CCBR launches - Face the Children

Press release from CCBR:

"September 25, 2012: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

National Anti-Abortion Group Sends Message To MPs on Eve of Motion 312 Vote

The Toronto and Calgary-based anti-abortion group the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform (CCBR: www.unmaskingchoice.ca) released video of abortion-supporting members of Parliament Nikki Ashton (Churchill, Manitoba) and Irene Mathyssen (London-Fanshawe, Ontario) defending abortion in Canada interspersed with gruesome clips of aborted fetuses.

CCBR says it is sending a message to all Members of Parliament ahead of the vote on Motion 312: “If you won’t protect the children, you will face the children.”

“Too long have Canada’s pro-abortion politicians had a free pass while pro-life politicians are viciously attacked,” said executive director Stephanie Gray. “It’s time to show Canadians what they are defending, and who they are betraying.”

The group says the video is just the start of a much larger project they are working on that includes both an online and on the ground component, which they have dubbed “Face the Children.”

“If politicians are going to abandon the most vulnerable Canadians, it’s time their constituents were aware of their position,” said Gray. “And we are prepared to educate voters on what abortion is, and what their MP said about it.”

Jason Kenney will support Motion 312

Cabinet Minister Jason Kenney will vote in favour of Stephen Woodworth's motion 312.

Mr. Kenny stated:
"I have said I will vote in favour of the motion and I respect all the point of views of all the ministers and all the MPs...I think we can have a respectful debate on this question and, like I said, the big tradition of all parties in government is to allow a free vote on questions of conscience.”

Surely if Mr. Kenny can vote in favour of a respectful debate, so can other MPs. Let's hope a lot more of them will do so. After all, that's what we are talking about here: Debate. In a democracy. Like Canada. Simple really.

Brian Lilley talks to Linda Gibbons

Question: What do you call a pro-lifer in court?

Answer: Guilty

Watch Brian Liley's interview below Abortion appears to trump everything including free speech with Linda Gibbons. What a national treasure Linda is. I wish I had her guts.

Pro-choice

I think our MPs need to look at what the folks over at CCBR are doing.

They might want to rethink whether or not they still want to vote against Stephen Woodworth's motion 312.

There's nothing like the unvarnished truth of watching an abortion procedure--juxtaposed with Joyce Arthur speaking about her dogma of "women's rights"--to make you sit up and take notice.

If this is what "women's rights" is all about, could any MP actually vote against the motion?

What about the rest of us. Do we really believe in "women's rights"?

From CCBR's press release:

"Anti-Abortion Group Releases Most Shocking Abortion Footage Yet Leading Abortion Rights Advocate's Words Exposed

September 24, 2012. The Toronto and Calgary-based pro-life organization the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform (CCBR: http://www.unmaskingchoice.ca) released a video showing Joyce Arthur, the head of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada, defending abortion intercut with footage of an abortion procedure in-progress and abortion's results.

The video can be viewed here:
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/0XzVjYXuCWs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

"The recent debate on Motion 312 has been dominated by the worst kind of  sophistry from Canada's abortion advocates," explained executive director Stephanie Gray, "So we decided to make a video unmasking the rhetoric so Canadians understand what abortion advocates mean when they say things like 'choice' and 'reproductive freedom.'"

The video, which the pro-life organization promises is the first in a series of many, shows interviews of Ms. Arthur talking about the "social peace" Canada has reached on the abortion issue while playing gruesome footage.

Gray explained, "Canada's abortion advocates have been permitted to talk about abortion for too long without people knowing what 'abortion' actually refers to. From now on, we plan to use video footage of what this horrific procedure actually looks like to show abortion as the act of dismemberment, decapitation, and disembowelment that it is."

Pro-life people are not going away

The priests at our parish are unabashedly pro-life. Thank God for that.

This morning we were lucky to hear a pretty pointed pro-life homily from Farther Jerry.

He told us about Stephen Woodworth's Motion 312 to create a committee to look at when an unborn child becomes a human being. He told us he called Mr. Woodworth's office Friday night and left him a message to congratulate him on his motion.

He told us about the 40 days for life initiative which starts this week. This is an international campaign of prayer and peaceful witness outside of the world's abortion mills to highlight and defeat the scourge of abortion in our time. This prayer campaign has helped to close abortion clinics, and has saved thousands of babies.

