and awe at the creation of new human life” and, as she suggests, we need to have this in-depth discussion. The place for the discussion as proposed by Mr. Woodworth – and as recommended by the Supreme Court of Canada – would be Parliament, using the usual means of Parliamentary study to engage with the public in examination of Parliament’s own law that is founded in the medical science of 400 years past. No backdoors, only an open front door for all to see and have opportunity to participate in a routine legislative review that is apparently centuries overdue.
Friday, August 31, 2012
Blue skying about a pro-life leader in Canada
LifeNews has reported that Mitt Romney said “As President I will Protect the Sanctity of Human Life".
"Mitt Romney made the pledge Thursday night during his GOP presidential nomination acceptance speech that pro-life Americans wanted to hear. Romney not only promised he would be a pro-life president but said he would affirm the freedom of religion that has been under attack by the Obama pro-abortion HHS mandate.
“As president, I will protect the sanctity of life. I will honor the institution of marriage. And I will guarantee America’s first liberty: the freedom of religion,” he said."
Can you imagine a Canadian politician, standing on a podium, in front of an election, speaking to millions of people, boldly saying, that he or she "will protect the sanctity of life"?
Can you imagine any of our political leaders doing that? Can you imagine Stephen Harper saying that? How about Dalton Mcguinty? What about Bob Rae or Tim Hudak? Nope, I can't either.
What about the rest of Canada, do they have a party leader who would stand up and tell us that they will "protect the sanctity of life"? I don't know, if there is one, I'd sure like to know who they are.
Maybe the next leader of the Federal Conservatives will stand up and say that. Or who knows, maybe even the next leader of the Liberals will stand up and say that. Don't laugh.
If Mr. Harper, who many used to think was pro-life, can turn his back on the pre-born amongst us, then surely a Liberal who nobody would ever expect to be pro-life, could surprise us all and say he or she would support the sanctity of life. It could happen.
And then something even weirder could happen. Social Conservatives might finally have someone they can vote for. And it won't be a Conservative.
Imagine that.
"Mitt Romney made the pledge Thursday night during his GOP presidential nomination acceptance speech that pro-life Americans wanted to hear. Romney not only promised he would be a pro-life president but said he would affirm the freedom of religion that has been under attack by the Obama pro-abortion HHS mandate.
“As president, I will protect the sanctity of life. I will honor the institution of marriage. And I will guarantee America’s first liberty: the freedom of religion,” he said."
Can you imagine a Canadian politician, standing on a podium, in front of an election, speaking to millions of people, boldly saying, that he or she "will protect the sanctity of life"?
Can you imagine any of our political leaders doing that? Can you imagine Stephen Harper saying that? How about Dalton Mcguinty? What about Bob Rae or Tim Hudak? Nope, I can't either.
What about the rest of Canada, do they have a party leader who would stand up and tell us that they will "protect the sanctity of life"? I don't know, if there is one, I'd sure like to know who they are.
Maybe the next leader of the Federal Conservatives will stand up and say that. Or who knows, maybe even the next leader of the Liberals will stand up and say that. Don't laugh.
If Mr. Harper, who many used to think was pro-life, can turn his back on the pre-born amongst us, then surely a Liberal who nobody would ever expect to be pro-life, could surprise us all and say he or she would support the sanctity of life. It could happen.
And then something even weirder could happen. Social Conservatives might finally have someone they can vote for. And it won't be a Conservative.
Imagine that.
Tuesday, August 28, 2012
Agnosticism is impossible
I am reading a fascinating book by Peter Kreeft on the writings of Blaise Pascal Christianity for Modern Pagans: Pascal's Pensées.
Kreeft's premise is that most Christian Apologetics are written for believers, whereas Pascal wrote for non-believers.
One excerpt I already posted was Why happy atheists are destined for unhappiness eternally.
I have read a couple of Peter Kreeft's books (all excellent), and he lists them all on his site.
Both these men are awesome writers and Christian apologetics.
Then as I was googling Pascal, I found this site of Kreeft's.
His essays are here.
There is an essay on "The argument from Pascal's Wager", "Hell", "The argument from design", "The Argument from Conscience", "The problem of Evil", and others. His essays are a couple of pages long and easy to read.
Because I am currently reading Kreeft on Pascal, I loved Kreefts' essay on the Pascal's famous Wager. Remember that this argument was written for sceptics. Here's a bit from Kreeft on Pascal's wager:
"...The most powerful part of Pascal's argument comes next. It is not his refutation of atheism as a foolish wager (that comes last) but his refutation of agnosticism as impossible. Agnosticism, not-knowing, maintaining a sceptical, uncommitted attitude, seems to be the most reasonable option. The agnostic says, "The right thing is not to wager at all." Pascal replies, "But you must wager. There is no choice. You are already committed [embarked]." We are not outside observers of life, but participants. We are like ships that need to get home, sailing past a port that has signs on it proclaiming that it is our true home and our true happiness. The ships are our own lives and the signs on the port say "God". The agnostic says he will neither put in at that port (believe) nor turn away from it (disbelieve) but stay anchored a reasonable distance away until the weather clears and he can see better whether this is the true port or a fake (for there are a lot of fakes around). Why is this attitude unreasonable, even impossible? Because we are moving. The ship of life is moving along the waters of time, and there comes a point of no return, when our fuel runs out, when it is too late. The Wager works because of the fact of death."
He ends the essay with the following:
"An atheist visited the great rabbi and philosopher Martin Buber and demanded that Buber prove the existence of God to him. Buber refused, and the atheist got up to leave in anger. As he left, Buber called after him, "But can you be sure there is no God?" That atheist wrote, forty years later, "I am still an atheist. But Buber's question has haunted me every day of my life." The Wager has just that haunting power."
I wonder if Joyce Arthur, a self proclaimed atheist, has ever read Kreeft or Pascal?
Kreeft's premise is that most Christian Apologetics are written for believers, whereas Pascal wrote for non-believers.
One excerpt I already posted was Why happy atheists are destined for unhappiness eternally.
I have read a couple of Peter Kreeft's books (all excellent), and he lists them all on his site.
Both these men are awesome writers and Christian apologetics.
Then as I was googling Pascal, I found this site of Kreeft's.
His essays are here.
There is an essay on "The argument from Pascal's Wager", "Hell", "The argument from design", "The Argument from Conscience", "The problem of Evil", and others. His essays are a couple of pages long and easy to read.
Because I am currently reading Kreeft on Pascal, I loved Kreefts' essay on the Pascal's famous Wager. Remember that this argument was written for sceptics. Here's a bit from Kreeft on Pascal's wager:
"...The most powerful part of Pascal's argument comes next. It is not his refutation of atheism as a foolish wager (that comes last) but his refutation of agnosticism as impossible. Agnosticism, not-knowing, maintaining a sceptical, uncommitted attitude, seems to be the most reasonable option. The agnostic says, "The right thing is not to wager at all." Pascal replies, "But you must wager. There is no choice. You are already committed [embarked]." We are not outside observers of life, but participants. We are like ships that need to get home, sailing past a port that has signs on it proclaiming that it is our true home and our true happiness. The ships are our own lives and the signs on the port say "God". The agnostic says he will neither put in at that port (believe) nor turn away from it (disbelieve) but stay anchored a reasonable distance away until the weather clears and he can see better whether this is the true port or a fake (for there are a lot of fakes around). Why is this attitude unreasonable, even impossible? Because we are moving. The ship of life is moving along the waters of time, and there comes a point of no return, when our fuel runs out, when it is too late. The Wager works because of the fact of death."
He ends the essay with the following:
"An atheist visited the great rabbi and philosopher Martin Buber and demanded that Buber prove the existence of God to him. Buber refused, and the atheist got up to leave in anger. As he left, Buber called after him, "But can you be sure there is no God?" That atheist wrote, forty years later, "I am still an atheist. But Buber's question has haunted me every day of my life." The Wager has just that haunting power."
I wonder if Joyce Arthur, a self proclaimed atheist, has ever read Kreeft or Pascal?
Sunday, August 26, 2012
How the Ontario Conservatives failed us
Bill 122, the Broader Public Sector Accountability Act, made all information on abortion services secret in Ontario.
