Thursday, June 30, 2011

The abortion conundrum

In this article (it also appeared in the National Post today) by Ross Douthat, Douthat takes aim at the pro-choice movement’s conundrum of the 160 million baby girls aborted through sex-selection gendercide.

In discussing Mara Hvistendahl's book called Unnatural Selection: Choosing Boys Over Girls, and the Consequences of a World Full of Men. Douthat says:
"This places many Western liberals, Hvistendahl included, in a distinctly uncomfortable position. Their own premises insist that the unborn aren’t human beings yet, and that the right to an abortion is nearly absolute. A self-proclaimed agnostic about when life begins, Hvistendahl insists that she hasn’t written “a book about death and killing.” But this leaves her struggling to define a victim for the crime that she’s uncovered."

Douhat points out the problems facing "pro-choicers".

Problem number one: The unborn aren’t human beings yet
This is at the core of the "pro-choice" philosophy, that the unborn are not human beings yet. If we can say that the unborn child is not a human being, then of course it is much easier to abort them.

Problem number two: When does life begin?
Why it begins at conception, when else would it begin? Again "pro-choicers" get all weird on this question.

Problem number three: It isn't a book about death and killing.
Of course it is about death and killing. That is what abortion is.

The pro-abortions have to make stuff up about what a fetus is; about when life begins; about how abortion isn't killing. All so that they can keep that coveted "right" to abortion. That's the only way it can work.

So who is the victim of this gendercide? Well, the baby and her mother of course, but so is society. The tragic irony is that these 160 million dead unborn children are women--yet this is all about the so-called "woman's right to have an abortion."

I really don't get it.

Friday, June 24, 2011

Canada's no-abortion law

Supreme Court Justices in Canada hold an awful lot of power. Five of seven judges changed the course of Canadian history forever when they struck down our abortion law. In essence they legalized abortion.

When you peel back the legalize about who those five people were, you realize that they were basically just people like any other Canadian citizen. Yes they were judges, but so what? And they were not elected, they were appointed. Why do we give them all that power? They put their pants on each morning the same way you and I do, one leg at at time. Yes they are learned, but so are many other Canadians. And we the people didn't pick them to make our laws and we didn't pick them to strike down our laws. A politician did.

What if different men and women had been on the bench that year? Different Canadians with a different set of values. Maybe if instead of only two people dissenting on that infamous case, there had been five of them willing to look past Henry Morgentaler and his pro-abortion crusade. Maybe if those five different people were unborn children advocates, maybe things would be different now.

Our no-abortion law is nothing to be proud of. It is something to be very sad about indeed.

Monday, June 20, 2011

A political party is called to serve a people

Father De Souza's message to the Conservative Party that "all laws make moral choices" is a key factor in the abortion debate we aren't allowed to have in this country.

Fr. De Souza says:
"It is also incorrect to set up a false category of so-called "moral issues" -as if all political choices were not just that -and bestow on them a special untouchable status. This is in fact impossible, for in the realm of moral choices, not to choose is itself a choice. Morality shapes politics, and to choose not to choose is a political choice. The magistrate is not permitted to wash his hands as if it were possible to remain neutral between good and evil, right and wrong."

Fr. De Souza makes a lot of sense. Legal protection for the unborn will eventually happen in Canada. It is inevitable for the simple reason that, it is what Canadians want. By Hr. Harper choosing to refuse to allow us to have that abortion debate, means he has not remained neutral. He cannot wash his hands.

As Fr. De Souza also says,"A political party is called to serve a people". With Mr. Harper's quashing debate, he is not serving the people, he is serving himself. That is not what a leader is supposed to do.

The right thing to do--especially now that we have a majority government--would be for Mr. Harper to call a commission to allow all Canadians to present their viewpoints on abortion.

Mr. Harper needs to stop for a moment. He needs to seriously consider this moral guidance so generously offered by Father De Souza.

Friday, June 17, 2011

United Way still funds Planned Parenthood

Last April we learned that United Way Ottawa had decided to stop funding Planned Parenthood. Which is a good thing.