He told us how Mother Teresa, Pope John Paul II, and others have spoken up for the unborn.

Father Jerry wrote his first letter to a Prime Minister when he was 8 years old. He was sitting at the kitchen table and asked his father what abortion was. His father answered him, that's when the government kills babies.

Father Jerry also had a message for Mr. Harper regarding pro-life people. He wants Mr. Harper to know that pro-life people are not going away. That pro-life people have courage. He told us not to let anyone tell us to mind our own business. He told us, this is our business.

We will end abortion. We will do it in God's time. And according to God's plan.

Update on September 25 - Father Jerry's full audio of his Sunday homily:

Who will the MPS listen to?

Check out Ted Gerk's excellent analysis of what Chief Justice Bertha Wilson said about abortion rights and abortion law. And about how Parliament is the place for debate on this subject to take place.

We already know only too well, how many Canadians are influenced by the extreme pro-abortion advocates in this country and it is unfortunate, since much of what they say is a perversion and twisting of reality. As Ted points out the pro-abortions even contradict themselves, changing their tune as they scoot along their merry pro-abortion way.

As a result of this loud and noisy revisionist nonsense, many Members of Parliament are also afraid to allow Canadians to debate abortion on any level, even when the discussion is only about a discussion on when does a child become a human being.

As for the pro-abortions, are they afraid of what might happen if we get to have this discussion? That their abortion rights house of cards might come tumbling down?

Let's hope our MPs use their own consciences today to decide for themselves whether or not Canadians should be allowed to discuss the point of Stephen Woodworth's motion.

New reality TV show

In a new reality TV show to be aired this fall called Woman to decide what she does with her body, we see a rare and unusual pairing of the NDP and Conservatives.

I take you now to the the entertainment capital of the world (Parliament Hill) where the show's pilot was taped. 

The first show opens up with Ms. Francoise Boivin standing in the House of Commons, looking admiringly at Mr. Stephen Harper.

We are transfixed as we listen to what this NDP MP is telling Mr. Harper about Stephen Woodworth's motion 312.

This is what she said:
“I appreciate that the prime minister…has clearly stated that there will be no support for M-312...before the birth there is absolutely no point for me to tell you what I think because the law in Canada is it’s up to the woman to decide what she does with her body,”

Yes TV watchers you heard it right. Ms. Boivin likes what the Prime Minister is doing. I am not kidding. And you heard it here first.

What a show this will be. The NDP and the Conservatives. Together. For the very first time. If I hadn't heard and seen the taping of this groundbreaking show for myself, I wouldn't have believed it.

With a season opener like that, this reporter is unclear as to what we can expect next. Because Parliament has only just begun. But I think we can expect a lot of high drama during this session.

Maybe in upcoming shows, Ms. Boivin will learn that there are actually two distinct bodies when a woman becomes pregnant. How will she react? Will she get it? What will she do? Will she change her tune? Will she become a Social Conservative? We just don't know.

Which is why it is really really really important that you stay tuned. To this station. This fall. I am not kidding.

(Disclaimer. This story is pure fantasy. Or not. You be the judge. It was inspired when I read Daniel Proussalidis PM Sides with NDP on ‘human life’ motion)

When Mr. Harper speaks we all listen

In this piece by Chantal Hebert Harper must deftly handle two potential time bombs Fetal rights and language both on the agenda, Hebert says about the upcoming Stephen Woodwrorth Motion-312:
"On the abortion issue, Harper has made his wishes crystal clear. He wants the motion defeated. If his view prevails, he will have achieved his goal of shutting down the debate for the duration of this Parliament.".

Mr. Harper "shutting down debate for the duration of this Parliament". Yes sir. No sir. Whatever you say Mr. Harper.

How's that for democracy?

Still waiting for Quebec abortion stats for 2010

I'm still trying to find out when the 2010 Quebec abortion statistics will be published by CIHI. Here is the latest status I have received from CIHI:

"We still anticipate receiving Quebec data this fall. We plan to publish it late winter, as part of our 2011 data tables. We’ll let you know when the release date is confirmed so that you are aware."

Late term abortion ban required

National Post letters' editor Paul Russell asked this question of readers and my letter was published there:

"The next session of Parliament gets underway on Sept. 17. To help MPs decide what they should focus on, last week letters editor Paul Russell asked readers: “What should MPs fix first?” In 75 words or less, here are some of their suggestions."

