Stephen Harper is to be commended for his strong support of Israel.
Mr. Harper's statement even appeared in the National Post today and was "Sponsored by a friend of Israel".
It is difficult though, to read some of what he said, and not see the dark parallel to what Stephen Harper could say in support of pre-born children. I expect my saying this will invoke collective eye-rolling from the pro-abortions, about how those fanatic-religious-extremist-women-hating-anti-choicers have to bring everything back to unborn children. Sucks to be them I guess.
In Mr. Harper's statement, he talks about Canadians supporting Israel because "it is right to do so." He says that "Canada has consistently chosen often to our great cost, to stand with others who oppose injustice and to confront the dark forces of the world. It is, thus, a Canadian tradition to stand for what is principled and just, regardless of whether it is convenient or popular".That "we live in a world where that kind of moral relativism today runs rampant."
If I had $28,000--that's what the ad cost--I'd love to write a full page ad too in the National Post. It would be in support of pre-born children. Of course, most pro-life people do what they do for free, myself included. They don't have that kind of money to throw at a one page ad. We do it for the children, the ones without voices.
With the 100,000 plus children slaughtered annually in Canada how can Mr. Harper not act on that fact? Why can't he do it because it is the right thing to do? Because he opposes injustice? Because he confronts the dark forces of the world regardless of whether it is convenient or popular? Because he won't stand for the moral relativism?
Mr. Harper can stand with the Israelis. But he won't stand for the hundreds of thousands of unborn children dismembered, decapitated and disposed of every day, week after week, month after month, year after year.
How can Mr. Harper in good conscience, not do it for the children?