This is an anti-democracy bill and the Opposition Conservatives did nothing to stop it from passing; there was no debate about the abortion exclusion clause in the Legislature.
On third reading and passing of the Bill, only 15 of 36 Conservative MPPs voted against it (see full list of MPPS below and how they voted). The ayes were 57; the the nays were 15.
Both Mr. Hudak and PC Health critic Christine Elliott didn't vote. Why didn’t they? And where were the rest of the Conservative MPPs that day, and why did they not vote against the Bill either?
The total seats in the Ontario Legislature is 107 yet there were only 72 votes cast, meaning 35 of yours and my MPPS, didn't vote.
Why didn’t Mr. Hudak do anything to stop this bill from passing? Why didn't he alert Ontarians about its repercussions? Why didn’t he work with the NDP to defeat the Bill? Why didn't he do something, anything?
The Right Honourable Beverley McLachlin, P.C., Chief Justice of Canada said regarding Access to Information in Canadian Democracy:
“...Informed voting depends on informed debate. Parliament and the executive branch derive their power from the people, who exercise that power by voting for or against particular people at the ballot box. For the people to effectively participate and vote, they must know and understand what the government is doing. Laws are published. But without additional information, the people cannot know how the executive branch of government is administering those laws – what the government is actually doing. And without that knowledge, informed debate is impossible. Accountable, transparent governance thus depends on the people having information about what the government is doing...
...information itself – or the possibility of information coming to light – acts as a check on abuse of powers. Public opinion and debate operate as an immediate check on potential abuse of government power..."
There are two hard lessons here for us.
First. Ms. McLachlin is talking about citizens and how democracy is undermined when we are prohibited from accessing government information. This is exactly what we are now facing with the blackout of all information around abortion services. When a government ceases to be "accountable and transparent" we have no idea "what the government is actually doing". This has tragically come to pass in Ontario.
Second. Think about how Ms. McLachlin's words also apply to our MPPS, and the hair on the back of your neck will stand up. The statement “Informed voting depends on informed debate” is a direct message to our opposition MPPs, whose very reason to exist, is to keep the government accountable. The Conservatives failed to do this. They had no idea what was going on; they weren’t informed; they didn’t vote; and they didn’t debate. The result: abuse of power by a government who made a stealth attack on the people of Ontario because the opposition was asleep at the switch.
Democracy is pointless if we don’t practice it.
How the MPPs voted.
Here are the names of the Conservative MPPs who did bother to vote against the bill on Dec. 2, 2010:
Arnott, Ted
Bailey, Robert
Barrett, Toby
Chudleigh, Ted
Dunlop, Garfield
Hardeman, Ernie
Jones, Sylvia
Miller, Norm
Munro, Julia
Ouellette, Jerry J.
Savoline, Joyce
Shurman, Peter
Wilson, Jim
Witmer, Elizabeth
Yakabuski, John
Good for them.
And these MPPs voted for the Bill:
Aggelonitis, Sophia
Albanese, Laura
Arthurs, Wayne
Balkissoon, Bas
Bartolucci, Rick
Bentley, Christopher
Bisson, Gilles
Brown, Michael A.
Cansfield, Donna H.
Chan, Michael
Chiarelli, Bob
Colle, Mike
Crozier, Bruce
Delaney, Bob
Dickson, Joe
DiNovo, Cheri
Dombrowsky, Leona
Duncan, Dwight
Flynn, Kevin Daniel
Fonseca, Peter
Gerretsen, John
Hampton, Howard
Hoskins, Eric
Hoy, Pat
Jaczek, Helena
Johnson, Rick
Kormos, Peter
Kular, Kuldip
Lalonde, Jean-Marc
Leal, Jeff
Levac, Dave
Marchese, Rosario
Matthews, Deborah
McGuinty, Dalton
McNeely, Phil
Meilleur, Madeleine
Miller, Paul
Milloy, John
Mitchell, Carol
Moridi, Reza
Murray, Glen R.
Naqvi, Yasir
Orazietti, David
Phillips, Gerry
Prue, Michael
Pupatello, Sandra
Ramal, Khalil
Rinaldi, Lou
Ruprecht, Tony
Sandals, Liz
Smith, Monique
Sousa, Charles
Takhar, Harinder S.
Van Bommel, Maria
Wilkinson, John
Wynne, Kathleen O.
Zimmer, David
If you feel inclined, you can contact your MPP here.
This is an anti-democracy bill and the Opposition Conservatives did nothing to stop it from passing; there was no debate about the abortion exclusion clause in the Legislature.
On third reading and passing of the Bill, only 15 of 36 Conservative MPPs voted against it (see full list of MPPS below and how they voted). The ayes were 57; the the nays were 15.
Both Mr. Hudak and PC Health critic Christine Elliott didn't vote. Why didn’t they? And where were the rest of the Conservative MPPs that day, and why did they not vote against the Bill either?
The total seats in the Ontario Legislature is 107 yet there were only 72 votes cast, meaning 35 of yours and my MPPS, didn't vote.
Why didn’t Mr. Hudak do anything to stop this bill from passing? Why didn't he alert Ontarians about its repercussions? Why didn’t he work with the NDP to defeat the Bill? Why didn't he do something, anything?
The Right Honourable Beverley McLachlin, P.C., Chief Justice of Canada said regarding Access to Information in Canadian Democracy:
“...Informed voting depends on informed debate. Parliament and the executive branch derive their power from the people, who exercise that power by voting for or against particular people at the ballot box. For the people to effectively participate and vote, they must know and understand what the government is doing. Laws are published. But without additional information, the people cannot know how the executive branch of government is administering those laws – what the government is actually doing. And without that knowledge, informed debate is impossible. Accountable, transparent governance thus depends on the people having information about what the government is doing...
...information itself – or the possibility of information coming to light – acts as a check on abuse of powers. Public opinion and debate operate as an immediate check on potential abuse of government power..."
There are two hard lessons here for us.
First. Ms. McLachlin is talking about citizens and how democracy is undermined when we are prohibited from accessing government information. This is exactly what we are now facing with the blackout of all information around abortion services. When a government ceases to be "accountable and transparent" we have no idea "what the government is actually doing". This has tragically come to pass in Ontario.
Second. Think about how Ms. McLachlin's words also apply to our MPPS, and the hair on the back of your neck will stand up. The statement “Informed voting depends on informed debate” is a direct message to our opposition MPPs, whose very reason to exist, is to keep the government accountable. The Conservatives failed to do this. They had no idea what was going on; they weren’t informed; they didn’t vote; and they didn’t debate. The result: abuse of power by a government who made a stealth attack on the people of Ontario because the opposition was asleep at the switch.
Democracy is pointless if we don’t practice it.
How the MPPs voted.
Here are the names of the Conservative MPPs who did bother to vote against the bill on Dec. 2, 2010:
Arnott, Ted
Bailey, Robert
Barrett, Toby
Chudleigh, Ted
Dunlop, Garfield
Hardeman, Ernie
Jones, Sylvia
Miller, Norm
Munro, Julia
Ouellette, Jerry J.
Savoline, Joyce
Shurman, Peter
Wilson, Jim
Witmer, Elizabeth
Yakabuski, John
Good for them.
And these MPPs voted for the Bill:
Aggelonitis, Sophia
Albanese, Laura
Arthurs, Wayne
Balkissoon, Bas
Bartolucci, Rick
Bentley, Christopher
Bisson, Gilles
Brown, Michael A.
Cansfield, Donna H.
Chan, Michael
Chiarelli, Bob
Colle, Mike
Crozier, Bruce
Delaney, Bob
Dickson, Joe
DiNovo, Cheri
Dombrowsky, Leona
Duncan, Dwight
Flynn, Kevin Daniel
Fonseca, Peter
Gerretsen, John
Hampton, Howard
Hoskins, Eric
Hoy, Pat
Jaczek, Helena
Johnson, Rick
Kormos, Peter
Kular, Kuldip
Lalonde, Jean-Marc
Leal, Jeff
Levac, Dave
Marchese, Rosario
Matthews, Deborah
McGuinty, Dalton
McNeely, Phil
Meilleur, Madeleine
Miller, Paul
Milloy, John
Mitchell, Carol
Moridi, Reza
Murray, Glen R.