Here is my (unedited) version of that letter:

The government's first priority should be to enact a late term abortion ban. I am not so naive as to believe that Mr. Harper will actually do this, however legal abortion restrictions are favoured by a majority of Canadians. Since Mr. Harper is employed by all Canadians, he should heed the wishes of this majority. By not doing so, he is kowtowing to a hard-core extremist minority who lobby for full abortion rights. Majority rules.

Patricia Maloney, Ottawa

Grace unexplainable to those who will not believe

"This simple truth, that the sole purpose of man's life on earth is to do the will of God, contains in it riches and resources enough for a lifetime. Once you have learned to live with it uppermost in mind, to see each day and each day's activities in its light, it becomes more than a source of eternal salvation; it becomes a source of joy and happiness here on earth.

The notion that the human will, when united with the divine will, can play a part in Christ's work of redeeming all mankind is overpowering. The wonder of God's grace transforming worthless human actions into efficient means for spreading the kingdom of God here on earth astounds the mind and humbles it to the utmost, yet brings a peace and joy unknown to those who have never experienced it, unexplainable to those who will not believe."

From Walter J. Ciszek's book He Leadeth me

Cardinal Collins affirms statement on gestational legislation

Cardinal Collins Affirms Statement from Archbishop of Vancouver re: Gestational Legislation

"Cardinal Thomas Collins has asked that the communication below be reproduced in this space, to help educate our Catholic community and to affirm the statement made by Archbishop Michael Miller, CSB, Archbishop of Vancouver. It is reproduced with the permission of the Archdiocese of Vancouver. Please see the note below regarding its origin and background.

(from the Archdiocese of Vancouver)

The statement by Vancouver Archbishop Michael Miller, CSB, regarding the morality of support for“gestational” legislation, was issued to guide the consciences of Catholics within the pro-life movement in the Archdiocese of Vancouver. The statement was issued in response to a number of requests for guidance from Catholics active in the pro-life movement. It was distributed to pro-life organizations that are active within or headquartered within the Archdiocese of Vancouver for the guidance of their Catholic members. If you have reactions or questions, please contact the Archbishop of Vancouver’s office or Pavel Reid at the Archdiocese of Vancouver Respect Life Office at 604-443-3220 or preid@rcav.org."

Archbishop Miller's statement on gestational abortion legislation

Official statement by Archbishop of Vancouver, regarding the morality of support for 'gestational' legislation.

Archbishop Michael Miller, CSB, Archbishop of Vancouver, has issued a statement on the morality of support for ‘gestational’ legislation. This statement has been issued to guide the consciences of Catholics within the prolife movement within the Archdiocese of Vancouver.

Archbishop Miller says in part:
"This teaching [in Evangelium Vitae n. 73] makes clear that legislation which intends to limit the harm done by a pro-abortion law is not itself cooperation with an unjust law but rather "a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects." A law aimed at limiting the number of legally authorized abortions does not entail the approval of those abortions that it fails to criminalize.

In order that the attempt to pass a "more restrictive law" is not misunderstood, even implicitly, to "authorize" any act of abortion, the "absolute personal opposition to procured abortion" of the legislator making that attempt, and by extension of the prolife activist or organization, must be "well known."

In the absence of a "pro-abortion" law within the Criminal Code of Canada, that is, of a law that explicitly permits abortion, some think that gestational legislation — or any incrementalist legislation — might create a new law that implicitly authorizes abortion. However, in Canada, a series of court rulings, a failure on the part of the federal Parliament to pass criminal legislation, and a variety of provincial laws, regulations and funding formulas intended to provide access to abortion, have the effect of a defacto legal regime that permits abortion with almost no restrictions. Legislation intended to restrict access to abortion would not create a new legal situation in Canada which would authorize abortions, but instead would intend to limit the number of abortions already authorized under the law. Moreover, such legislation intends to limit the harm done to public morality by the injustice already present in the defacto legal situation."

When is a Catholic not a Catholic?

Q. When is a Catholic not a Catholic?
A. When she is a Kennedy.

Carolyn Kennedy said:
"As a Catholic woman, I take reproductive health seriously. And today it is under attack. This year alone, more than a dozen states have passed more than 40 restrictions on women's access to reproductive health care. That's not the kind of future I want for my daughters or your daughters. Now isn't the time to roll back the rights we were winning when my father was president. Now is the time to move this country forward.