So I thought I'd just make sure that this was in fact the case, and I sent an email to United Way and asked the following questions:

1) Does United Way fund Planned Parenthood, and if so, how much? Your website says that you do still fund Planned Parenthood.

2) Does United Way fund other organizations that supports or procures abortions? If so, how much?

My first email resulted in the following response from an unnamed person:
"I would like to direct your inquiry to the appropriate person. Can you tell me if you are a donor or inquiring as a member of the public or someone from the media?"

That's odd I thought, why did it matter who I was? Would I get a different response depending on my answer to that question?

Then I heard from their Media Manager. He and I proceeded to exchange a series of emails, played some telephone tag, but I still had no answers to my questions. I got the distinct impression he didn't want to provide an answer in writing; he said he would, but he never did.

So I sent a letter to the President and CEO and asked him my questions.

You know, it seems rather ridiculous that it was this difficult to get a straight answer. You'd think a charity as big as the United Way, that collects millions of dollars every year, would welcome questions about how those charitable donations are spent, and which organizations receive the money. It would have taken a couple of minutes to write up the answers in an email response to me. And in the end I did receive my answer.

Here it is:

"Re. Question 1:
In 2010, we provided $47,281 to Planned Parenthood for their "Community Education Program" (note we do not fund agencies per se, but we do fund their programs). This program recruits and trains volunteers to deliver workshops and to staff kiosks on sexual and reproductive health issues for youth and adults. The workshops are available to schools and community organizations. If you'd like more information on the program, the community investment directory linked to our home page provides a more complete description.

We announced last year that we were sharpening our focus and working with the community to achieve clear, measurable goals. This led to an open and competitive Call for Proposals that invited agencies to submit proposals for United Way support of programs and initiatives that contribute to the achievement of these goals. At the time, we also made a commitment to provide transition funding to previously-funded programs that would not be supported in 2011 through the Call for Proposals. This was intended to help ease the transition for agencies whose programs we funded in the past. Transition funding is at 50 per cent or less of the previous year's funding, based on a range of factors.

In 2011, we will provide transition funding to Planned Parenthood's Community Education Program. I can't yet say what the amount will be, as we do not yet have a signed funding agreement. The amount will be 50 per cent or less of last year's funding.

Re. Question 2:
To the best of my knowledge, we are not funding any programs that have as a mandate the procurement of abortions."

Two interesting things here.

First, note the "note we do not fund agencies per se, but we do fund their programs".

Frankly, saying United Way does not fund agencies "per se" is absurd. Either United Way gave money to a group that advocates for abortion, or United Way did not give money to a group that advocates for abortion. And United Way clearly did give money to Planned Parenthood.

Second, 2011 Planned Parenthood will be getting approximately 50% of last year's funding.

I didn't see that tidbit in the news, did you?

Sunday, June 5, 2011

Abortion incrementalism (continued)

Jeannie Hedley says:
"Are we not the Educational Arm of the Pro-Life movement? Our role then is to educate. As we accomplish that job, and do it well enough, and by the grace of God, the people’s hearts will change. How often have we heard, “The laws will not change until the people’s hearts have changed”? We need to change hearts by education and by prayer."

I agree that prayer and education are of the utmost importance. But it is only part of the solution.

Providing legal protection for the unborn is as important as education and prayer, and it is another vital strategy we cannot ignore. Legal protection also defends the defenceless.

There is a also another very subtle but extremely key reason why legal initiatives are so imperative.

It is the actual debate itself--which ensues when an abortion law is introduced--that is key. I am sure you have noticed that most of the time in Canada when there is no law on the subject matter of abortion on the table, that there is also nothing being written or discussed in the mainstream media on the topic of abortion. Everything goes completely quiet.

How do we change hearts and minds when the public is not even talking about abortion? The last two bills in Canada that would have limited abortion in some circumstances were Bill C-484 and C-510. Both of these bills produced lots of mainstream media attention. People were talking about abortion; letters to newspapers were being written. Articles were being written and being read by the public at large.

Now all is quiet in Canada in the mainstream media. Not a peep. How will this deafening silence help change hearts and minds? Yes we can educate and we can pray, but if nobody outside the world of pro-lifers is talking about abortion, little will change.