Naqvi, Yasir
Orazietti, David
Phillips, Gerry
Prue, Michael
Pupatello, Sandra
Ramal, Khalil
Rinaldi, Lou
Ruprecht, Tony
Sandals, Liz
Smith, Monique
Sousa, Charles
Takhar, Harinder S.
Van Bommel, Maria
Wilkinson, John
Wynne, Kathleen O.
Zimmer, David
If you feel inclined, you can contact your MPP here.
Friday, August 24, 2012
Why happy atheists are destined for unhappiness eternally
Peter Kreeft on Pascal's Pensées (from his book Christianity for Modern Pagans)
Pascal is in Red and Kreeft is in Blue
Pascal's Pensée [12]
Order. Men despise religion. They hate it and are afraid it may be true. The cure for this is first [I] to show that religion is not contrary to reason, but worthy of reverence and respect.
Next [2] make it attractive, make good men wish it were true, and then [3] show that it is.
Worthy of reverence because it really understands human nature.
Attractive because it promises true good.
The root of most atheism is not argument but attitude, not intellection but feeling, not the love of truth but the fear of truth...The point—that atheism's origin is not intellectual but volitional and moral-follows from Christ's promise that all who seek (God) will find (him). For unless this promise is a lie, and Christ a liar, there can be only two causes for not having found God, that is, for unbelief: (I) not seeking him, or (2) time. For eventually, however long the delay, all seekers find. See no. 160...
Pascal's Pensée [160]
There are only three sorts of people: those who have found God and serve him; those who are busy seeking him and have not found him; those who live without either seeking or finding him. The first are reasonable and happy, the last are foolish and unhappy, those in the middle are unhappy and reasonable.
There is no fourth class, none who find God without ever seeking him.
Group I are believers. They are "reasonable" or wise or sane because they seek and happy because they have found.
Group 2 are unhappy atheists and agnostics. They are "reasonable" because they seek and unhappy because they have not yet found.
Group 3 are the happy atheists. They are "unreasonable", foolish, spiritually insane, because they do not even seek the truth; and they are unhappy (forever!) because they do not find.
Thus, paradoxically, unhappy atheists are destined for happiness eternally, and happy atheists are destined for unhappiness eternally (just as Jesus said in Luke 6:21-26).
The great divide, the eternal divide, is not between theists and atheists, or between happiness and unhappiness, but tween seekers (lovers) and nonseekers (nonlovers) of the Truth (for God is Truth). Thus it is the heart and not the head that determines our eternal destiny.
We all instinctively know this is right.
Pascal is in Red and Kreeft is in Blue
Pascal's Pensée [12]
Order. Men despise religion. They hate it and are afraid it may be true. The cure for this is first [I] to show that religion is not contrary to reason, but worthy of reverence and respect.
Next [2] make it attractive, make good men wish it were true, and then [3] show that it is.
Worthy of reverence because it really understands human nature.
Attractive because it promises true good.
The root of most atheism is not argument but attitude, not intellection but feeling, not the love of truth but the fear of truth...The point—that atheism's origin is not intellectual but volitional and moral-follows from Christ's promise that all who seek (God) will find (him). For unless this promise is a lie, and Christ a liar, there can be only two causes for not having found God, that is, for unbelief: (I) not seeking him, or (2) time. For eventually, however long the delay, all seekers find. See no. 160...
Pascal's Pensée [160]
There are only three sorts of people: those who have found God and serve him; those who are busy seeking him and have not found him; those who live without either seeking or finding him. The first are reasonable and happy, the last are foolish and unhappy, those in the middle are unhappy and reasonable.
There is no fourth class, none who find God without ever seeking him.
Group I are believers. They are "reasonable" or wise or sane because they seek and happy because they have found.
Group 2 are unhappy atheists and agnostics. They are "reasonable" because they seek and unhappy because they have not yet found.
Group 3 are the happy atheists. They are "unreasonable", foolish, spiritually insane, because they do not even seek the truth; and they are unhappy (forever!) because they do not find.
Thus, paradoxically, unhappy atheists are destined for happiness eternally, and happy atheists are destined for unhappiness eternally (just as Jesus said in Luke 6:21-26).
The great divide, the eternal divide, is not between theists and atheists, or between happiness and unhappiness, but tween seekers (lovers) and nonseekers (nonlovers) of the Truth (for God is Truth). Thus it is the heart and not the head that determines our eternal destiny.
We all instinctively know this is right.
CCBR and weneedaLAW talk about abortion
Does Canada have any legal protection for preborn children?
What kind of legal restrictions on abortion would a politician be willing to bring forward in Parliament? Would a politician be willing to bring forward a law that would ban all abortions? Would a politician be willing to bring forward a law that was not strongly supported by public opinion?
What about incremental or gestational law, is it a compromise? Should we save some babies when we can't save all babies? Does a gestational law give us something we don't have now? Does a gestational law introduce a new evil or limit an evil? Do we want to place some of the unprotected babies into the protected class?
What is the next step? How do we get support from Canadians and from the media for legal restrictions on abortion? What is our ultimate goal? How do we get there?
Listen to CCBR's podcast on abortion law: Jonathon Van Maren, Stephanie Gray, and guest Mike Schouten of We Need A Law.
Mike Shouten quotes Clark Forsythe, president of Americans United for Life, who said in an essay called "Is it immoral to be prudent?"
"Prudent political leaders must pursue a vision of complete justice - of complete legal protection for human life. But, in the democratic process, they must pursue the ideal in such a way that progress is made and with the willingness to accept something when all is not achievable due to social, legal, or political obstacles beyond their control."
What kind of legal restrictions on abortion would a politician be willing to bring forward in Parliament? Would a politician be willing to bring forward a law that would ban all abortions? Would a politician be willing to bring forward a law that was not strongly supported by public opinion?
What about incremental or gestational law, is it a compromise? Should we save some babies when we can't save all babies? Does a gestational law give us something we don't have now? Does a gestational law introduce a new evil or limit an evil? Do we want to place some of the unprotected babies into the protected class?
What is the next step? How do we get support from Canadians and from the media for legal restrictions on abortion? What is our ultimate goal? How do we get there?
Listen to CCBR's podcast on abortion law: Jonathon Van Maren, Stephanie Gray, and guest Mike Schouten of We Need A Law.
Mike Shouten quotes Clark Forsythe, president of Americans United for Life, who said in an essay called "Is it immoral to be prudent?"
"Prudent political leaders must pursue a vision of complete justice - of complete legal protection for human life. But, in the democratic process, they must pursue the ideal in such a way that progress is made and with the willingness to accept something when all is not achievable due to social, legal, or political obstacles beyond their control."
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
Ontario's stealth attack on FOI: the series
(Last updated December 23, 2012)
Below is all published information to date on the Ontario Government’s stealth attack on free and democratic access to information in this province. As we already know, all abortion information is now hidden from the public in Ontario. This is the only "medical procedure" affected by this change to FIPPA, which now excludes abortion services. The change itself was done in secret with no debate and nobody in the province was aware that it was happening until it was too late.
I will update this information on a regular basis. Please let me know if I've missed anything.