Peter Kreeft has an eye-popping perspective on this non-Catholic, pro-abortion world-view in his book Christianity for Modern Pagans where he discusses Pascal's Pensée 8o6.

Kreeft has grouped this one interestingly enough under "Vanity".

First here is what Pascal said:
"We are not satisfied with the life we have in ourselves and our own being. We want to lead an imaginary life in the eyes of others, and so we try to make an impression! (A) We strive constantly to embellish and preserve our imaginary being, and neglect the real one. (B) And if we are calm, or generous, or loyal, we are anxious to have it known so that we can attach these virtues to our other existence; we prefer to detach them from our real self so as to unite them with the other. We would cheerfully be cowards if that would acquire us a reputation for bravery. (C) How clear a sign of the nullity of our own being!"

Here is what Kreeft said regarding (C) above:
"...Test yourself. Use Plato's thought-experiment at the beginning of book 2 of the Republic. Ask yourself which you would rather be: a good soul whom everyone thought evil, hated, misunderstood, persecuted and victimized? Or an evil soul whom everyone thought good, loved and rewarded? Would you rather be really good but apparently evil, like Socrates; or really evil but apparently good, like the perfectly successful tyrant? Would you rather be brave and thought to be a coward, or cowardly but thought to be brave?

Would you rather be a Catholic or a Kennedy?"

Ouch.

Living my life for God

Father Yves talked on Sunday about faith and quotes Sister Ann Shields who hosts a radio program Food For the Journey.

Sr. Ann says to pray to the Holy Spirit by saying:
"Holy Spirit show me where I am putting my interests over yours."

Father Yves says:
She believes there is a major disconnect in the lives of many Catholics: a separation between God’s word and its application to our personal/daily lives. Through teaching, stories and inspirational challenges, Sister Ann is able to reach listeners from North Africa on Catholic radio stations and as far away as China and Pakistan via the internet.

An author, Sister Ruth Burrows, from England, wrote this about faith:
“Faith is not a thing of the mind, it is not an intellectual certainty or a felt conviction of the heart. It is a sustained decision to take God with utter seriousness as the God of my life. It is to live out each hour in a practical, concrete affirmation that God is Father and he is “in heaven.” It is a decision to shift the center of our lives from ourselves to him, to forego self- interest and make his interests, his will, our sole concern …”

Fr. Yves full homily is here (thanks to Maureen Ward for taping this):

The little vegetable that wasn't

There was this vegetable plant growing on my neighbour's property, at the front of his house. It took root in the area between the sidewalk and the road, in the narrow boulevard there.

Every day for a couple of weeks, I would see it on my morning walk, and wondered how it got there. Maybe it was from seeds that fell out of the green bin. Or maybe it got planted by a squirrel. I have no idea.

The leaves were green and funny shaped, and it had pretty yellow flowers that sprouted the actual vegetable. The earth there is pretty marginal, sandy looking and full of weeds. But there it grew, this little vegetable.

I took pictures of it and marvelled at its existence at all. Every day it grew a little bit bigger. I felt happy when I looked at it, a new growth, that really shouldn’t have been alive. Against all odds it grew.

I was seeing a living plant flourish in a spot where the soil was poor, the owners didn't take care of it, and who probably didn't even know it was there. And still it grew.

This morning, the little vegetable was gone. I looked down at where it should have been and it wasn't there. The small patch of grass and weeds were neatly mowed, with no sign at all of its previous existence. I guess the owners didn't want it. I looked at the patch of cut weeds and grass and for all intents and purposes, it had never existed. I couldn't even see anymore where it had been, where its roots had dug into the soil for nourishment.

It was so small, and really, I don't even know what kind of vegetable it was, maybe a round zucchini or a pumpkin. It was hard at this young stage to know what it would have been if it had grown to maturity, Well, I guess it wasn't even a vegetable at all. Really, it was only a potential vegetable.

It was the owner's property and they could do with it what they wanted, right? That's the owner's prerogative, since it grew on the owner's property. It was the owner's choice to keep it and nourish it. Or to just get rid of it.

So why was I sad to see it gone? After all, it was really only a little vegetable. I suppose it was just inconvenient. It wasn't loved. It wasn't wanted. Much better to get rid of it, right? At least it was only a vegetable.