As far as compromising is concerned, we are not compromising with incremental legislation. We are being realistic. If a Member of Parliament introduced a law that would ban abortions outright, although he or she would be very brave indeed, he or she would also be the laughing stock of the country. And the law would have absolutely no chance at ever being passed.

We need to take note about what our American neighbours are doing. They are continually introducing laws that would in some way limit abortions. There is always abortion related discussion in the US and there is always discussion in the media. Americans are always debating abortion.

Canadians on the other hand, allow themselves to be led like sheep to the slaughter, by Prime Minister Harper's un-abating mantra of refusing to reopen the abortion debate. We supposedly live in a country where freedom of speech is enshrined in our Constitution. Yet we are told continually and ad nauseum by our politicians, that there will be no debate on abortion. Introducing legal protection for the unborn allows us to have that abortion debate--the very debate our politicians refuse to let us have.

And if we do not engage in the abortion debate across our country by all citizens, what does this mean for us?

It means that in Canada, a woman will continue to be able to have an abortion at any time during her pregnancy up until the moment she gives birth. It means that in Canada, a woman will continue to be able to have an abortion for any reason at all--or for no reason whatsoever. It means that in Canada, a woman can still have an abortion that will continue to be 100% paid for, by you and by me, and all other pro-life people, whether we like it or not.

Yes "every life has infinite value and dignity". That is exactly why we must fight this battle on all fronts: education, prayer, changing hearts, and most definitely last, but certainly not least, we must provide legal protection for these little souls.

Hopefully can do all of this with great love for the unborn, and with great love for each other.

Saturday, June 4, 2011

If ABC is real, what then?

Today I discovered that WonderBra also supports the Breast Cancer Industry (BCI). So I sent them my letter.

The Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation also lists all the products that support the BCI. And they have a shaving cream load of products too. Of course all one needs to do, is look for that little pink ribbon on product packaging.

I just had a crazy thought. Imagine the following scenario.

It's some time in the future. Research finally, and conclusively tells us that, yes indeed, abortion is a contributing factor to breast cancer. What will happen to all those women who have had an abortion, but never knew of the possible ABC link, because nobody ever told them about it?

(Think about it. If ABC is possible, any woman who chooses to have an abortion, should at the very least, obtain more breast cancer screening and/or mammograms, than women who have never had an abortion.)

Maybe they will get real cranky pants, and you know, launch a class action suit against the Industry and/or the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation. Sort of like what people did with the tobacco companies. For not telling them about the risks of smoking.

That would be interesting, don't you think?

Thursday, June 2, 2011

More on abortion incrementalism

MaryCatherine said:
"I may be wrong but I think most prolife groups in Canada supported Bill C-510."

I replied to her comment with this:

This link shows how numerous pro-lifers opposed the bill. One in particular is Geoff Cauchi, who as this article says, is an adviser to Campaign Life Coalition (CLC). Cauchi is also president of Alliance for Life Ontario (AFLO) and AFLO never came out in support of the bill. This article also says that "Hughes said CLC cannot support a bill that acknowledges abortion as a permissible option for Canadian women":

CLC later said that CLC recommended MPs vote for C-510, but that CLC wanted to amend the wording of the Bill when it went to committee. In other words, they did not support the bill as it was written. They wanted it to go to committee so it could be changed to their liking. And how realistic would that be, given how many pro-abortion MPs we have in Canada? See this link:

See these two articles by Cauchi as well, they are long, but leave no doubt that Cauchi did not support Bill-C510:

I can only conclude from all of this, that there really wasn't the necessary support--at least not from the "political arm of the pro-life movement"--that would have helped the bill to pass. Given the pro-abortion opposition we face, it takes a lot more enthusiastic and active support than this to have any chance of success.

The following groups did campaign proactively in support of c-510:

Priests For Life Canada,

Association for Reformed Political Action (ARPA) Canada,

Evangelical Fellowship of Canada,


And yes you are correct, the Bill was defeated in the House of Commons. Canada still has no legal restrictions on abortion.