Dear Mr. Hudak, remember me? - December 14, 2012
Thank you Mr. Klees (Video of Andrea Mrozek and Faye Sonier and MPP Frank Klees) - November 15, 2012
Time for a change in Ontario politics - October 18, 2012
Suppression of Abortion Data in Ontario (video below)
EFC Legal Counsel Faye Sonier explains how abortion data is being withheld from the Ontario public. For more information on abortion data suppression in Ontario, British Columbia and problems with data reporting across Canada, download a copy of our report 'Black Holes: Canada's Missing Abortion Data' at www.theEFC.ca/blackholes
How the Ontario Conservatives failed us - August 26, 2012
EFC blasts government suppression of reliable abortion data by The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada - August 21, 2012
The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada has released a report on the suppression of Canadian Abortion Stats - Black Holes: Canada’s Missing Abortion Data - August 21, 2012
The Interim reports on EFC's report: Canada’s missing abortion statistics - August 21, 2012
Where are you Toronto Star and Globe and Mail cat got your tongue? (Includes link to Claire Hoy's article in the Caledon Citizen August 16, 2012) - August 17, 2012
Mr. McGuinty's hidden abortion agenda (includes links to the National Post letters to the editor) - August 13, 2012
How Ontario is hiding abortion statistics (includes links to Kelly McParland and National Post lead editorial and NP letters to the editor) - August 11, 2012
Hypocrisy behind Bill 122 by Lauren Klammer, Institute of Marriage and Family Canada - August 8, 2012
Access to abortion information denied in Ontario - June 16, 2012
Top secret abortion figures (Includes link to Barbara Kay's article in the National Post) - June 5, 2012
Mr. McGuinty...you have some explaining to do - May 25, 2012
Mr. Hudak where were you? (Includes link to Margaret Somerville's article in the Calgary Herald) - May 22, 2012
Brian Lilley talks out - May 11, 2012
Nick Vandergragt talks out - May 11, 2012
Freedom of Information in Ontario aborted - May 9, 2012
Below is all published information to date on the Ontario Government’s stealth attack on free and democratic access to information in this province. As we already know, all abortion information is now hidden from the public in Ontario. This is the only "medical procedure" affected by this change to FIPPA, which now excludes abortion services. The change itself was done in secret with no debate and nobody in the province was aware that it was happening until it was too late.
I will update this information on a regular basis. Please let me know if I've missed anything.
Dear Mr. Hudak, remember me? - December 14, 2012
Thank you Mr. Klees (Video of Andrea Mrozek and Faye Sonier and MPP Frank Klees) - November 15, 2012
Time for a change in Ontario politics - October 18, 2012
Suppression of Abortion Data in Ontario (video below)
EFC Legal Counsel Faye Sonier explains how abortion data is being withheld from the Ontario public. For more information on abortion data suppression in Ontario, British Columbia and problems with data reporting across Canada, download a copy of our report 'Black Holes: Canada's Missing Abortion Data' at www.theEFC.ca/blackholes
How the Ontario Conservatives failed us - August 26, 2012
EFC blasts government suppression of reliable abortion data by The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada - August 21, 2012
The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada has released a report on the suppression of Canadian Abortion Stats - Black Holes: Canada’s Missing Abortion Data - August 21, 2012
The Interim reports on EFC's report: Canada’s missing abortion statistics - August 21, 2012
Where are you Toronto Star and Globe and Mail cat got your tongue? (Includes link to Claire Hoy's article in the Caledon Citizen August 16, 2012) - August 17, 2012
Mr. McGuinty's hidden abortion agenda (includes links to the National Post letters to the editor) - August 13, 2012
How Ontario is hiding abortion statistics (includes links to Kelly McParland and National Post lead editorial and NP letters to the editor) - August 11, 2012
Hypocrisy behind Bill 122 by Lauren Klammer, Institute of Marriage and Family Canada - August 8, 2012
Access to abortion information denied in Ontario - June 16, 2012
Top secret abortion figures (Includes link to Barbara Kay's article in the National Post) - June 5, 2012
Mr. McGuinty...you have some explaining to do - May 25, 2012
Mr. Hudak where were you? (Includes link to Margaret Somerville's article in the Calgary Herald) - May 22, 2012
Brian Lilley talks out - May 11, 2012
Nick Vandergragt talks out - May 11, 2012
Freedom of Information in Ontario aborted - May 9, 2012
Saturday, August 18, 2012
This is my body
'Cosmo' girl vs. anti-abortion advocate
By Father Frank Pavone
Here is part of Fr. Pavone's article on the recent deaths of Helen Gurley Brown (writer of Sex and The Single Girl and for 32 years the editor of Cosmopolitan magazine) and Nellie Gray, ( lawyer who walked away from a successful career to found the March for Life):
"Two women whose worldviews couldn’t have been more divergent died just days apart, each leaving a dramatically different imprint on American society. Both sought to protect women’s rights but were on opposite sides of a cultural battle that has shaped the past half-century...
...Ironically, the same four words became a rallying cry for both women. The same simple words are spoken from opposite ends of the universe, with meanings directly contrary to each other.
“This is my body” describes the pro-choice, pro-abortion rights mentality in the most succinct way possible. I own this body and all its potential. I decide whether the child occupying space in my womb lives or dies. I answer to no one but myself.
“This is My Body” meant something entirely different to Gray, and to everyone involved in the anti-abortion work and advocacy. Those were the sacrificial words spoken by Jesus Christ.
But you don’t have to be Christian to understand Jesus’ message about love and selflessness. Christ teaches the meaning of love: I sacrifice myself for the good of the other person. Abortion teaches the opposite of love: I sacrifice the other person for the good of myself. Christ gives his body away so others might live; abortion-rights supporters cling to their own bodies so others might die.
Abortion divides Americans more profoundly than any other issue. Some say it is intractable. But maybe the reason is that we’re looking at it only as a battle to be won or lost on the political front. This is a deeper spiritual battle, perhaps embodied best by the very women who gave their lives to these respective causes."
Father Frank Pavone is the national director of Priests for Life.
By Father Frank Pavone
Here is part of Fr. Pavone's article on the recent deaths of Helen Gurley Brown (writer of Sex and The Single Girl and for 32 years the editor of Cosmopolitan magazine) and Nellie Gray, ( lawyer who walked away from a successful career to found the March for Life):
"Two women whose worldviews couldn’t have been more divergent died just days apart, each leaving a dramatically different imprint on American society. Both sought to protect women’s rights but were on opposite sides of a cultural battle that has shaped the past half-century...
...Ironically, the same four words became a rallying cry for both women. The same simple words are spoken from opposite ends of the universe, with meanings directly contrary to each other.
“This is my body” describes the pro-choice, pro-abortion rights mentality in the most succinct way possible. I own this body and all its potential. I decide whether the child occupying space in my womb lives or dies. I answer to no one but myself.
“This is My Body” meant something entirely different to Gray, and to everyone involved in the anti-abortion work and advocacy. Those were the sacrificial words spoken by Jesus Christ.
But you don’t have to be Christian to understand Jesus’ message about love and selflessness. Christ teaches the meaning of love: I sacrifice myself for the good of the other person. Abortion teaches the opposite of love: I sacrifice the other person for the good of myself. Christ gives his body away so others might live; abortion-rights supporters cling to their own bodies so others might die.
Abortion divides Americans more profoundly than any other issue. Some say it is intractable. But maybe the reason is that we’re looking at it only as a battle to be won or lost on the political front. This is a deeper spiritual battle, perhaps embodied best by the very women who gave their lives to these respective causes."
Father Frank Pavone is the national director of Priests for Life.
Friday, August 17, 2012
Where are you Toronto Star and Globe and Mail cat got your tongue?
Claire Hoy wrote a great piece in the National Affairs: It’s all politics, pure and simple about Ontario's hiding of all abortion statistics.
He wonders why we haven't heard from the Globe and Mail and the Toronto Star on this story that one would think would have all the news media crawling all over it.
The National Post has covered this story here and here, but nary a word from the Globe and Mail or the Toronto Star.
You know what I mean G&M and TS don't you? A really good news story, I'm sure you've heard of them. It's a story that people care about, that's topical, that has neat stuff in it like issues, like you know, like democracy and secrecy and intrigue and accountability (or lack thereof)? Stuff like that.
As Hoy points out:
"And speaking of newspaper coverage, as far as I can tell, both the Toronto Star and Globe and Mail, both editorially very proabortion, haven’t even bothered to report this story – odd, given the reams of coverage they gave last year when Stephen Harper announced an end to the long-form census. They treated this cutback on statistics as a national tragedy. But abortion statistics, hey, who cares? All of which goes to show that politicians have no monopoly on hypocrisy".
Indeed.
He wonders why we haven't heard from the Globe and Mail and the Toronto Star on this story that one would think would have all the news media crawling all over it.
The National Post has covered this story here and here, but nary a word from the Globe and Mail or the Toronto Star.
You know what I mean G&M and TS don't you? A really good news story, I'm sure you've heard of them. It's a story that people care about, that's topical, that has neat stuff in it like issues, like you know, like democracy and secrecy and intrigue and accountability (or lack thereof)? Stuff like that.
As Hoy points out:
"And speaking of newspaper coverage, as far as I can tell, both the Toronto Star and Globe and Mail, both editorially very proabortion, haven’t even bothered to report this story – odd, given the reams of coverage they gave last year when Stephen Harper announced an end to the long-form census. They treated this cutback on statistics as a national tragedy. But abortion statistics, hey, who cares? All of which goes to show that politicians have no monopoly on hypocrisy".
Indeed.
Big abortion and the CMA
The CMA has officially come out in support of maintaining a section of the Criminal Code that declares a child becomes a human being at the moment of birth.
One doctor, Dr. Genevieve Desbiens said this:
“I’m asking for you to recognize that women must retain their full and complete rights.”
Really? Can't the CMA do better than that? This "woman's rights" horse manure, really is getting too boring for words. Can't the feminists invent a new slogan? This one is just so 70's.
But here's what I cannot comprehend on any level. Shouldn't doctors know better than to say that the child is not a human being before the child is born? What exactly do they think is inside the mother's womb? A cat? A dog? A ten headed serpent? Why would a doctor do fetal surgery on a baby if not a human being, a real live person, a baby by any other name?
Oh yes I know, the CMA represents those other human beings (abortionists) who actually do the dirty deed to the defenseless human beings (the babies), so yeah, I guess it makes sense the CMA wouldn't want to admit that the children are human beings because that would be admitting some of their own colleagues are, you know, killers.
And sure, saying they support "women's rights" sounds so nice, so inclusive, so adorable. That will ease their guilty consciences, after all, how can anyone who supports "women's rights" be the bad guy?
If you'd like to read something that, God I pray, these doctors would actually spend five minutes out of their busy abortion schedule to read, it's this excerpt from Dave Andrusko (about fetal pain and testimony by a former abortion doctor) who does away with that rubbish lie and greatest urban legend of all time of "women's rights":
“Picture yourself reaching in with the Sopher clamp [an instrument for grasping and crushing tissue] grasping anything you can. At twenty-four weeks gestation, the uterus is thin and soft so be careful not to perforate or puncture the walls. Once you have grasped something inside, squeeze on the clamp to set the jaws and pull hard – really hard. You feel something let go and out pops a fully formed leg about six inches long. Reach in again and grasp whatever you can. Set the jaw and pull really hard once again and out pops an arm about the same length. Reach in again and again with that clamp and tear out the spine, intestines, heart and lungs.”
“you know you did it right if you crush down, a white material runs out of the cervix. That was the baby’s brains. Then you can pull out skull pieces. Many times a little face will come back and stare back at you…And if you think that doesn’t hurt, if you believe that isn’t an agony for the baby, please think again.”
It is becoming crystal clear to me what's going on here. An organization that has members who do the above described activity for a living wouldn't want to admit that what they are ripping tiny arms and legs from, and crushing the skulls of and spilling the brains out of are, you know, tiny defenseless human beings. Because if they admitted that, their consciences might compel them to stop--and then what would that do to that big old abortion industry ($70M in Ontario alone)?"
So no, we certainly cannot have that discussion. It's so much better for the CMA to worship at the abortion altar of "woman's rights," than to face a truth they simply cannot handle. A truth that slaps them in their conscience, and hits them in their pocket book. The truth about what an unborn child is.
One doctor, Dr. Genevieve Desbiens said this:
“I’m asking for you to recognize that women must retain their full and complete rights.”
Really? Can't the CMA do better than that? This "woman's rights" horse manure, really is getting too boring for words. Can't the feminists invent a new slogan? This one is just so 70's.
But here's what I cannot comprehend on any level. Shouldn't doctors know better than to say that the child is not a human being before the child is born? What exactly do they think is inside the mother's womb? A cat? A dog? A ten headed serpent? Why would a doctor do fetal surgery on a baby if not a human being, a real live person, a baby by any other name?
Oh yes I know, the CMA represents those other human beings (abortionists) who actually do the dirty deed to the defenseless human beings (the babies), so yeah, I guess it makes sense the CMA wouldn't want to admit that the children are human beings because that would be admitting some of their own colleagues are, you know, killers.
And sure, saying they support "women's rights" sounds so nice, so inclusive, so adorable. That will ease their guilty consciences, after all, how can anyone who supports "women's rights" be the bad guy?
If you'd like to read something that, God I pray, these doctors would actually spend five minutes out of their busy abortion schedule to read, it's this excerpt from Dave Andrusko (about fetal pain and testimony by a former abortion doctor) who does away with that rubbish lie and greatest urban legend of all time of "women's rights":
“Picture yourself reaching in with the Sopher clamp [an instrument for grasping and crushing tissue] grasping anything you can. At twenty-four weeks gestation, the uterus is thin and soft so be careful not to perforate or puncture the walls. Once you have grasped something inside, squeeze on the clamp to set the jaws and pull hard – really hard. You feel something let go and out pops a fully formed leg about six inches long. Reach in again and grasp whatever you can. Set the jaw and pull really hard once again and out pops an arm about the same length. Reach in again and again with that clamp and tear out the spine, intestines, heart and lungs.”
“you know you did it right if you crush down, a white material runs out of the cervix. That was the baby’s brains. Then you can pull out skull pieces. Many times a little face will come back and stare back at you…And if you think that doesn’t hurt, if you believe that isn’t an agony for the baby, please think again.”
It is becoming crystal clear to me what's going on here. An organization that has members who do the above described activity for a living wouldn't want to admit that what they are ripping tiny arms and legs from, and crushing the skulls of and spilling the brains out of are, you know, tiny defenseless human beings. Because if they admitted that, their consciences might compel them to stop--and then what would that do to that big old abortion industry ($70M in Ontario alone)?"
So no, we certainly cannot have that discussion. It's so much better for the CMA to worship at the abortion altar of "woman's rights," than to face a truth they simply cannot handle. A truth that slaps them in their conscience, and hits them in their pocket book. The truth about what an unborn child is.
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
A really important news story
You’d think the Globe and Mail would have more important things to write about than "wooly wombs." Like maybe the democracy crisis looming in Ontario with the government’s decision to perform all abortions in secret and the hiding of all abortion statistics.
But no. The Globe hasn’t covered that story yet. I guess they aren't interested in those kinds of news stories.
Instead they prefer to haul out that tired old outdated hobby horse about how some women won’t tolerate "any changes to women’s reproductive rights."
And how some of said women want to bring attention to that so-called, really boring actually, tired, should-be-put-down-hobby-horse, straight out of make believe land, you guessed it, the "right of a woman to have control over her own body."
Yawn. Is there something on the other channel?
But what these women really mean, but just can’t bring themselves to say because it is oh, so politically incorrect--is that what they really want is to have the right to have control over somebody’s else's body.
You see, in MP Stephen Woodworth’s motion M-312, Mr. Woodworth wants to have a discussion to study "Canada's 400 Year Old Definition of Human Being".
Sounds like a conversation worth having if you ask me even though I’m quite sure they won’t ask me but you get my drift.
So these wild west wooly womb knitters (try to say that with a mouthful of potatoes) don’t want to let Canadians have that discussion. Why? Well because...because...because they don’t want to discuss it. That’s all. Just because. Trust me.
Instead of giving us some really good arguments why we shouldn’t have this discussion in a democracy like Canada where we are used to having debates on most topics, present topic excluded, they knit wooly wombs.
And get this. They are going to send them to Parliament. Yes they are. I kid you not. That will change the course of history. No need for a good argument when a wooly womb will do.
I need to go now. I need to take a nap.
But no. The Globe hasn’t covered that story yet. I guess they aren't interested in those kinds of news stories.
Instead they prefer to haul out that tired old outdated hobby horse about how some women won’t tolerate "any changes to women’s reproductive rights."
Yawn. Is there something on the other channel?
But what these women really mean, but just can’t bring themselves to say because it is oh, so politically incorrect--is that what they really want is to have the right to have control over somebody’s else's body.
You see, in MP Stephen Woodworth’s motion M-312, Mr. Woodworth wants to have a discussion to study "Canada's 400 Year Old Definition of Human Being".
Sounds like a conversation worth having if you ask me even though I’m quite sure they won’t ask me but you get my drift.
So these wild west wooly womb knitters (try to say that with a mouthful of potatoes) don’t want to let Canadians have that discussion. Why? Well because...because...because they don’t want to discuss it. That’s all. Just because. Trust me.
Instead of giving us some really good arguments why we shouldn’t have this discussion in a democracy like Canada where we are used to having debates on most topics, present topic excluded, they knit wooly wombs.
And get this. They are going to send them to Parliament. Yes they are. I kid you not. That will change the course of history. No need for a good argument when a wooly womb will do.
I need to go now. I need to take a nap.
Monday, August 13, 2012
Mr. McGuinty's hidden abortion agenda
There are more letters today in the National Post on what the Ontario Government is doing with its secret abortion agenda: Ontario hiding abortion stats makes the issue even more sensitive.
You know, by the Ontario government deciding to hide abortion statistics, they may have inadvertently admitted there must be something wrong with abortion. Otherwise, why would they hide those statistics?
Is the Ontario government ashamed of its role in forcing Ontario taxpayers to pay $70,545,600 dollars (in 2010) for the 44,091 babies killed each year in the province?
And why is it that it is only abortion information that is being hidden? Is it because maybe abortion is not really just like any other medical procedure after all?
And does the Ontario public actually support using public funds to pay for future, very large, now unknown, number of elective procedures, that will now be done completely in secret?
In fact, one does not even need to be pro-life to support the view that they want to know what is being spent on abortion services in Ontario. All they need to be, is just pro-fiscally-responsible.
You know, by the Ontario government deciding to hide abortion statistics, they may have inadvertently admitted there must be something wrong with abortion. Otherwise, why would they hide those statistics?
Is the Ontario government ashamed of its role in forcing Ontario taxpayers to pay $70,545,600 dollars (in 2010) for the 44,091 babies killed each year in the province?
And why is it that it is only abortion information that is being hidden? Is it because maybe abortion is not really just like any other medical procedure after all?
And does the Ontario public actually support using public funds to pay for future, very large, now unknown, number of elective procedures, that will now be done completely in secret?
In fact, one does not even need to be pro-life to support the view that they want to know what is being spent on abortion services in Ontario. All they need to be, is just pro-fiscally-responsible.
Saturday, August 11, 2012
How Ontario is hiding abortion statistics
National Post is now covering how Ontario is hiding its abortion statistics.
This was in Friday's paper: Ontario cuts off access to abortion data
Here is my (unedited) response to this article in a letter to the editor published today:
"As reported today in the National Post, access to abortion related information in Ontario has been killed. As the article stated, I found this out when my own access to information to the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long term care was denied.
At that time, I wrote to both Mr. McGuinty and Mr. Hudak. I asked them why abortion services were the only "medical procedure" excluded from FIPPA, and why the exclusion clause was never debated or even mentioned in the Ontario Legislative Assembly. Because Mr. Hudak is leader of the opposition party, I also asked him why he didn't even bother to vote against the third reading of this bill, something one would expect the leader of the opposition to do, precisely because such a clause would seriously thwart a citizen's right to participate in democracy (regardless of whether the citizen be pro-choice or pro-life).
Mr. McGuinty made no comment and instead deflected the questions to Mr. Harinder S. Takhar, Minister of Government Services, who replied with what I refer to as a non-answer answer:
"A limited number of amendments to FIPPA were introduced in connection with the Broader Public Sector Accountability Act, 2010. These amendments, which came into force on January 1, 2012, were developed to assist hospitals maintain quality of care and the safety of staff and patients.
As with all other laws in this province, the amendments to FIPPA were passed by the Legislative Assembly of Ontario following debate in the legislature of the bill that introduced the Broader Public Sector Accountability Act, 2010 and after review by the legislature's Standing Committee on Social Policy."
Mr. Hudak never even bothered to reply to my questions."
If I may quote Pierre Trudeau: "Democratic progress requires the ready availability of true and complete information. In this way people can objectively evaluate their government's policy. To act otherwise is to give way to despotic secrecy."
More coverage in the National Post today:
Kelly McParland: Ontario judges abortion statistics too sensitive to share
NP Lead editorial:
Why Ontario hides abortion statistics
More letters from Jakki Jeffs, and André Schutten:
Citizens ready for abortion truth
This was in Friday's paper: Ontario cuts off access to abortion data
Here is my (unedited) response to this article in a letter to the editor published today:
"As reported today in the National Post, access to abortion related information in Ontario has been killed. As the article stated, I found this out when my own access to information to the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long term care was denied.
At that time, I wrote to both Mr. McGuinty and Mr. Hudak. I asked them why abortion services were the only "medical procedure" excluded from FIPPA, and why the exclusion clause was never debated or even mentioned in the Ontario Legislative Assembly. Because Mr. Hudak is leader of the opposition party, I also asked him why he didn't even bother to vote against the third reading of this bill, something one would expect the leader of the opposition to do, precisely because such a clause would seriously thwart a citizen's right to participate in democracy (regardless of whether the citizen be pro-choice or pro-life).
Mr. McGuinty made no comment and instead deflected the questions to Mr. Harinder S. Takhar, Minister of Government Services, who replied with what I refer to as a non-answer answer:
"A limited number of amendments to FIPPA were introduced in connection with the Broader Public Sector Accountability Act, 2010. These amendments, which came into force on January 1, 2012, were developed to assist hospitals maintain quality of care and the safety of staff and patients.
As with all other laws in this province, the amendments to FIPPA were passed by the Legislative Assembly of Ontario following debate in the legislature of the bill that introduced the Broader Public Sector Accountability Act, 2010 and after review by the legislature's Standing Committee on Social Policy."
Mr. Hudak never even bothered to reply to my questions."
If I may quote Pierre Trudeau: "Democratic progress requires the ready availability of true and complete information. In this way people can objectively evaluate their government's policy. To act otherwise is to give way to despotic secrecy."
More coverage in the National Post today:
Kelly McParland: Ontario judges abortion statistics too sensitive to share
NP Lead editorial:
Why Ontario hides abortion statistics
More letters from Jakki Jeffs, and André Schutten:
Citizens ready for abortion truth
Monday, August 6, 2012
The peace of abandonment to God's will--on a prison train to the labor camps
"...I thought again of that text: "The children of this world are wiser than the children of light." It seemed a peculiar thing to keep running through my mind, and yet a strange and exciting challenge for a priest-apostle on a prison train heading for the labor camps. The challenge seemed plain. Could my sacrifice, could my total dedication, could my stamina in doing the will of God be less than that of the children of this world? They knew that in order to survive a long sentence a man had to face and conquer one day at a time. Had I not resolved to see each day, one day at a time, as a gift of God within whose confines I was to accomplish his will? The prisoners survived by taking life as it came, rolling with the punches, hoping only to survive each day as it happened, one day at a time. Surely my motivation ought to help me see beyond that. Each day to me should be more than an obstacle to be gotten over, a span of time to be endured, a sequence of hours to be survived. For me, each day came forth from the hand of God newly created and alive with opportunities to do his will. For me, each day was a series of moments and incidents to be offered back to God, to be consecrated and returned in total dedication to his will. That was what my priesthood demanded of me, as it demanded of every Christian.
The children of this world were dedicated to surviving this life by whatever method possible. I, too, must be totally dedicated, but with an added dimension. I must not seek to avoid hardships or to soften their impact. I must see in them the will of God and through them work out my salvation. Otherwise, I would be acting rather as a child of this world than a child of light. I would be acting not out of faith but as a fatalist. I would have survived a series of moments, a succession of days, but I would have made nothing of them nor of myself. I resolved again, therefore, to accept each day and every moment as from God's hands, and to offer it back to him as best I could. I would not merely passively survive, like the children of this world, but with his help and his grace I would actively participate—and I would survive. I never doubted that, because I did not fear non-survival. Death would simply be a call to return to the God I served each day. My life was to do the will of God, as the prayer our Savior taught us put it quite simply, "On earth as in heaven." His will would determine how long I would spend on earth.
In such thoughts and prayers, peace returned. It was the peace, once again, that total abandonment to God's will brings. Only this time I was not in the quiet confines of a solitary cell in Lubianka, I was in the corner of a rough, jolting, profane prison car. My situation had not improved, but my disposition in the acceptance of God's will had returned. Along with it had come peace and a renewed confidence—not in my own ability to survive, but a total trust and confidence in God's ability to sustain me and provide me with whatever strength I needed to meet the challenges he would send me. What greater peace and confidence could I require? I even looked forward to laboring again in his vineyard..."
From Walter J. Ciszek's book He Leadeth me
The children of this world were dedicated to surviving this life by whatever method possible. I, too, must be totally dedicated, but with an added dimension. I must not seek to avoid hardships or to soften their impact. I must see in them the will of God and through them work out my salvation. Otherwise, I would be acting rather as a child of this world than a child of light. I would be acting not out of faith but as a fatalist. I would have survived a series of moments, a succession of days, but I would have made nothing of them nor of myself. I resolved again, therefore, to accept each day and every moment as from God's hands, and to offer it back to him as best I could. I would not merely passively survive, like the children of this world, but with his help and his grace I would actively participate—and I would survive. I never doubted that, because I did not fear non-survival. Death would simply be a call to return to the God I served each day. My life was to do the will of God, as the prayer our Savior taught us put it quite simply, "On earth as in heaven." His will would determine how long I would spend on earth.
In such thoughts and prayers, peace returned. It was the peace, once again, that total abandonment to God's will brings. Only this time I was not in the quiet confines of a solitary cell in Lubianka, I was in the corner of a rough, jolting, profane prison car. My situation had not improved, but my disposition in the acceptance of God's will had returned. Along with it had come peace and a renewed confidence—not in my own ability to survive, but a total trust and confidence in God's ability to sustain me and provide me with whatever strength I needed to meet the challenges he would send me. What greater peace and confidence could I require? I even looked forward to laboring again in his vineyard..."
From Walter J. Ciszek's book He Leadeth me
Sunday, August 5, 2012
Everything you wanted to know about Canada's abortion law but were afraid to ask
There's a really good debate going on over at LifeSiteNews on abortion incrementalism. It is in response to two articles posted there:
Permissions Evangelical College Prof: Biblically speaking, gestational approach unsupportable
To the gestational approach and back - a top pro-life leader’s journey
Now it is interesting to note that both these articles criticize a gestational approach to limiting abortion in Canada, and to date I have never read an article at LifeSiteNews in favour of the gestational approach. That being said, the debate is going on is spite of this, through readers who are commenting for, and against, this approach.
What struck me about the comments, is that many people think that Canada has no abortion law, because we have no statute law, per se, that restricts abortion.
But as one commenter, "Jeaneanne1306" points out, in 10 different ways, Canada does have an abortion law.
Here are excerpts from "Jeaneanne1306" comments for you to peruse and come to your own conclusions.
You can read the full discussion at the links provided.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: To the gestational approach and back - a top pro-life leader’s journey
"1) Jeananne1306
Some commenters have been saying that Canada has no abortion law. Actually Canada DOES have an abortion law...and it is a completely PERMISSIVE one. The law is the sum total of our statutory laws (e.g. the Criminal Code which excludes preborn children from the law's protection via section 223) and the Supreme Court rulings (most notably the 1988 Morgentaler decision which struck down the abortion provisions in the Criminal Code.) There are also provincial laws: the Access to Abortion Services Act in BC; abortion is mentioned in the NB Medical Services Act regarding funding; abortion also made it's way into an Ontario statute earlier this year (Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act), where abortion was given a special status over and above any other 'medical service' in the province; there may be other provincial laws as well.
2) Jeananne1306
In the Canadian context, a law that would simply restrict abortion (what some people call "incremental" laws or "imperfect" laws, whether a gestational limit or some other type of restriction) is not a "compromise." A compromise can only happen if each side gives up something to the other side. A bill that simply restricted abortion in some way, and didn't make Canada's existing situation any more pro-abortion than it already is, would not be a compromise. As I understand, Priests for Life Canada's statement was about "incremental" legislation and gestational limits rather than about compromise legislation.
3) Jeananne1306
Mr. Smeaton is quoted as saying that Pope John Paul II's teaching in EV 73.3 "does not apply to bills which explicitly allow abortion in certain circumstances, which gestational bills do, since the pope had already condemned such legislation." Pope John Paul II did not actually condemn gestational legislation. What the Pope was condemning in the previous paragraph of EV 73 was a law that PERMITS abortion. A law that would set a gestational limit on abortion in Canada where abortion is already legally permitted right up until birth would actually PROHIBIT abortions beyond that gestational limit, thus "limiting the harm" of abortion. Thus EV 73.3 applies in the case of a bill that would set a gestational limit on abortion in Canada and thus can be licitly supported.
4) Jeananne1306
Today's Criminal Code permits abortion for the full 9 months of pregnancy. It makes "unjust and discriminatory distinctions of children" based on whether they live inside or outside their mothers' bodies. Some would say that is unethical. If a 20-week limit bill were being voted on in Canada's Parliament, a vote in favour of such a bill is a vote against the status quo of legal abortion for the full 9 months and a vote in favour of prohibiting abortions past 20 weeks (the legal status of abortion before 20 weeks remains the same in either case.) Some people might feel they cannot in good conscience continue to allow the status quo of legal abortion right up until birth to go unchallenged."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Permissions Evangelical College Prof: Biblically speaking, gestational approach unsupportable
"5) Jeananne1306
Hopefroeurope, I don't see how saving babies past a certain gestational age is similar to negotiating with terrorists. When you negotiate with terrorists, you are giving in to their demands in exchange for something you want. However,setting a gestational limit (e.g. 20 weeks) on abortion in Canada saves the lives of babies after that age limit (something we want) without giving anything away (the babies before 20 weeks are being killed either way, with or without the gestational age limit). I'd really like to understand how you can equate this with negotiating with terrorists. Can you please explain?
6) Jeananne1306
Not necessarily, Fred. If you already had a law that said "abortion shall be permitted up to the 24th week" and you changed it to "abortion shall be permitted up to the 20th week" (thus making the law more RESTRICTIVE), then that change is a good thing. Alternatively, if you already had a law that said "Abortion shall be illegal after 16 weeks" and you changed it to say "Abortion shall be illegal after 20 weeks" (thus making the law more PERMISSIVE), then that change is a bad thing. Whether a change in the law is good or bad depends on whether the change makes the law more restrictive or more permissive than the previous law.
7) Jeananne1306
I agree with Professor Masson that it is wrong to kill some babies in order to save others. However, setting a gestational limit on abortion in Canada does NOT mean some babies will be killed in order to save others. There is no tradeoff going on, because the existing abortion law in Canada already allows ALL babies regardless of gestational age to be killed by abortion. A gestational limit will SAVE the babies that are past the gestational limit. The babies before the gestational limit are already legally being killed today, and a gestational limit does not change that.
8) Jeananne1306
I completely agree with you, hopefroeurope, we should NOT accept unethical laws. And that is precisely why some Canadians want to change Canada’s existing unethical law, the Criminal Code, which (as I have previously mentioned in comments posted earlier) permits the killing of children right up until the point of birth. And one way to improve this unethical situation is to amend the law so that it protects children at some point prior to birth by setting a gestational limit on abortion that the public would support and which could actually pass into law. If there is not the democratic support for something, it won’t pass into law. The end result would still be an unethical law because some babies would still not be protected, but the CHANGE to the law to grant protection to more children IS ethical, because it limits the harm of abortion.
9) Jeananne1306
Actually, prolifeJ, we do have an abortion law. As I have already noted in response to Jeff, all of Canada's case law and statute law constitute Canada's abortion law. A notable example of case law is the 1988 Morgentaler decision which struck down the Criminal Code's abortion provisions that had given at least some protection to preborn children. Section 223 of the Criminal Code excludes preborn children from the definition of 'human being' thus leaving these children out of the protection afforded by the homicide offences and other offences against "persons." So except for one narrow protection that still exists in the Criminal Code (section 238 which makes it an offence to kill a child "in the act of birth"), there is no protection for children before they are born. So our Criminal Code already codifies in law the permission to kill preborn children, i.e. abortion.
And speaking of defunding abortion, prolifeJ, would you support a law in Ontario (where almost all, if not all, abortions are currently fully funded) that would defund all abortions except in the case of rape?
10) Jeananne1306
Jeff, firstly, a law that permits abortion does exist in the Criminal Code: section 223 excludes preborn children from the definition of 'human being' thus leaving these children out of the law's protection. So in fact we already have a law that, as you say, separates those who can be killed from those who can't--and that line is drawn when the child has completely proceeded from the mother's body (i.e. the 'born alive' rule). In addition, we have case law (most notably the1988 Morgentaler decision which struck down the Criminal Code's abortion provisions that had given at least some protection to preborn children). Canada's "abortion law" is the sum total of the statutory laws (e.g. the Criminal Code) and the case law. (There are also some provincial laws dealing with abortion.) What we don't have today in the Criminal Code is a RESTRICTIVE abortion law--it is a completely PERMISSIVE abortion law."
If that doesn't make it clear, nothing will.
Permissions Evangelical College Prof: Biblically speaking, gestational approach unsupportable
To the gestational approach and back - a top pro-life leader’s journey
Now it is interesting to note that both these articles criticize a gestational approach to limiting abortion in Canada, and to date I have never read an article at LifeSiteNews in favour of the gestational approach. That being said, the debate is going on is spite of this, through readers who are commenting for, and against, this approach.
What struck me about the comments, is that many people think that Canada has no abortion law, because we have no statute law, per se, that restricts abortion.
But as one commenter, "Jeaneanne1306" points out, in 10 different ways, Canada does have an abortion law.
Here are excerpts from "Jeaneanne1306" comments for you to peruse and come to your own conclusions.
You can read the full discussion at the links provided.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: To the gestational approach and back - a top pro-life leader’s journey
"1) Jeananne1306
Some commenters have been saying that Canada has no abortion law. Actually Canada DOES have an abortion law...and it is a completely PERMISSIVE one. The law is the sum total of our statutory laws (e.g. the Criminal Code which excludes preborn children from the law's protection via section 223) and the Supreme Court rulings (most notably the 1988 Morgentaler decision which struck down the abortion provisions in the Criminal Code.) There are also provincial laws: the Access to Abortion Services Act in BC; abortion is mentioned in the NB Medical Services Act regarding funding; abortion also made it's way into an Ontario statute earlier this year (Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act), where abortion was given a special status over and above any other 'medical service' in the province; there may be other provincial laws as well.
2) Jeananne1306
In the Canadian context, a law that would simply restrict abortion (what some people call "incremental" laws or "imperfect" laws, whether a gestational limit or some other type of restriction) is not a "compromise." A compromise can only happen if each side gives up something to the other side. A bill that simply restricted abortion in some way, and didn't make Canada's existing situation any more pro-abortion than it already is, would not be a compromise. As I understand, Priests for Life Canada's statement was about "incremental" legislation and gestational limits rather than about compromise legislation.
3) Jeananne1306
Mr. Smeaton is quoted as saying that Pope John Paul II's teaching in EV 73.3 "does not apply to bills which explicitly allow abortion in certain circumstances, which gestational bills do, since the pope had already condemned such legislation." Pope John Paul II did not actually condemn gestational legislation. What the Pope was condemning in the previous paragraph of EV 73 was a law that PERMITS abortion. A law that would set a gestational limit on abortion in Canada where abortion is already legally permitted right up until birth would actually PROHIBIT abortions beyond that gestational limit, thus "limiting the harm" of abortion. Thus EV 73.3 applies in the case of a bill that would set a gestational limit on abortion in Canada and thus can be licitly supported.
4) Jeananne1306
Today's Criminal Code permits abortion for the full 9 months of pregnancy. It makes "unjust and discriminatory distinctions of children" based on whether they live inside or outside their mothers' bodies. Some would say that is unethical. If a 20-week limit bill were being voted on in Canada's Parliament, a vote in favour of such a bill is a vote against the status quo of legal abortion for the full 9 months and a vote in favour of prohibiting abortions past 20 weeks (the legal status of abortion before 20 weeks remains the same in either case.) Some people might feel they cannot in good conscience continue to allow the status quo of legal abortion right up until birth to go unchallenged."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Permissions Evangelical College Prof: Biblically speaking, gestational approach unsupportable
"5) Jeananne1306
Hopefroeurope, I don't see how saving babies past a certain gestational age is similar to negotiating with terrorists. When you negotiate with terrorists, you are giving in to their demands in exchange for something you want. However,setting a gestational limit (e.g. 20 weeks) on abortion in Canada saves the lives of babies after that age limit (something we want) without giving anything away (the babies before 20 weeks are being killed either way, with or without the gestational age limit). I'd really like to understand how you can equate this with negotiating with terrorists. Can you please explain?
6) Jeananne1306
Not necessarily, Fred. If you already had a law that said "abortion shall be permitted up to the 24th week" and you changed it to "abortion shall be permitted up to the 20th week" (thus making the law more RESTRICTIVE), then that change is a good thing. Alternatively, if you already had a law that said "Abortion shall be illegal after 16 weeks" and you changed it to say "Abortion shall be illegal after 20 weeks" (thus making the law more PERMISSIVE), then that change is a bad thing. Whether a change in the law is good or bad depends on whether the change makes the law more restrictive or more permissive than the previous law.
7) Jeananne1306
I agree with Professor Masson that it is wrong to kill some babies in order to save others. However, setting a gestational limit on abortion in Canada does NOT mean some babies will be killed in order to save others. There is no tradeoff going on, because the existing abortion law in Canada already allows ALL babies regardless of gestational age to be killed by abortion. A gestational limit will SAVE the babies that are past the gestational limit. The babies before the gestational limit are already legally being killed today, and a gestational limit does not change that.
8) Jeananne1306
I completely agree with you, hopefroeurope, we should NOT accept unethical laws. And that is precisely why some Canadians want to change Canada’s existing unethical law, the Criminal Code, which (as I have previously mentioned in comments posted earlier) permits the killing of children right up until the point of birth. And one way to improve this unethical situation is to amend the law so that it protects children at some point prior to birth by setting a gestational limit on abortion that the public would support and which could actually pass into law. If there is not the democratic support for something, it won’t pass into law. The end result would still be an unethical law because some babies would still not be protected, but the CHANGE to the law to grant protection to more children IS ethical, because it limits the harm of abortion.
9) Jeananne1306
Actually, prolifeJ, we do have an abortion law. As I have already noted in response to Jeff, all of Canada's case law and statute law constitute Canada's abortion law. A notable example of case law is the 1988 Morgentaler decision which struck down the Criminal Code's abortion provisions that had given at least some protection to preborn children. Section 223 of the Criminal Code excludes preborn children from the definition of 'human being' thus leaving these children out of the protection afforded by the homicide offences and other offences against "persons." So except for one narrow protection that still exists in the Criminal Code (section 238 which makes it an offence to kill a child "in the act of birth"), there is no protection for children before they are born. So our Criminal Code already codifies in law the permission to kill preborn children, i.e. abortion.
And speaking of defunding abortion, prolifeJ, would you support a law in Ontario (where almost all, if not all, abortions are currently fully funded) that would defund all abortions except in the case of rape?
10) Jeananne1306
Jeff, firstly, a law that permits abortion does exist in the Criminal Code: section 223 excludes preborn children from the definition of 'human being' thus leaving these children out of the law's protection. So in fact we already have a law that, as you say, separates those who can be killed from those who can't--and that line is drawn when the child has completely proceeded from the mother's body (i.e. the 'born alive' rule). In addition, we have case law (most notably the1988 Morgentaler decision which struck down the Criminal Code's abortion provisions that had given at least some protection to preborn children). Canada's "abortion law" is the sum total of the statutory laws (e.g. the Criminal Code) and the case law. (There are also some provincial laws dealing with abortion.) What we don't have today in the Criminal Code is a RESTRICTIVE abortion law--it is a completely PERMISSIVE abortion law."
If that doesn't make it clear, nothing will.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)